Management Information Systems

This document provides guidance for those involved with Management Information Systems (MIS) within Social Protection. It covers key concepts, objectives, functions, and steps for setting up programme MIS or an integrated system for information management with an emphasis on gender and disability inclusion. This document is intended for policy-makers and technocrats and it should help them make better informed decisions.

Key Insights

Objectives and Functions Supported

A programme MIS enables the flow and management of information to support key processes within social protection schemes including:

• Identification and registration of applicants, using either a census or an on-demand method for data collection, see also MODULE S&I
• Eligibility determination and enrolment (i.e. determining recipients for the programme) – see also MODULES S&I and MODULE ADM
• Continuous maintenance of Recipient Lists: e.g. removal of those who are no longer eligible
• Authentication and compliance monitoring (if applicable, e.g. when conditionality is imposed) see also MODULE ADM
• Managing payments (e.g. producing “payrolls”, monitoring payment receipts, amounts paid, etc.) – see also MODULE ADM
• Managing a grievance/ appeals and redress system – see also Module ADM
• Managing on-going programme monitoring and evaluation (e.g. producing lists of recipients who have enrolled, which benefits have been paid, level of payments, characteristics of recipients, etc.) see also MODULE M&E
• Supporting on-going management and planning (e.g. notifying managers when a process should or has happened etc.) see also MODULE M&E

Integration for Oversight, Coordination, Planning, and M&E

As shown above, only when data is shared back from individual programme MIS to the national Registry (always the case for Integrated Recipient Registries, but often not the case for Social Registries or Virtual Registries) it is possible to provide an integrated overview of the programme recipients to understand who is receiving what and feed into Social Protection policy planning.

However, this requirement alone is not sufficient. Even complete, high-quality data have no value unless they can be converted into information that is useful for making decisions and improving programmes (Villalobos et al, 2010) and policy. Whatever the integration set-up, effective systems for the on-going analysis and use of existing data also need to be developed. Good practices to ensure adequate reporting and use of data across government include (OPM, 2015):

1. Clearly identifying data needs and reporting requirements of each actor and catering to those within an overarching M&E framework. When planning this process, stakeholders should involve both the government and civil society actors, as well as the community members to ensure data needs and reporting requirements incorporate and reflect the priorities of the most disadvantaged groups and data is managed to build support for inclusive policymaking.
2. Developing a relevant and timely reporting system (e.g. Module within the integrated MIS), informed by constant testing by data users. See for example Kenya’s online Single Registry (Figure 9 in Case Study)
3. Providing adequately disaggregated data, catering to the planning needs of local governments and other data users. This is critical if we want local governments to be supportive of the system, which means analysis of the data needs at the local level.
4. Presenting reports in easy-to-read formats e.g. dashboards, charts and graphs
5. Collecting, storing and reporting on disaggregated data on programme implementation and performance to assess and identify gaps in access to, and uptake of benefits and other trends in performance to inform a re-design of programming to enhance results.
6. Using GIS and geo-referenced data where possible (e.g. Uruguay, Indonesia, Chile, Brazil, etc.)
7. Publishing aggregate key data trends on a relevant institutional website, to engage citizenship more widely (e.g. Indonesia, Kenya)
8. Encouraging data sharing with a wide range of actors, including research institutions and universities and civil society organizations championing the rights and needs of marginalised social groups.

What Can Be Learned From Kenya’s Single Registry?

• Approaches to developing Integrated Systems for Information Management should be construed more broadly as a policy tool. Kenya’s Social Protection policy underscored the need for the Single Registry and envisioned the set-up of individual programmes with functional MISs populating the Single Registry.
• Adequate investment should be made to deliver quality Registry design, based on needs assessments and feasibility studies (see also Section 1) – both important for long-term sustainability.
• The development of a Single Registry should be phased. Phasing helps ensure:
  • Ease of managing project sub-components
  • Incorporating lessons from previous phases in the next phases
  • Less risk of failure and risk of overwhelming existing capacity
  • Ad-hoc strengthening of business processes and systems

Key Statistics & Data

• Kenya: In May 2016, the Single Registry was populated with information on 883,000 recipient households (approximately 3.7 million individuals) out of a population of 44 million.
• Zimbabwe: The NAP II database contains information on 539,057 households across 24 districts.

Implications and Conclusions

Social Protection stakeholders need to set the policy, legal and operational framework for the establishment of their MISs or Integrated Systems for Information. This also includes setting clear obligations to ensure gender responsiveness and disability inclusiveness within the overall information system (both at the programme and integrated levels).

In determining the model to set up, developing countries should not (even though it is natural to look to existing examples) be casually seduced by models arising from middle-income countries (e.g. Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia). Instead, the choice must be carefully made in light of country-specific purpose, needs, and context (including existing opportunities and institutional arrangements as well as capacity/financial constraints).