GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Research
    • Governance
      • Democracy & elections
      • Public sector management
      • Security & justice
      • Service delivery
      • State-society relations
      • Supporting economic development
    • Social Development
      • Gender
      • Inequalities & exclusion
      • Poverty & wellbeing
      • Social protection
    • Conflict
      • Conflict analysis
      • Conflict prevention
      • Conflict response
      • Conflict sensitivity
      • Impacts of conflict
      • Peacebuilding
    • Humanitarian Issues
      • Humanitarian financing
      • Humanitarian response
      • Recovery & reconstruction
      • Refugees/IDPs
      • Risk & resilience
    • Development Pressures
      • Climate change
      • Food security
      • Fragility
      • Migration & diaspora
      • Population growth
      • Urbanisation
    • Approaches
      • Complexity & systems thinking
      • Institutions & social norms
      • Theories of change
      • Results-based approaches
      • Rights-based approaches
      • Thinking & working politically
    • Aid Instruments
      • Budget support & SWAps
      • Capacity building
      • Civil society partnerships
      • Multilateral aid
      • Private sector partnerships
      • Technical assistance
    • Monitoring and evaluation
      • Indicators
      • Learning
      • M&E approaches
  • Services
    • Research Helpdesk
    • Professional development
  • News & commentary
  • Publication types
    • Helpdesk reports
    • Topic guides
    • Conflict analyses
    • Literature reviews
    • Professional development packs
    • Working Papers
    • Webinars
    • Covid-19 evidence summaries
  • Projects
  • About us
    • Staff profiles
    • International partnerships
    • Privacy policy
    • Terms and conditions
    • Contact Us
Home»Document Library»Lessons from Social Protection Programme Implementation in Kenya, Zambia and Mongolia

Lessons from Social Protection Programme Implementation in Kenya, Zambia and Mongolia

Library
Carl Jackson et al.
2011

Summary

In what ways can social protection programming with its investments in human capital (through education, health and nutrition) stop the intergenerational transfer of poverty? This study examines social protection programmes in Kenya, Zambia and Mongolia to understand the factors (design and implementation) that account for success. It also assesses how research can be used to improve good practice within a multilateral organisation such as UNICEF. It argues that agencies need to ensure that ground-level good practice is effectively brought into policy and programming.

Responding to poverty and vulnerability is a dynamic and constantly evolving area of work. Development agencies possess the knowledge and expertise in addressing poverty and vulnerability at the field level. The challenge is to ensure that good practice and innovation is used to inform policy and programmes in an effective way. As ultimately transformative drivers of change, social protection instruments should be sensitive and reflective about the recent history and values of both elite and marginal citizens in local, regional and national settings.

UNICEF’s organisational mission is to play a pivotal role in mobilising political will and resources around social protection at the country level. In Kenya and Zambia, it is successfully carrying out this role. Here, its credibility in social protection is built on two pillars. One is having a focused technical entry point into the social protection policy space around child rights and protection. The other is its core organisational capacity to convene key stakeholders over timeframes that bridge funding and policy cycles.

Key lessons applicable to all countries where UNICEF works include the following:

  • Designing operational approaches (such as targeting, enrolment and payment) that will work at scale requires early investment to combine global and local knowledge and to facilitate a continuous learning process.
  • Sustained community participation in transparency regarding operational approaches can ensure that ownership by the whole community is evident.
  • Effective relationships between implementing ministries and cooperating partners is essential for coordination, predictability and mutual learning.
  • Strategic influencing is essential for enabling cash transfer programmes to have the policy space to evolve and the fiscal space for funding to be sustained.
  • Early investment in a robust and scalable Management Information System can offset fiduciary risk, ensure that the poor are included, enable efficient implementation and offer a national registry system to support other social protection services from a range of funders.

Community participation and downward accountability about operational approaches are vital, not just for increased effectiveness: they can help a democratic state to reconnect with citizens for whom it has a duty of care. In addition:

  • Better cross-ministerial coordination at national level is needed to improve impact for beneficiaries and to sustain government commitment.
  • Connecting social protection policy with high priority policy agendas of other ministries (such as growth, climate change and disasters) is important when seeking cross-ministerial responsibility for social protection.
  • Visits by policymakers and officials need to be sustained to enable beneficiaries’ voices to challenge urban/elite assumptions and build empathy.
  • Investments in monitoring and evaluation should be made during and after implementation to sustain commitment by the Ministry of Finance.

Source

Jackson, C. et al., 2011, 'Lessons from Social Protection Programme Implementation in Kenya, Zambia and Mongolia', Research Report 69, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton

Related Content

Affirmative action around the world Insights from a new dataset (update)
Working Papers
2023
Pathways to Increase Rural Women’s Agency Within Social Protection Programmes
Helpdesk Report
2023
Workplace-based Learning and Youth Employment in Africa
Literature Review
2020
Social protection
Topic Guide
2019

University of Birmingham

Connect with us: Bluesky Linkedin X.com

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2026; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2026; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2026

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".