• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • 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
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Social protection Management Information Systems (MIS)

Social protection Management Information Systems (MIS)

Helpdesk Report
  • Evie Browne
December 2014

Question

Are there successful examples of Management Information Systems in social protection programmes? What are the reasons for their success and what impact have they had in making social protection programmes more effective and efficient?

Summary

MIS are useful because integrated data management of social protection programmes can lead to more equitable distribution of resources; provide oversight of multiple schemes; establish links with other services; and increase efficiency through economies of scale (Barca & Chirchir, 2014).

There is a considerable literature on policy guidance, design guidelines, and a general agreement on what constitutes best practice for MIS, but little systematic evidence (Barca & Chirchir, 2014). This report was unable to find any evaluations of MIS, and very few reports containing reasons for success. Most literature on MIS explains design principles. The few papers which have examples of systems actually in use often do not assess reasons for success or failure. This report is therefore very limited in presenting evidence on what works.

The report first summarises the impact which MIS have had on social protection programmes, then presents the slim evidence on success factors for MIS. These include:

  • Political will: from the policy level and from staff.
  • Technology: at an appropriate level for staff.
  • Flexible incremental systems: which can adapt when the programme changes.
  • Simplicity: ensuring the MIS is not over-burdened.
  • Staffing: increasing capacity.
  • Administrative structure: a combination of centralised and decentralised structures.
  • Financing: MIS are expensive and external financing is often needed.
  • Accountability: checks and balances to ensure effectiveness.

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Related Content

Workplace-based Learning and Youth Employment in Africa
Literature Review
2020
Social protection
Topic Guide
2019
Linking Social Protection and Humanitarian Response – Best Practice
Helpdesk Report
2019
Social Safety Nets in Fragile and Conflict-Affected States
Helpdesk Report
2019
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022