Ahme Paper Revised

COLLEGE OF LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE
DEPARTMENT OF LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE
Practices and challenges of social protection policy implementation:

The Case of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
A Senior Thesis Submitted to Ethiopian Civil Service University, College of Leadership

& Governance, Department of Leadership and Governance
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Masters of Art in Leadership &

Governance
By: Ahmed Jemal
Advisor:
May, 2021
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

6
Practices and challenges of social protection policy implementation:
The Case of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
By: Ahmed Jemal
Advisor:
Name of the Researcher Signature Date
--------------------------- ----------------------------- -----------
Name of Advisor Signature Date
-------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------

6
ABSTRACT
6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I greatly owe my heartfelt gratitude to my dedicated advisorn ……………. for his incredible
support and for letting me finish this paper.
6
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................................II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...............................................................................................................III
LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................VII
ACRONYMS................................................................................................................................VIII
CHAPTER ONE................................................................................................................................1
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1
1.1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY............................................................................1
1.2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM...........................................................................3
1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS..........................................................................................4
1.4. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY...................................................................................5
1.4.1. General Objective:................................................................................................5
1.4.2. Specific objectives:...............................................................................................5
1.5. The significant of the study..........................................................................................5
1.6. The scope of the study..................................................................................................6
CHAPTER TWO...............................................................................................................................7
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITRATURE................................................................................7
2.1. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS OF SOCIAL PROTECTION..............................7
2.2. Legal framework for social protection.........................................................................9
2.3. Theoretical approach to social protection..................................................................11
2.4. Debating on social protection.....................................................................................11
2.5. Benefits of social protection programs.......................................................................13
2.6. Basics of social protection..........................................................................................14
2.6.1. Selection and identification.................................................................................14

6
2.6.2. Administration section........................................................................................15
2.6.3. Coordination section...........................................................................................15
2.6.4. Governance section.............................................................................................16
2.6.5. Financing section................................................................................................16
2.6.6. Legal foundation for social protection................................................................17
2.6.7. Management Information system /MIS/.............................................................18
2.6.8. Monitoring and evaluation..................................................................................18
CHAPTER THREE.........................................................................................................................20
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................20
3.1. Research Design and Approach.................................................................................20
3.2. Population, Sampling and Techniques.......................................................................20
3.2.1. Target Population................................................................................................20
3.2.2. Sample Techniques.............................................................................................20
3.2.3. Sample Size.........................................................................................................20
3.3. Tools of Data Collection............................................................................................22
3.3.1. Questionnaire......................................................................................................22
3.3.2. Data Type and Source.........................................................................................22
3.3.3. Primary Sources..................................................................................................22
3.3.4. Secondary Sources..............................................................................................22
3.4. Tools of Data Analysis...............................................................................................22
3.4.1. Qualitative Data Analysis...................................................................................22
3.4.2. Quantitative Data Analysis.................................................................................22
3.5. Data Interpretation Design.........................................................................................23
3.6. Ethical Consideration.................................................................................................23

6
CHAPTER FOUR...........................................................................................................................24
4. DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION.......................................................................24
CHAPTER FIVE.............................................................................................................................38
5. DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................................38
5.1. over all of social protection program implementations..............................................38
5.2. Selection and identification........................................................................................38
5.3. Administration............................................................................................................39
5.4. Coordination and data management...........................................................................39
5.5. Appropriate budgeting, financing and transfer..........................................................40
5.6. Monitoring and evaluation /M&E /............................................................................40
CHAPTER SIX................................................................................................................................41
6. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................41
6.1. SUMMARY...............................................................................................................41
6.2. CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................43
6.3. RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................43
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................45
6
LIST OF TABLES
LISTS PAGES
TABLE 1 SAMPLE FRAME..........................................................................................................21

TABLE 2 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS................................................24
TABLE 3 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF GROUPS ON COORDINATION......................25
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF GROUPS ON ADMINISTRATION....................26
TABLE 5 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF GROUPS ON FINANCING SPP......................27
TABLE 6 SELECTION & IDENTIFICATION...................................................................................27
TABLE 7 ADMINISTRATION.......................................................................................................28
TABLE 8 DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.....................................................................................29
TABLE 9 APPROPRIATE BUDGETING & FINANCING...................................................................30
TABLE 10 COORDINATION.........................................................................................................31
TABLE 11 COMPLIANCE HANDLING MECHANISM......................................................................32
TABLE 12 GOOD GOVERNANCE.................................................................................................32
TABLE 13 TRANSFER MECHANISM............................................................................................33
TABLE 14 MONITORING & EVALUATION..................................................................................34
6
ACRONYMS
AABOLSA- Addis Ababa city administration bureau of labor and social affairs
AAFSPSNA- Addis Ababa food security production safety net agency
AAPOSSA -Addis Ababa private organization social security agency
AASSA -Addis Ababa social security agency
CBHI -Community-based health insurance
GOE -Government of Ethiopia
GTP I -First Growth and Transformation Plan, Ethiopia
GTP II -Second Growth and Transformation Plan, Ethiopia
IE- Implementing agencies
MOLSA- Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, Ethiopia
NSPP- National Social Protection Policy, Ethiopia
NSPS- National Social Protection Strategy, Ethiopia
PSNP- Productive Safety Net Program, Ethiopia
SSA -social security agency
UPSNP- urban productive safety net program

6
CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
According to Samson (2015), social protection is defined as a broad range of public instruments
directed to tackle the challenges of poverty, vulnerability, and social exclusion. Social protection
measures are used to mitigate vulnerabilities, to maintain dignity, to promote the rights of
individuals, and to contribute to pro-poor and inclusive economic growth.
Effective social protection services contribute to social cohesion and the achievement of broader
national socio‐economic development and security making growth more efficient and equitable.
It addresses the imbalance by sex in access to basic social services and facilitates investment in
human capital for poor households and communities (Banerji & Gentilini, 2013 as cited in
Kebere, 2020).
Social protection instruments include a range of both contributory and non-contributory schemes.
It encompasses a range of poverty reduction mechanisms, such as cash transfers, insurance
schemes, programs facilitating access to social services (Samson, 2015).
In African social protection schemes are implemented by the governments in collaboration with
development partners and larger international NGOs. Social protection measures in these
countries include direct welfare programs (conditional and unconditional cash transfers, school
feeding programs, food aid), productivity-enhancing programs (work programs, subsidies), and
market intervention (price control), and policy changes (Omilola & Kaniki, 2014). In some
countries, social protection systems are already elaborate and comprehensive and include
instruments such as cash transfers and grants (targeting all vulnerable groups), public works
programs, subsidized microfinance, insurance mechanisms and financial services, fee waivers,
subsidies, and allowances.
The current social protection policy of Ethiopia was debated and discussed for years before it
was signed by the legislatures. It got legislative approval in November 2015, though the Ministry
of Labor and Social Affairs (MoLSA) released its final draft in early 2012. The policy document
draws upon data from the national poverty assessment and welfare monitoring surveys regarding
the poverty head count ratio, poverty gap, income inequality, food poverty head count, food
poverty gap, food severity, child welfare, (un) (under) employment and the labor market
situation, and the disability context. The document seemed to locate poverty within a
multidimensional frame.
The visions of Social Protection Policy of 2015 and Strategy of 2016 is to see all Ethiopians
enjoying social and economic wellbeing. Of course Ethiopia has been implemented many more
social protection programs which are related to social protection policy such as the school
feeding, disaster and risky management, subsidization of basic food stuffs, gas oil, sugar, wheat
and condominium housing. But the aims of the present national social protection policy is to
promote systematization, government financing, comprehensiveness, inclusions, coverage ,
formalization , coordination , human capital and sustainability of existing social protection
programs and to endorse and establish corporate social responsibility, social protection fund
and community based structures to enhance social protection programs.
In 2004, the Government of Ethiopia introduced its National Food Security Program (NFSP).
The NFSP includes the flagship social transfer program, the Productive Safety Net Program
(PSNP). The strategic objective of the PSNP was to stop Ethiopia’s long standing dependence on
food aid by replacing food with cash transfers and by providing long-term support including
complementary livelihood packages to enable, graduation‟ from social assistance to self-
reliance (HAGOS, 2013). Since 2005, the PSNP has provided cash and food transfers to
approximately 8.3 million people, making it the largest social protection program in Africa
outside of South Africa.
CBHI is a non-compulsory and non-profit making risk pooling mechanism in exchange for
premium payments by members aimed to address the issue of UHC by limiting financial
hardship. CBHI is among contemporary alternatives to address the issue of equity in health
service provision. Though the issue of CBHI is assumed to be new, the risk sharing practice of
Ethiopians is not new. Iddir, indigenous community based insurance, is being practiced at the
time of financial hardship. It is based on mutual understanding and motivation and is accepted
and sustainable alternative to user fees to protect against impoverishment at the time of critical
health events.
The urban productive safety net program has a significant impact on program participant
households' consumption expenditure (measured in per adult equivalent). Furthermore, the
impact evaluation finds that the program has a strong effect on program participant households'
income earnings (HAGOS, 2013).
The national social protection policy of Ethiopia was adopted in March 2015. The policy has
basically standing with five main thematic areas with aim to promote social safety net programs,
promoting insurance mechanisms, providing quality basic social services, strengthen legal
protection and to expand livelihood and job creations.
1.2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
In the last decade, social protection has emerged as a policy framework employed to address
poverty and vulnerability in developing countries (Barrientos, 2010). Many national
governments, donors, civil society, and NGOs are now playing an increasingly important role in
designing, delivering, and advocating for social protection. Thus, it is worthy to assess the
implementation of those policies to identify areas of intervention to respond to the demand and
increase bureaucracy efficacy.
On the other hand, the extent to which social protection has been taken up in countries, the focus
on specific objectives of social protection as well as the types of social protection tools which are
prioritized (e.g. cash transfers, inputs transfers, food aid, public works programs) are strongly
influenced by the different country-specific social, political and economic contexts across the
continent. Indeed, institutional capacities, poor coordination, lack of comprehensiveness, in
adequate budget allocation , insufficient of coverage, governance and data managements, peace
and stability, aid dependency inequality and poverty level and other factors are varies from
country to country. These factors play a critical role in shaping and defining a country’s
approach to poverty reduction, and subsequently effective social protection program
implementation. Hence, understanding the implementation of this social policy in the context of
Ethiopia would give some clue about the social policy implementation challenges of similar
characteristics countries (ILO, 2016).
So far, a few empirical studies have been conducted in Ethiopia and Addis Ababa to examine
the effect of RPSNP and UPSNP, community based health insurance, school feeding programs
for instance (Melese, 2019) shown that UPSNP has a significant effect on reducing and gradually
abolishing household level poverty. Alderman & Yemtsov, (2012) also found 62% of the
households that participated in the PSNP avoided selling assets in states of food shortages, and
36% avoided using savings to buy food while there has been identified some gaps in sectorial
coordination and government financing for the programs and problems related to monitoring and
evaluations.
Study conducted by Atnafu et al., 2018, on the impact of CBHI in relation to the member and
nonmember households, the result revealed that utilization of health services among insured
households in CBHI was higher than those of nonmembers.
Moreover, according to the CBHIA (2017) national assessment on the implementations of CBHI
in Ethiopia, the result indicated that even though the program has bring a positive impact on
general health status and participation of the member households, but issue of coverage,
capacity of health centers. Weak financing and budget allocation, capacity of the agency both at
higher and lower levels, data related to health informatics and others has been identified as a
major gaps.
Moreover, MoLSA (2020) field-based assessment revealed that, even though UPSNP has shown
a positive impact on beneficiary household nutrition , food security , livelihood but many more
challenges have also been also identified in the implementation of this program including gaps in
selection and identification of beneficiaries in some cities, weak coordination among key
stakeholders and delay in transfer and so on.
Considering these findings of the different studies which has been conducted by some
researchers in Ethiopia and elsewhere, the practices and challenges of social protection programs
implementation in the Addis Ababa context need to be investigated especially issues related to
degree of coordination, administration, financing,, governance, presence of adequate legal
documents ,data management, coverage of social insurances schemes, impacts and the difference
among the three programs /UPSNP ,CBHI and SS schemes/. For this purpose, the current study
intends to answer the following research questions.
1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 Is there a statistically significant difference in the implementations of the three social

protection programs (USNP, CBHI, and SS) in Addis Ababa?
 What is the implementation status of the three social protection programs in Addis
Ababa?
 What are the major opportunities and challenges for these three social protection
programs implementation in Addis Ababa?
1.4. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
1.4.1. General Objective:
The general objective of the study is to assess the practice and challenges implementation of
social protection policy at Addis Ababa City Administration by focusing on the three thematic
areas (PSNP, Livelihood and Insurance) of national social protection policy of Ethiopia.
1.4.2. Specific objectives:

 To analyze whether there is a statistically significant difference in the implementation of
the social protection policy among the three thematic areas (PSNP, Livelihood and
Insurance.
 To investigate the implementation status of social protection programs in Addis Ababa.
 To identify the major challenges of the social protection programs implementing agencies
facing in the program implementation
1.5. The significant of the study
Social protection is commonly understood as “all public and private initiatives that provide
income or consumption transfers to the poor, protect the vulnerable against livelihood risks and
enhance the social status and rights of the marginalized; with the overall objective of reducing
the economic and social vulnerability of poor, vulnerable and marginalized groups” (Devereux &
Sabates-wheeler, 2004). Therefore, the study has the significances:
 The finding may indicate the practice and challenges of implementation of social
protection policy at Addis Ababa City Administration to work on them.
 The finding may help stakeholders to scale up the strengths and to work on the gaps they
need to work on.
 It may serve as an input for further promotion of best practices of social protection policy
implementations in the Addis Ababa City Administration.
 It may also help as an idea-provoking study for related research works.
1.6. Scope of the study
The issue of social protection programs is wide and complex. It would be reasonable if one can
make large a scale survey research study. But, due to resources (mainly time and money) and the
current COVIDE -19 pandemic, the researcher delimit the scope geographically in Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia and conceptually to assessing the practice and challenges of implementing social
protection programs.
CHAPTER TWO
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITRATURE
2.1. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS OF SOCIAL PROTECTION
There is no universally agreed definition of social protection but International organizations have
been defined based on their goals of the policy. For instance, Harvey et al. (2007) as cited in
Alderman & Yemtsov, (2012) defines as social protection is concerned with protecting and
helping those who are poor and vulnerable. There are ongoing debates about which interventions
constitute social protection, and which category they fit under, as social protection overlaps with
a number of livelihoods, human capital and food security interventions.
According to García and Gruat, 2003, social protection is about people and families having
security in the face of vulnerabilities and contingencies, it is having access to health care, and it
is about working in safety. But we are far from realizing the ideal of adequate social protection
as a right for all. This is particularly true for the poorest in the informal economy. Commonly
they are working and working hard just to survive. They experience many forms of insecurity.
They are most in need of support and protection yet they are the least protected.
Socio-economic security is a key to the well-being of the individual and the family. By
responding to people’s needs, social protection fosters social inclusion and cohesion - secure
families are the building blocks of secure communities and stable societies. When properly
managed, it is an instrument of empowerment and social progress. It affects capacity to work and
productivity at work. And social protection gives poor people a platform to step from fighting for
survival to working for a better future and staying out of poverty. The decent work agenda is a
universal agenda. This is why for us social protection is not optional but a necessary component
of strategies for working out of poverty.
Shepherd et al., 2004 also stated that, social protection is an important dimension in the reduction
of poverty and multidimensional deprivation. It is an approach towards thinking about the
processes, policies and interventions which respond to the economic, social, and political and
security risks and constraints poor and vulnerable people face, and which will make them less
insecure and less poor, and more able to participate in economic growth. More narrowly, it
describes a set of policies that governments can pursue in order to provide protection both to the
‘active poor’, enabling them to participate more productively in economic activity, and to the
less active poor, with considerable benefits for society as a whole.
More importantly, Agenda 2030 identifies poverty eradication as one the greatest global
challenges facing the world today and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development.
Despite efforts to combat both poverty and hunger, the overall numbers remain high. Almost one
billion people still live in extreme poverty; 1.793 million are estimated to be chronically
undernourished (WFP, 2015 as cited in OECD, 2017).
In addition, differences across regions and within national contexts with regards to income and
opportunities undermine poverty reduction efforts and stretch capacities to create and maintain
livelihoods. Social protection is a specific target of the 2030 Agenda, under the Sustainable
Development Goal (SDG) 1 (Poverty Eradication), as well as seen as a key strategy to achieve
other related goals, such as end hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition, decent
employment, gender equality and reducing overall inequalities, and promote sustainable
agriculture among others (Ibid).
The existence of social protection can be recognized as one of the most significant social
achievements of the 20th century. Systems of social protection enable societies to advance the
well-being and security of their citizens by protecting them from vulnerability and deprivation so
that they can pursue a decent life (ILO), 2001). More importantly, social protection can meet the
essential needs of human survival by ensuring that all men and women have basic social and
economic security. At the same time, it can play a more far-reaching role in enhancing the
quality of life of individuals and societies by developing and unleashing human potential,
facilitating structural change, increasing stability, advancing social justice and cohesion, and
promoting economic dynamism.
Social protection has been defined by the UN in 2001 to be the set of public and private policies
and programs undertaken by societies in response to various contingencies to offset the absence
or substantial reduction of income from work; to provide assistance for families with children as
well as provide people with health care and housing. Social protection has several functions
which include
(a) Protective – measures designed to save lives and reduce deprivation levels;
(b) Preventive – reducing people’s exposure to risks through social insurance programs such as
pensions and health insurance;
(c) Promotive - enhance the capability of the vulnerable to protect themselves against hazards
and loss of income; and
(d) Social justice – to reduce inequities and improve social integration through changes in laws,
budgetary allocations and redistributive measures (AU, 2008).
Social protection has greatly evolved in the last 15-20 years when it first emerged as a key
intervention in the fight against poverty. While it was originally adopted as a rather narrow
approach with interventions forming a safety net for those particularly affected by shocks, social
protection has evolved into a systematic approach that aims to prevent people from falling into
poverty, protect against the consequences of living in poverty, to promote people out of poverty
and to address structural inequalities that trap people into poverty. Interventions can be divided
into social assistance (e.g. unconditional or conditional transfers such as child grants, social
pensions and school feeding and public works), social insurance (e.g. health, unemployment and
agricultural insurance) and labor market policies (e.g. public works, minimum wage legislation
and maternity leave). Through this wide range of interventions, social protection aims to offer a
comprehensive response to people’s risks, shocks and vulnerabilities across their life-cycle if and
why they need them. (Roelen & Devereux, 2016).
This lack of ‘inclusive’ development has pertained to most of Africa’s history, and necessitates
that the continent develop a social policy framework combining economic dynamism (including
pro-poor growth policies), social integration (societies that are inclusive, stable, just and based
on the promotion and protection of all human rights, non-discrimination, respect for diversity
and participation of all people) and an active role for government in the provision of basic social
and other services at local and national levels (MoLSA, 2015).
2.2. Legal framework for social protection
Fundamental international human rights instruments have recognized the need for social
protection. Notably, Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 article 22 states that
“everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security”. Moreover, article 9 of the
1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights also refers to “the right of
everyone to social security, including social insurance. Social protection has also been a
prominent issue in international forums. It was the central theme at the World Summit for Social
Development held in Copenhagen in 1995, where governments committed themselves to
“develop and implement policies to ensure that all people have adequate economic and social
protection during unemployment, ill health, maternity, child-rearing, widowhood, disability and
old age”. The 24th special session of the United Nations General Assembly, convened in Geneva
in June 2000 to provide a five-year review of the Summit, underscored the importance of
establishing and improving social protection systems and sharing best practices in this field (AU,
2008).
The issue of social protection also received serious consideration at the Financing for
Development Summit, held in Monterrey, Mexico, in March 2002. Moreover, the recent Summit
on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg stressed the need to “strengthen the social
dimension of sustainable development by emphasizing follow-up to the outcomes to the World
Summit for Social Development and its five-year review and by support to social protection
systems”. The international community has also been working towards making social
development and human well-being central to sustainable development and poverty reduction. It
has united around a series of shared values, goals, and strategies, and is working to achieve them
through a continuum of efforts, with social protection playing an important role (Helliwell et al.,
2019).
The AU Commission’s (AUC) program on social development is based on a human-centered

approach that seeks to promote human rights and dignity. The program encompasses health and
endemic diseases; migration; population; reproductive health and rights; culture; sport; social
welfare and protection of vulnerable groups including children, people with disabilities, the older
persons; the family; gender equality; education; and human resource development, amongst
others. People are regarded as the drivers and the beneficiaries of sustainable development and,
in this regard, special attention is also given to marginalized and disadvantaged groups and
communities (AU, 2008).
In Ethiopia, article 41 that serves as a base for the establishment of a social protection system in
the country. Article 90 of Ethiopian Constitution states as “To the extent that the country’s
resources permit, policies shall aim to provide all Ethiopians access to public health and
education, clean water, housing, food and social security”. Therefore, social protection has a
constitutional foundation (MoLSA, 2015).
2.3. Theoretical approach to social protection
There are several different conceptual approaches to analyzing social protection objectives and
impacts. Each conceptualizes potential impacts in different ways: transformation; human capital;
vulnerability; and human rights. There are few theories of change; the best-developed ones are
on cash transfers (Browne, 2015). According to Devereux & Sabates-wheeler, (2004) the most
commonly used conceptual framework, which describes four functions social protection are
listed below.
Protective: providing relief from deprivation (e.g. income benefits, state pensions)
Preventative: averting deprivation (e.g. savings clubs, social insurance)
Promotive: enhancing incomes and capabilities (e.g. inputs)
Transformative: social equity and inclusion, empowerment and rights (e.g. labour laws)
Most social protection frameworks also conceptualize social protection as an investment in

human capital which increases capacities and the accumulation of productive assets (Barrientos,
2010), breaking the intergenerational transmission of poverty. Social protection contributes to
human capital either directly, by providing food, skills and services; or indirectly, by providing
cash and access, which enable households to invest in their own development.
Another common theory is stated that social protection reduces vulnerability and risk by
providing protection against shocks. This assumes that vulnerability to hazards constrains human
and economic development and that risk management stabilizes income and consumption, and is
an investment in poverty reduction (Devereux & Sabates-wheeler, 2007).
2.4. Debating on social protection
Although social policy scholars have debated a large number of social protection issues over the
years, new issues have arisen as innovative programs have been introduced in the developing
world and scholars in development studies have become involved in the field (Midgley, 2014).
Any discussion of the benefits and costs of social protection must begin by recognizing the wide
range of programs, their differing objectives and the wide range of country settings. ‘Country
setting’ here includes economic structure, level of development and levels of poverty and related
social ills, on the one hand, and administrative capacity of government or other relevant
institutional actors (UN, 2013).
The rapid rise of social protection up the development policy agenda has been startling, even
alarming. Part of the explanation is to be found in a growing recognition that social protection
can be functional to the achievement of bigger development objectives, including even economic
growth and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Mounting evidence that well-designed
social transfers can contribute to poverty reduction is appealing to development economists and
policymakers who were previously skeptical about social protection’s unloved parents, ‘social
safety nets’, which were disparaged during the 1990s as politically expedient, socially
stigmatizing and fiscally unaffordable in poor countries. The ‘safety nets’ agenda was vigorously
attacked equally from the left (for its social residuals and political pessimism) as from the right
(for displacing informal social security mechanisms and creating dependency on unsustainable
handouts) until it curled up and died, only to be successfully reborn as ‘social protection’ around
the turn of the millennium (Devereux & Sabates-wheeler, 2004).
So what’s the difference? For one thing, the new social protection agenda comes with a fresh
array of conceptual frameworks, analytical tools, empirical evidence, national policy processes,
heavyweight agencies and big names in development studies aligned behind it. Secondly, social
protection appears to be equally amenable to appropriation by the ‘right’ (who are now inviting
the poor to participate in economic growth opportunities with revitalizing injections of targeted
transfers) and the ‘left’ (who are hooking their ‘rights-based approaches’ onto the social
protection bandwagon). Thirdly, the social protection agenda prioritizes moving people from
dependency into productive livelihoods, wherever possible (Devereux & Sabates-wheeler, 2004).
A major recent shift in thinking is away from fragmented social protection programs towards
comprehensive social protection systems. This has largely been driven by donors, who are now
investing in building integrated social protection systems. It also ties to an increasing focus on
fiscal space and domestic financing of social protection, to ensure secure and sustainable social
protection systems over the long-term. Areas of debate remain. These include conditionality,
targeting and graduation. There is positive evidence for both unconditional and conditional
transfers, and for different targeting methods, without clearly generalizable lessons on what
works best. The literature is in agreement that social protection has important developmental
effects, but that it alone is insufficient to lift households out of poverty (Ibid).
In spite of its achievements and contribution to human development, social protection has always
been the object of intense criticism. Since their inception, social protection policies have been
criticized on economic grounds for having a negative impact on overall economic performance.
Critics argue that they cost too much and are a financial burden that deplete public funds and
reduce opportunities for investing in other priority areas. They also argue that the policies create
disincentives in the labor market leading to dependency on public support and undermining the
work ethic, as well as hindering structural change (García & Gruat, 2003).
2.5. Benefits of social protection programs
The objectives of social protection vary widely, from reducing poverty and vulnerability,
building human capital, empowering women and girls, improving livelihoods, and responding to
economic and other shocks. As a result, the form and function of social protection programs can
be quite disparate, according to the particular objective (Hanlon et al., 2010).
Shepherd et al., (2004) stated that, Social protection can enhance school enrolment and
attendance by alleviating the burden of schooling costs, and some programs make benefits
directly conditional on school attendance. Cash transfers, child grants or school feeding
programs can improve nutrition outcomes, and in turn contribute to early childhood cognitive
development. For working-age adults, social protection programs can support job searches by
decreasing the costs of travel and application fees, and by compensating for foregone wages.
Social protection can also play a role in life-long skills development, such as public works that
promote on-the-job training or by incentivizing technical and vocational training and informal
learning.
Evidence on social protection is extremely robust in some areas, and weak in others. Cash
transfers are very well studied and have produced rigorous, comparative evidence on what
works. Social insurance has a moderately robust evidence base. Labor market interventions are
less studied, but have moderately robust evidence. In terms of sector, there is strong evidence on
poverty reduction, and improved children’s health and education access. The weakest evidence is
in showing impacts on social outcomes, such as women’s empowerment and social inclusion;
and in whether social protection increases economic growth. The evidence is thus clustered
around measurable service-access and human development impacts, with less evidence on
longer-term, social development goals. Although social protection programs often have a long-
term outlook, the evidence base does not have many longitudinal studies. Overall, the evidence
suggests that social protection has had positive effects on child and maternal health; primary and
secondary education enrolment and attendance; and poverty reduction (Devereux & Sabates-
wheeler, 2004).
In addition to the above advantages, employment-generating public works programs and those
whose income-generating effect comes later, as with conditional cash transfers (CCTs) designed
to keep the children of low-income families in school longer or school lunch programs whose
main impact may be a reduction of malnutrition and a healthier person over his/her lifetime.
These distinctions by no means fully capture the causal interactions between social protection
programs and either personal/family income growth or the overall economic performance of an
economy (González et al., 2012).
Achieving universal and equitable access to quality health care requires a sustainable financial
resource base that meets the health needs of the population, without causing impoverishment.
Such access can contribute to the attainment of national development goals and economic growth
through improved health status. However, globally there exists an enormous mismatch between
countries’ health financing needs and their health spending (Dibaba et al., 2014).
2.6. Basics of social protection
Social protection is at the heart of Ethiopia’s recent economic and social success. At the same
time as Ethiopia’s economy has registered one of the strongest long-term growth rates globally,
it has established one of the largest social protection systems in Africa. With strong support from
international development partners, it has implemented programs such as the Productive Safety
Net Program and Community-Based Health Insurance that have succeeded not only in reducing
poverty but also in improving access to basic services, thereby promoting long-term gains in
human capital. (Transform, 2017b).
2.6.1. Selection and identification
A critical issue faced by all countries developing systems of social protection is how to select
beneficiaries. No country has ever been able to effectively cover everyone in need of transfers
during the early stages of developing their social protection systems. The numbers of people in
need are too great and place excessive demands on a country’s financial resources. Developed
countries have taken decades to develop comprehensive social protection systems, which
gradually expanded as resources become available. Therefore, developing countries need to take
a long-term vision for their social protection schemes, expanding them as resources become
available and greater priority is given to social protection (Haan, 2011). As a result, in the early
stages of the development of their social protection systems, countries have to make hard choices
about which people to priorities. Fortunately, there is significant international evidence on the
consequences of the range of choices that have been made by countries, both historical evidence
from developed countries and contemporary evidence from low and middle-income countries.
2.6.2. Administration section
The core function of administration institutions is to deliver social assistance benefits to eligible
beneficiaries. This process entails identifying and registering potential beneficiaries, assessing
their needs and conditions (assessing eligibility) and making an enrollment decision which
determines the benefits or service strategy to be adopted. Once this decision is made, payments,
goods or services can be disbursed to beneficiaries. Further administrative systems are also
required for collecting and addressing complaints and appeals, managing necessary outreach
activities (e.g. communication campaigns) and case management of beneficiaries. In some cases,
this may include the management of program exit/graduation and enforcement of conditionality.
It should be noted that these systems are not less important than the core ones listed above – they
simply require higher capacity to administer and are often rolled out at a subsequent stage, once
core systems are working smoothly (Garcia & Moore, 2012).
2.6.3. Coordination section
Due to the multi-dimensional nature of vulnerability, the design and delivery of social protection
is generally spread across various ministries, including the ministries of labor and social security/
welfare, health, education, agriculture, public works, etc. Social protection is traditionally
delivered by several institutions and stakeholders focusing on certain population groups (e.g.
workers of the formal sector), delivering specific services (e.g. health care), or certain types of
transfers (e.g. family allowances).The delivery of social protection also generally involves
different line ministries and public organizations, including decentralized structures and local
governments. Development partners (notably, international organizations and civil society
organizations) can also play an important role in supporting governments in developing,
implementing, and delivering social protection programs, especially in developing countries. The
design and implementation of a social protection system will require coordination among all of
the different organizations involved in the provision of social protection services and transfers.
However, most social protection programs tend to be designed and implemented in silos with
little, if any, linkages and complementarities between and among them. This has contributed to
fragmentation of policies and programs and overlap (OECD, 2019).
2.6.4. Governance section
At an institutional level governance is about the incentives and accountability structures at the
state level and ultimately the way in which power and authority is exercised. Governance is
shaped by the formal rules, roles and responsibilities of stakeholders involved in the sector and
finally control and accountability mechanisms put in place to ensure compliance across and
within different organizations involved in the sector1. All these elements are articulated through
laws, regulations, Government policies and operational guidelines and also shaped by informal
rules formed through culture, beliefs and attitudes (Transform, 2017b).
At an organizational level governance is focused on a set of incentives and accountability

requirements that influence the way in which provider organizations and their staff behave and
the manner in which their services are delivered. Social protection Services are delivered
through different organizational structures which follow from the institutional settings of the
state and which have implications for the management of the system and how services are
delivered. This includes the capacity to establish standards and protocols, monitor performance
and enforce accountability for performance through appropriate management functions (Ibid).
2.6.5. Financing section
A number of important issues ranging from question of affordability, through establishing

determinants of fiscal space, revenue mobilization, measuring costs of social protection in the
context of public finance and the national budget process, public expenditure monitoring and
evaluation and issues of financial management administration. While social protection is
generally understood to be affordable for all countries at various stages of development and often
costs relatively less than other government expenditures, it does constitute a significant monetary
investment towards a country’s future. To finance social protection, sufficient and sustainable
resources must be efficiently raised without detrimental effects to a country’s economy,
administered professionally and distributed amongst various government and private agencies in
way that guarantees high levels of accountability and transparency (Transform, 2017a).
2.6.6. Legal foundation for social protection
ILO Convention No.102 (1952) sets a framework of basic social security principles on which
any social security system should be based to encourage the development of broad social security
schemes. The ILO Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102) provides
detailed guidance for the definition of the content of the right to social security. Set against the
developments of social protection in the immediate after world war two period in Europe, which
included the acknowledgement of social the right to social security is explicitly articulated in
Article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), which monitors the
implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR), has progressively developed the content of the right to social security and the
Security as a right, it included broad tax funded social security provision.(Whilst ILO R. 202
(2012).
At the regional level, Article 1 (b) of the Code on Social Security of the SADC (2007) describes
social assistance as a “form of social security that provides assistance in cash or in kind to
persons who lack the means to support themselves and their dependents.
In Ethiopia, expanding social protection landscape is part of the progressive implementation of
the main economic and social rights enshrined in different articles of the constitution. In
addition to the fundamental articles enshrined in the constitution, especially Article 41 that
serves as a base for the establishment of a social protection system in the country, Article 90
which states as “To the extent that the country’s resources permit, policies shall aim to provide
all Ethiopians access to public health and education, clean water, housing, food and social
security” is a constitutional foundation to design this policy (MoLSA, 2015).
2.6.7. Management Information system /MIS/
There is growing recognition that Management Information Systems, or MIS, play a pivotal role
in the implementation of social protection (SP) schemes. In fact, program MIS are increasingly
viewed as a central plank that holds together social protection schemes’ core processes i.e.
registration, determination of eligibility, payments, complaints & grievances, and monitoring and
evaluation systems (The World Bank, 2016). More importantly a program 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,
 Eligibility determination and enrolment (i.e. determining beneficiaries for the program)
 Continuous maintenance of Beneficiary Lists: e.g. removal of those no those who are no
longer eligible
 Authentication and compliance monitoring (if applicable, e.g. when conditionality
imposed
 Managing payments (e.g. producing “payrolls”, monitoring payment receipts, amounts
paid, etc.
 Managing a grievance/ appeals and redress system-
 Managing on-going program monitoring and evaluation (e.g. producing a list of
beneficiaries who have enrolled, which benefits have been paid, level of payments,
characteristics of beneficiaries, etc..
 Supporting on-going management and planning (e.g. notifying managers when a process
should or has happened etc…
2.6.8. Monitoring and evaluation
The ILO’s R 202 recommends that countries should regularly ‘collect, compile, analyze and
publish an appropriate range of data statistics and indicators’. This is critical to safeguarding
compliance with existing legislation, ensuring transparency and accountability and building a
basis for the continuous improvement of social protection systems.
A good M&E system promotes a continuous learning cycle, fosters transformation in social
protection, and improves service delivery. Ideally, it is triggered by a continuous demand for
M&E and gives equal importance to monitoring and evaluation functions. Moreover, an M&E
framework that harmonizes indicators from across social protection programs can help to
overcome potential fragmentation at the policy and program level, while reaping benefits in
terms of cost and capacity synergies (Transform, 2017c).
According to Transform, (2017c) social protection learning package, a well-functioning M&E

system in the social protection sector can:
 Improve policy/program management and planning (‘inwards facing’ M&E)

 Improve policy/program design: in order to learn about the efficiency and effectiveness
of a policy/program so to in for decisions on whether to extend, improve, or eliminate it.
The ultimate aim would be to better serve the poor and more efficiently provide services.
 Help solve problems in policy/program implementation, monitoring execution to detect
and correct implementation problems and facilitate evidence-based fine-tuning of the
operational design.
 Help prioritize, plan and budget: helping relevant authorities and managers to coordinate
and prioritize activities and undertake planning and budget allocation decisions.
CHAPTER THREE
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In this section, the type of research design that this research employed, research participants and
sampling, instruments, data collection procedures, statistical treatment and analysis of data, and
ethical issues are described.
3.1. Research Design and Approach
This study used a mixed research approach (qualitative and qualitative research methods)
because the nature of the study is believed to be well explained using both qualitative and
qualitative research methods. For the quantıtatıve part, the study employed a descriptive design
to examıne the practice and challenges of implementing social protection program in Addis
Ababa.
3.2. Population, Sampling and Techniques
3.2.1. Target Population
The target populations of this study are those who are working in and implementıng social
protection programs as experts and officials in diverse federal and Addis Ababa city
administration institutions including AABOLSA, MOLSA, AAFSPSNA, FUJCFSA,
AACBHIA, AASSA, and AAPOSSA. The number of experts and officials working in these
institutions is estimated to be 262.
3.2.2. Sample Techniques
The current study employed a simple random sampling technique to determine the population
sample (Implementing agencies) such as AABOLSA, MOLSA, AAFSPSNA, FUJCFSA,
AACBHIA, AASSA, and AAPOSSA and purposive non-probabilistic sampling technique was
used to determine the potential samples for the study.
3.2.3. Sample Size
A sample is part of the target population and is procedurally selected to present the information
accurately. The sample is consisting of 161 participants selected from seven institutions working
on social protection in Addis Ababa (AABOLSA, MOLSA, AAFSPSNA, FUJCFSA,
AACBHIA, AASSA, and AAPOSSA.). To determine the ideal sample size for a population, the
study used Slovene’s formula which is:
Slovene's Formula
Where:
n=sample size
N=population
Size=262
e = margin of error of 5 %
262⁄ 1+262(0.5) 2 = 262⁄ 1+262(0.0025) = 262⁄1.6325 = 161
TABLE 1 SAMPLE FRAME
S/N Category Target Population Sample

Implementing agencies Male Female Male Female
name
1 AABOLSA 30 16 24 11
2 MOLSA 15 5 8 1
3 AAFSPSNA 16 10 7 4
4 FUJCFSA 21 11 13 3
5 AACBHIA 44 23 26 19
6 AASSA 33 19 9
7 POSSA 14 14 9 8
Sub total 173 89 106 55
Total 262 161
3.3. Tools of Data Collection
3.3.1. Questionnaire
The study employed both close-ended and open-ended questionnaires to grasp information from
respondents. The questionnaire will be written in English language and then translated into the
Amharic language to let the respondents easily understand the questions. Again, the collected
data was translated from the Amharic language into English.
3.3.2. Data Type and Source
The source of data for this study was both primary and secondary data sources. Both sources
help the researcher reduce making bias in the findings of the research.
3.3.3. Primary Sources
Primary data was collected from experts and officials working on social protection in such
institutions as AABOLSA, MOLSA, AAFSPSNA, FUJCFSA, AACBHIA, AASSA, and
AAPOSSA.
3.3.4. Secondary Sources
Secondary data was gathered from different sources including books, journals, reports, and
others.
3.4. Tools of Data Analysis
3.4.1. Qualitative Data Analysis
The transcribed data was organized into words, coded, and categorized into themes and
interpretation follows. The qualitative data served as supplementary to the quantıtatıve data.
3.4.2. Quantitative Data Analysis
To analyze the quantitative data it is coded, tabulated, and put into a computer and analyzed by
using the statistical package for social science software (SPSS) version 16. SPSS enables the
computation to be precise, dependable, and saving time. Finally, the data gathered through
questionnaires were arranged using frequency, percentages, by the analysis.
3.5. Data Interpretation Design
QUAN QUAL
Interpretation
Data & results Data & results
3.6. Ethical Consideration
Written permission to conduct this research was obtained from Ethiopian Civil Service
University. The respondents were informed about the purpose of the study and no data will be
collected with the consent of the respondents. The information obtained from the respondents
was kept confidential and pseudonyms were used to make confidential the identity of the
respondents. Anythıng that may harm the respondents will be avoided. All authors mentioned in
this study were properly acknowledged. Moreover, any form of plagiarism or academic theft is
obnoxious.
CHAPTER FOUR
4. DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION
This section of the study has presents the demographic characteristics of respondents and
measure findings of the research based on the already identified objectives.
TABLE 2 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS
SN IE Sex Total Percentage

Male Female
1 UPSNP 52 19 71 97.2
2 SSA 28 17 45 100
3 CBHI 26 19 45 100
SN IE Year of Experience Total Percentage

0-5 6-15 16-20 21 and above
1 UPSNP 8 43 11 4 4 70 95.9
2 SSA 7 17 13 7 1 45 100
3 CBHI 2 20 16 7 - 45 100
SN IE Educational status Total Percentage

st
Diploma 1 Degree Master Degree Others
& above
1 UPSNP 2 40 28 1 71 97.3
2 SSA - 31 14 - 45 100
3 CBHI - 38 7 - 45 100
As displayed in table 2 the basic demographic characteristics of respondents from the

three organizations considering on sex, years of experience, and educational backgrounds,
accordingly respondents from PSNP was 72% male and 26% female while participants from
SSA was 62% male and 37.8 female. Adding to this, the sex of respondents from CBHI was 57.8
% male and 42.2% female respectively. Regarding respondents’ years of work experience,
participants from UPSNP were 0-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16.20 and 21 & above the percentage are
11.4%, 61.4%, 15.7%, 5%, and 5.7% respectively. While the years of experiences of respondents
from SSA were 0-5 (15.7%), 6-10 (37.8 %,) 11-15/28.9%, 16-20/ 15.6%, 20 and above 2.2%
respectively. Moreover the years of experience to respondents from CBHI were 0-5 /4.4%, 6-
10/44.4%, 11-15/ 35.6% , 16.20 /15.6%, 21 & above 2.2% .
With regard to the educational status of respondents from UPSNP 2.8% diploma, 56.3%
degree, and 38.4% masters while educational level of participants from SSA 68.8% and 31.1%
were diploma and degree respectively. Adding to this respondents from CBHI were have been
84.4% degree and 15.6% master’s degree
TABLE 3 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF GROUPS ON COORDINATION
Group N Mean square df F value Level of significance

s
UPSNP 73 .920 Between groups 1 .698 .406
1.318 Within groups 6 1.582 .216
9
SSA 45 .902 Between groups 1
.570 Within groups 4
1
CBHI 45 .462 Between groups 1 .671 .418
1
As table 3 indicated, the multiple comparisons has shown that, there is not a statically significant
difference among the three programs in relation to coordination, for example the values of
between groups for UPSNP and SS has indicated (the sig 0.406> 0.05) which is greater than
the P-value) similarly, coordination in between SS and CBHI were not statically significant
difference with the value of between groups ( sig= 0.216 and 0.418 respectively that is greater
than the P-value of 0.05). This result indicated that these three social protection programs has
been equally implementing with weak coordination approaches as it shown in rating scales or
degree of agreements.
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF GROUPS ON ADMINISTRATION

s
UPSNP 73 8.403 Between groups 1 7.904 .006
1.063 Within groups 6
8
SSA 45 3.406 Between groups 1 5.161 .028
1
CBHI 45 2.019 Between groups 1 2.014 .163
1
As it presented in table 4 above there is a statistically significant difference between

UPSNP and SS with complete the problem between the groups of (which is sig 0.006<0.05). As
well as there is also a statically significant difference between SS and CBHI regarding
administration with between groups value of (sig=0.028<0.05) In another hand the
administration of UPSNP and CBHI has not a statistically significant difference between the
group's value of (sig 0.163 >P-value=0.05).
TABLE 5 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF GROUPS ON FINANCING SPP

s
UPSNP 73 1.266 Between groups 1 .804 .373
8
SSA 45 .121 Between groups 1 .173 .679
1
CBHI 45 .034 Between groups 1 .086 .771
1
The ANOVA in table 5 has shown that there is no statistically significant difference
among the three organizations regarding the financing of their social protection programs with
the complete problem values of between the groups (the sig= 0.373> P-value 0.05) and (sig=
0.679 and 0.771) respectively , due the P-value has indicated greater than 0.05) for all testing
scores.
TABLE 6 SELECTION & IDENTIFICATION
Level of agreement UPSNP N =73 SSA N=45 CBHI N=45

Strongly agree 2.7 8.9
Agree 23.3 73.3 8.9
Strongly disagree 15.1 2.2 51.1
Disagree 50.7 15.6 37.8
I don’t know 5.5 - -
Total 100 100 100
According to (EDDI, 2017) , Selection and identification of beneficiaries for social

protection programs is the most important milestone especially in the safety net program and
other social grant interventions so it needs to be done carefully and methodically. If selection
was wrong it means either those who are entitled to benefit from the program are excluded or
those who are not nutritive to benefit from the program are included. As the above table 6
depicted, respondents' level of agreement from the three organizations regarding the
presence of an appropriate selection and identification of beneficiaries for the existing programs.
Accordingly, participants from UPSNP responded 2.5 % strongly agree, 23.3% agree, 15.1%
strongly disagree, 50.7% disagree, and 5.5% as unknown. When we come to respondents from
SSA 8.9% of them had responded as strongly agree, 73.3% agree, 2.2%strongly disagree, and
15.6 and disagree. In addition to this, participants who were from SSA had responded 8.9%,
strongly agree 73.3% agree, 2.2% agree, and 15.6 disagree correspondingly. Moreover,
respondents from CBHI were responded as 8.9% strongly agree, 51.1% agree, and 37.8%
correspondingly.
The result implies that the selection and identification of beneficiaries has lacked
accountability, transparency, clarity, and systematic approach in UPNP program as well as in
CBHI. In the other hand selection process seems relatively good in SSAs.
TABLE 7 ADMINISTRATION

Strongly agree - - 8.9
Agree 6.8 - 17.8
Disagree 49.3 73.3 66.7
I don’t know - - -
Total 100 100 100
According to the Module of Transform social protection 2018, administration, social

protection is one of the core function of institutions is to deliver social assistance benefits to
eligible beneficiaries. This process entails identifying and registering potential beneficiaries,
assessing their needs and conditions (assessing eligibility) and making an enrollment decision
which determines the benefits or service strategy to be adopted. Once this decision is made,
payments, goods or services can be disbursed to beneficiaries.
As can be seen in table 7, respondents for this study from UPSNP had responded 49.3%
disagreed, and strongly disagree as well as participants from SSAs have been answered 73%
disagree and 24 % strongly disagree. Furthermore, respondents form CBHI had responded 17.8%
of them agree, 8.9% strongly agree, 6.7% disagree and 66. % disagrees.
The above result regarding levels of agreement and disagreement of respondents had
shown us that, all the existing programs in Addis Ababa such as UPSNP, CBHI, and SS
have weakness in comprehensiveness and good administratively in their intervention executions.
TABLE 8 DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Strongly agree 1.4 - -
Agree 5.5 24.2 -
Disagree 39.7 44.4 73.3
I don’t know 5.5 - -
Total 100 100 100
It is universally agreed that data management is very critical for the deliverance of
effective, efficient, transparent and, accountable social protection program implementations.
Table 8, depicts that participants from UPSNP had responded high scored to both strongly
disagree and disagree 42.5% and 39.7% respectively as their organization has weak in data
management. Similarly respondents from both CBHI and SSA had scored high in disagreement
which cumulatively measured 75% and, 97.7% respectively. This result shows that, the existence
of weak data management in all the three pillars of social protection programs which have been
implementing currently in Addis Ababa.
TABLE 9 APPROPRIATE BUDGETING & FINANCING

Strongly agree 5.5 2.2 -
Agree 8.2 33.3 2.2
Disagree 24.7 62.2 51.1
I don’t know - - -
Total 100 100 100
To finance social protection, sufficient and sustainable resources must be efficiently

raised without detrimental effects to a country’s economy, administered professionally and
distributed amongst various government and private agencies in way that guarantees high levels
of accountability and transparency. Financing social protection is the responsibility of the State.
A broad political consensus that positions social protection as a vital investment in human capital
is essential to ensure long-term financing and national ownership World bank 2014.
As can be seen from Table 9 above respondents from UPSNP were answered 81.2%,
from disagreeing to strongly disagree for issues related to budgeting and financing to the existing
social protection programs. While participants from SSA were responded 62.2% disagree and
33.3% agree respectively. In another hand, participants from CBHI was cumulatively scored
97.8% as strongly disagree and disagree for plans related to budgeting and financing of the social
protection program.
Even though, financing and budgeting is very essential for the good implementation of
social protection programs, but the result in this study shows that, relatively low allocation of
budget and financial spending for the above aforementioned programs in Addis Ababa city.
TABLE 10 COORDINATION

Strongly agree 9.6 - --
Agree 9.6 2.2 24.4
Disagree 28.8 71.1 -
I don’t know 6.8 -- --
Total 100 100 100
Coordination is another very essential ingredient for good and multi-dimensional social
protection program implementations UN/ILO Social Protection Floor (SPF) Initiative 2009. In
this study respondents from both UPSNP and SSA were responded as 72% and, 97.7%% of them
disagreed respectively by cumulative. However, participants from CBHI had replied their level
of agreement by saying 55% strongly disagree and 24.4% agree respectively. Therefore, this
result shows us, generally, the degree of coordination of the three social protection programs are
poorly coordinated while it is a little bit good in CBHI comparing to the other two programs.
TABLE 11 COMPLIANCE HANDLING MECHANISM

Strongly agree 16.4 -- 2.2
Agree 54.8 28.9 4.4
Disagree 8.2 66.7 88.9
I don’t know 13.7 2.2 2.2
Total 100 100 100
Compliance handling mechanisms is one of the critical agendas especially in such a

programmatic approach of social protection intervention. As table 11 shown that 54.8% of
respondents from UPNSP has been replied as agreed that their organization has been exercised
compliance handling practices while 19.8% did not agree on the same issues. In another hand
66.7 % of participants from SSA were disagreed about the presence of good compliance
handling mechanism in their program implementation even though 28.9% of them were agreed
on the presences of compliance mechanism in their organization during implementation of the
existing social protection program. In addition to this, 88.9% of participants from CBHI were
disagreed about the existence of compliance resolution mechanism in their program operation
processes.
Generally the result shows that the beneficiary compliance handling mechanism has not
well implemented in almost the three social protection programs while it is somehow good in
SSA comparing to the other two programs.
TABLE 12 GOOD GOVERNANCE

Strongly agree 2.7 -- --
Agree 1.4 15.6 33.3
Disagree 35.6 51.1 62.2
I don’t know 13.7 2.2 2.2
Total 100 100 100
Generally speaking, the result shows us, the inadequate good governance in all the three
organization when their social protection programs implementations were at the place while
somehow good at CBHI.
TABLE 13 TRANSFER MECHANISM

Strongly agree 23.3 13.3 8.9
Agree 61.6 46.7 73.3
Disagree 4.1 33.3 15.6
I don’t know 6.8 -- --
Total 100 100 100
According to world bank Urban safety net program PAD 2014, transfer mechanism for
social protection program beneficiaries must be appropriate ( timely or non-delay able , near to
beneficiaries home market based etc..).
The participants for this study, especially those who implementers of UPSNP were
replied their agreement by 84.4% as there is a good transfer mechanism for UPSNP beneficiaries
as the same time 82% of respondents from CBHI have been graded that as their organization has
been using good transfer mechanisms to its beneficiaries. In the other hand, 59.4% and 33.3%
those who from SSA were responded agree and disagree respectively. The result shows that,
transfer mechanism has been operating in a good way in almost the three institution although
there is some way gaps in SSAs.
TABLE 14 MONITORING & EVALUATION

Strongly agree 1.4 -- --
Agree 1.4 24.4 2.2
Disagree 74.0 66.7 71.1
I don’t know 1.4 -- ---
Total 100 100 100
According to ILO social protection floor 2015, a good M&E system promotes a
continuous learning cycle, fosters transformation in social protection, and improves service
delivery. Moreover, an M&E framework that harmonizes indicators from across social protection
programs can help to overcome potential fragmentation at the policy and program level, while
reaping benefits in terms of cost and capacity synergies.
However, in this study as we can see table 10 , 91%, 78% and 97.8% of respondent
from UPSNP, SSA and CBHI were evaluated their disagreement about the presence of good
monitoring and evaluation mechanism for the existing social protection programs
correspondingly although, 24% of participants from SSA were agreed about presence.
By observing the above responses, all the three social protection pillars or programs
which are implementing by FUJCFS, MoLSA/BOLSA/, SSAs and CBHI have been poorly
monitoring and evaluated.
Linkage to other basic social services for the beneficiaries (UPSNP)
According to UN social protection floor 2009, and World Bank social protection and human
development 2015, recommended that any social protection schemes shall be, linked each other
to deliver comprehensive services for instance social safety net transfers could be linked to
disaster risk management systems, complementary livelihoods services and nutrition support for
food insecure households, health, enhanced household, and community resilience, behavioral
change and communication, education, and other basic social services.
In this study an effort was tried to see only whether the beneficiaries of UPSNP are linked to
other basic social services as per of the PAD. This is due the rest two organization are not
relevant for linkage issues. Accordingly, 95% of participants from. MoLSA, BOLSA and JCFSA
were responded by said strongly disagree and disagree about the presence of linkage to basic
social services.
This study assesses the current support that national governments in NENA are providing in
relation to social protection and agricultural policies in the context of rural development. Based
on the limited available regional literature, the study identifies gaps in social protection coverage
for the agricultural sector and explores how to enhance linkages and coordination among social
protection and agricultural interventions.
Participants of this study were subjectively asked to answer what basic components for the
deliverance of effective social protection programs in Addis Ababa city specifically regarding to
UPSNP, CBHI and SS? Accordingly, their answers have summarized hereunder.
 The presence of organizational structure at city ,sub city, woreda and kebele levels
 Policy commitment for social protection
 The presence of legal documents to administer and implement the existing programs
 The supporting of developmental partners financially and technically
 The commitments of government to share some amount of budget specially for Urban
safety net urban destitute programs
 Relatively active participations of community , private companies
 Willingness of Private companies to register their employees for social security system
 Lesson learnt form RPSNP and previous pilot cash transfer programs
 The presence of Capacity to implement these programs
 Sectorial coordination has been started even currently at its infant stage
 Lesson learned from international best practices such like Brazil, Kenya, and South
Africa
In another hand respondents were asked to place their opinions about what positive
impacts that the three social protection programs have in Addis Ababa.
Hence, their responses have summarized as follows:-
 Contribute for household livelihoods and income generations

 Promote fair resource distribution
 Promotes food diversification, food intake, and food security
 Promotes job creation
 The absence of clear mandates and functions between some sectors
 Promoted social cohesion due to collectively participating in public works
 Promote clean environmental due to public works in UPSNP programs
 Increase the number of persons covering in social security schemes
 Contribute to community participation in health checkup and follow-ups due being
members to CBHI
 Increase the awareness of community about the important community based health
insurance
 Social protection is increasingly becoming recognized as an important strategy for
poverty reduction and food security and as the rights of citizens.
Moreover, participants of this study have been asked to put their response about what
major challenges are facing in their implementation of social protection programs in respecting
to UPSNP, CBHI and SSA. Accordingly their replies have summarized hereunder:-
 Inadequate budget to expand the coverage of UPSNP, CBHI programs

 Weak sectorial coordination to deliver comprehensive social protection schemes
 Lack of good governance ,administration, commitment,
 Weak Participation of beneficiaries in planning and excursion of these programs
 Accountability and Human resources
 Lack of awareness about social protection intervention and their positive impacts
 Weak in monitoring and evaluation processes
 High errors in exclusion and inclusion in selection or targeting beneficiaries for UPSNP
due to lack of clear selection methodology.
 Growing dependency syndrome special in some beneficiaries of UPSNP
 Unwilling of some companies to register their employees for social security systems
 Using these existing social protection programs for Political consumptions.
 Gaps in organizing timely and reliable report
 Absence of management information system/(MIS)
CHAPTER FIVE
5. DISCUSSION
In this section, this study attempted to see the practices and challenges of social protection policy
implementation in Addis Ababa city administration by targeting the three social protection pillars
such as UPSNP, CBHI and SSs. The discussion part basically focus about the questions rose in
chapter one.
5.1. over all of social protection program implementations
As it is shown in chapter three, the level social protection programs implementations is

basically determined based on items related to selection /targeting process, level of
coordination, financing social protection good governance , well administration , good transfer
mechanism , upright monitoring and evaluation , solid linkage, compliance handling system
and so on . For the sake of measuring overall social protection implementation status descriptive
statistics, especially the rating scale of each items was used. The finding of these tables revealed
that almost all the percentile scores of the respondents were cumulatively high in both strongly
disagree and disagree for almost all items. While there is relatively good level of agreement in
item related to transfer especially at UPSNP and SSAs.
The result for this study is highly related and has consistent with World Banks concepts
which states that developing countries are struggling to implement numerous social protection
interventions, but the problem of financing, coordination ,capacity, transparences and data
managements, and funding keeps frustrating their efforts.
5.2. Selection and identification
Majority of Respondents for this study were replied that, beneficiary selection and
identification for social protection programs in Addis Ababa was lacked clarity and systematic
approach. Therefor due to this phenomena exclusion and inclusion errors has been occurred and
compliance becomes common. This result is more consistent with the ideas which is stated by
Transform social protection 2017 early stages of the development of their social protection
systems, countries have to make hard choices about which people to prioritise .Moreover,
selection poorest from the poor is hard task in almost all developing countries such like Ethiopia
facing this nowadays.
5.3. Administration
Good Administration is very vital for of any kind’s program implementation, while most
of the respondents of this study were disagreed about the presence of good administration in the
implementations of their respecting social protection programs. Although an expert
Commentaries on social protection 2012, stated that, an efficient administration is one of the
prerequisites for a cost-efficient and effective functioning of social protection, such as social
insurance and social transfer schemes. Moreover an efficient administrative structure facilitates
the collection of contributions and the delivery of benefits for beneficiaries. Therefore the result
of this study is not quit similar with this expert commentaries.
5.4. Coordination and data management
According to UNDG 2015, Complementarity of stakeholders for social protection,

coordination is helpful to ensure the efficiency of the social protection system by minimizing
duplications (e.g. two organizations delivering the same benefit to the same population at the
same time). Coordination could also contribute to improving the effectiveness of the system by
combining several benefits and services from different organizations to simultaneously address
various dimensions of poverty and social exclusion. In another hand, the growing recognition
that Management Information Systems, or MIS, play a pivotal role in the implementation of
social protection (SP) schemes and increasingly viewed as a central plank that holds together
social protection schemes’ core processes such as registration, determination of eligibility,
payments, complaints & grievances, and monitoring and evaluation systems(Transform Social
protection 2017). But the result of this study is not much more consistent with the concepts of
coordination which stated by UNDG, due to the majority of respondents have highly disagreed
about the presence of sectorial coordination in their respecting programs. In similar way,
respondents of this study were rating their disagreement about the existence or applications of
appropriate data management in their social protection programs interventions.
5.5. Appropriate budgeting, financing and transfer
Even though respondents were valued on the open ended questions to the government of
Ethiopia for the launching of UPSNP, CBHI and private sector social security schemes. But most
of them were rated strongly disagree and disagree about the allocations of appropriate budget
and finance for these existing social protection programs. When we come to the transfer
mechanism, participants from JCFSA, SSA and CBHI were greatly agreed about the presence of
good transfer mechanisms.
This result is consistence with findings of Tassew (2019) which stated the fiscal space for
social protection in Ethiopia appears to be limited. The GoE has already accommodated
significant growth in social protection and other poverty-targeted spending by shifting the
composition of spending away from economic development. Social protection spending has
increased as a proportion of GDP but public revenues have not. Moreover, according to
Transform social protection 2017, finance social protection, sufficient and sustainable resources
must be efficiently raised without detrimental effects to a country’s economy, administered
professionally and distributed amongst various government and private agencies in way that
guarantees high levels of accountability and transparency. But the present study result shows
that, lack of good administration and governances so this probably leads to weak accountability
and transparency.
More importantly , the transfer mechanism were highly appreciated by the respondents
which this result is consistent with findings of Menen Melese (2019) which she was stated that,
the transfer mechanism for UPSNP in Addis Ababa is appropriate which follows the principles
listed at UPSNP PAD .
5.6. Monitoring and evaluation /M&E /
As in literature review describes that, Monitoring and evaluation for social protection
programs can promote a continuous learning cycle fosters transformation in social protection,
and improves service delivery and more that can harmonize indicators from across social
protection programs and can help to overcome potential fragmentation at the policy and program
level, while gaining benefits in terms of cost and capacity synergies. In contrary to the above
statement, the result of this study revealed that there is a weakness in monitoring and evaluation
of the three social protection programs which are currently implemented in Addis Ababa city.
CHAPTER SIX
6. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1. SUMMARY
The main purpose of this research was to assess the good practice and challenges of
social protection programs implementations in Addis Ababa city administration with particular
focus on UPSNP, CBHI and SSA schemes. Based on this goal, the following research questions
were formulated.
 Is there a statistically significant difference in the implementation of the social

protection policy among the three thematic areas (PSNP, Livelihood and Insurance?
 What is the implementation status of social protection programs in Addis Ababa?
 What are the major challenges the social protection programs implementing agencies
facing in the program implementation?
In order to answer the above research questions, a total of 163 with number of male 106 and 55
female participants were selected through random or lottery method sampling technique while
organizations were selected purposively.
Regarding the measuring of social protection implementation status, 17 rating scale items and 4
open ended questionnaires were administered based on the tools which are developed by
Transform social protection learning package in 2017 in order to measure effective and efficient
social protection programs implementation globally. Amharic version of the questionnaire was
arranged in four point scales to serve for data collection. The instrument was piloted on 9
individuals selected from MoLSA and FJCSA. The data were collected with the help of 3
assistant data collectors.
The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, such as percentiles and ANOVA test to see
whether there is a significant difference among the three organizations regarding their social
program implementations. Adding to this, the answers of the four open ended questions was
analyzed in a narrative manner.
The result of the study by descriptive statistics had shown that the three social protection
programs / UPSNP, CBHI and SS schemes / are poorly coordinated, weak in financing and
budgeting, lack good governance and administration, inappropriate selection and identification of
beneficiaries, poorly monitoring and evaluation mechanisms and have weak data management
systems. More importantly, the finding has also shown that almost all these three the
organization have very weak compliance handling unit in their respective offices. While
respondents have been agreed on having good transfer mechanisms especially for UPSNP and
SS beneficiaries.
In addition to this, the finding of the study also shown that, no significantly difference among the
three organizations regarding to basics of social protection implementation modalities.
In another hand the finding of this study implies that the presence of national social protection
policy, organizational structure at city, sub-city, woreda, and kebele levels, having legal
documents to administer and implement the existing programs, the active involvement of
developmental partners financially and technically, the increment the willingness of Private
companies to register their employees for the social security system, and lesson learned from
RPSNP and previous pilot cash transfer programs have recognized as a good opportunities for
social protection program implementation.
Regarding the positive impacts of the existing three social protection programs in Addis Ababa,
the result indicated that, these aforementioned programs have, Contribute for household
livelihoods and income generations, Promote fair resource distribution, food diversification,
food intake, and food security, job creation, social cohesion due to collectively participating in
public works, Promote clean environmental due to public works in UPSNP programs, increase
the number of persons covering in social security schemes, and Contribute to community
participation in health checkup and follow-ups due to being members to CBHI. Finally in this
study, inadequate budget to expand the coverage of UPSNP and CBHI programs ,Weak sectorial
coordination to deliver comprehensive social protection schemes ,lack of good governance ,
high exclusion and inclusion errors during selection beneficiaries for UPSNP, unwilling of
some companies to register their employees for social security systems , absence of management
information system/ MIS/ and the capacity gap in government owned health centers have been
identified as a challenge for social protection program implementations in Addis Ababa city.
6.2. CONCLUSION
The conclusions from these findings are made within the context of the following limitations.
First the study was conducted only in Addis Ababa city and three social protection programs.
Second, the data was collected by using only one instrument and rating scale .Thirdly many
participants had misconception about the importance of the research. With the above limitations
one can tentatively conclude the following points;
 No statically significant difference was observed among the three social protection
programs which are currently implemented in Addis Ababa city especially in regarding
to coordination , while there ,was a statistically significant difference between UPSN
and SS , and USNP with CBHI regarding to financing of these programs.
 UPSNP, CBHI and SSs programs in Addis Ababa are poorly governed, monitored &
evaluated, and with weak data management and with functionally poor of compliance
mechanism unites.
 UPSNP, CBHI and SS schemes have been implementing with a lack of sectorial
coordination, absence of clear beneficiary selection, weak financing and budgeting
moreover, absence of MIS but with relatively good in transfer.
 The presence of national social protection policy, institutional structure, human resource
and developmental partner have recognized as good contributor for social protection
programs in Addis Ababa city.
 Many more challenges to implement effective social protection programs such as high
exclusion and inclusion errors during selection of beneficiaries for UPSNP, unwilling of
some companies to register their employees for social security systems , absence of
management information system/ MIS/ and the capacity gap in government owned health
centers have been observed
 Generally government budget allocation for these social protection programs is very
weak
6.3. RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are forwarded.
 Addis Ababa city administration needs to facilitate sectorial coordination to deliver

effective and coordinated social protection interventions.
 The administrative City should be allocated a relatively appropriate budget for all the
mentioned three social protections programs and strengthen good governance &
administration especially to promote accountable monitoring and evaluation, good data
management including MIS, and capacitate health centers and clear beneficiaries’
selection mechanisms.
 Further studies should be conducted to investigate other possible factors for weak social
protection program implementation in Addis Ababa City.
REFERENCES
Alderman, H., & Yemtsov, R. (2012). Productive Role of Safety Nets. Social Protection and
Labor Discussion Paper, 1203, 1–93.
Atnafu, D. D., Tilahun, H., & Alemu, Y. M. (2018). Community-based health insurance and
healthcare service utilisation , North- West , Ethiopia : a comparative , cross- sectional
study. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019613
AU. (2008). SOCIAL PROTECTION IN AFRICA. 5–25.
Barrientos, A. (2010). Social Protection and Poverty (No. 42).
Browne, E. (2015). Social Protection: Topic guide. www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-

government-licence
Devereux, S., & Sabates-wheeler, R. (2004). IDS Working Paper 232 Transformative social
protection. October.
Devereux, S., & Sabates-wheeler, R. (2007). Editorial Introduction : Debating Social Protection.
38(3), 1–7.
Dibaba, A., Hadis, M., Ababor, S., & Assefa, Y. (2014). Improving health care financing in
Ethiopia (SURE policy brief). August 2014. August, 1–34.
http://www.who.int/evidence/sure/policybriefs/en/
García, A. B., & Gruat, J. V. (2003). SOCIAL PROTECTION A LIFE CYCLE CONTINUUM
INVESTMENT FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE, POVERTY REDUCTION AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT. ILO.
Garcia, M., & Moore, C. M. T. (2012). The Cash Dividend. In The Cash Dividend.
https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8897-6
González, M., Brito, N., & González, C. (2012). High abundance of Serine/Threonine-rich
regions predicted to be hyper-O-glycosylated in the secretory proteins coded by eight fungal
genomes. BMC Microbiology, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-12-213
Haan, A. De. (2011). The Rise of Social Protection in Development: Progress and Pitfalls.
Institute of Development Studies, April.
http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/DeHaan2011TheriseofsocialprotectionindevelopmentCSP
conferencedraft.pdf
HAGOS, Y. (2013). Graduation determinants of productive safety net program beneficiery

households: A logistic analysis Tigray, Ethiopia. 8(4).
Hanlon, P., Carlisle, S., Hannah, M., Reilly, D., & Lyon, A. (2010). Making the case for a “fifth
wave” in public health.
Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. D. (2019). World Happiness Report 2019.
ILO. (2016). World Employment Social Outlook: Trends 2016. In 2016/01. https://doi.org/ISBN
978-92-2-129260-9
International Labour Organization (ILO). (2001). Social security: a new consensus.
Kebere, A. (2020). Opportunities and Challenges of Urban Productive Safety Net Programs in
Africa: The Case of Ethiopia and Rwanda. November.
Melese, M. (2019). An Assessment on the Practices and Challenges of Urban Productive Safety
Net Program in Addis Ababa city Administration. Addis Ababa University.
Midgley, J. (2014). Social Development: Theory and Practice. 95–97.
MoLSA. (2015). National Social Protection Policy of Ethiopia. 1–15.
OECD. (2017). Social Protection in East Africa: Harnessing the Future. OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264274228-en
OECD. (2019). Implementing social protection strategies.
Omilola, B., & Kaniki, S. (2014). Social Protection in Africa : A Review of Potential
Contribution and Impact on Poverty Reduction Social Protection in Africa : A Review of
Potential Contribution and Impact on Poverty Reduction. August, 45.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12233.29284
Roelen, K., & Devereux, S. (2016). ‘Hot Topics’ in Social Protection. 01, 1–6.
Samson, M. (2015). Supporting Social Protection Systems (No. 4).

https://doi.org/10.2841/524515
Shepherd, A., Marcus, R., & Barrientos, A. (2004). Policy Paper on Social Protection.
The World Bank. (2016). The World Bank Annual Report 2016. The World Bank Annual Report
2016. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0852-4
Transform. (2017a). Financing and Financial management Systems - Manual for a Leadership
and Transformation Curriculum On Building and Managing Social Protection Floors in
Africa. 1–85.
Transform. (2017b). Governance of Social Protection Systems: Institutions, Organizational

Structure and Capacity - Manual for a Leadership and Transformation Curriculum On
Building and Managing Social Protection Floors in Africa.
http://socialprotection.org/institutions/transform
Transform. (2017c). Monitoring & Evaluation and Accountability Systems - Manual for a
Leadership and Transformation Curriculum On Building and Managing Social Protection
Floors in Africa.
UN. (2013). Social Protection , Growth and Employment. May, 328.

Ahme Paper Revised

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ahme Paper Revised

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COLLEGE OF LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE

DEPARTMENT OF LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE

Practices and challenges of social protection policy implementation:

A Senior Thesis Submitted to Ethiopian Civil Service University, College of Leadership

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Masters of Art in Leadership &

By: Ahmed Jemal

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

By: Ahmed Jemal

Name of the Researcher Signature Date

--------------------------- ----------------------------- -----------

Name of Advisor Signature Date

-------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------

1.1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY............................................................................1

1.2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM...........................................................................3

1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS..........................................................................................4

1.4. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY...................................................................................5

1.4.1. General Objective:................................................................................................5

1.4.2. Specific objectives:...............................................................................................5

1.5. The significant of the study..........................................................................................5

1.6. The scope of the study..................................................................................................6

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITRATURE................................................................................7

2.1. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS OF SOCIAL PROTECTION..............................7

2.2. Legal framework for social protection.........................................................................9

2.3. Theoretical approach to social protection..................................................................11

2.4. Debating on social protection.....................................................................................11

2.5. Benefits of social protection programs.......................................................................13

2.6. Basics of social protection..........................................................................................14

2.6.1. Selection and identification.................................................................................14

2.6.3. Coordination section...........................................................................................15

2.6.4. Governance section.............................................................................................16

2.6.5. Financing section................................................................................................16

2.6.6. Legal foundation for social protection................................................................17

2.6.7. Management Information system /MIS/.............................................................18

2.6.8. Monitoring and evaluation..................................................................................18

3.1. Research Design and Approach.................................................................................20

3.2. Population, Sampling and Techniques.......................................................................20

3.2.1. Target Population................................................................................................20

3.2.2. Sample Techniques.............................................................................................20

3.2.3. Sample Size.........................................................................................................20

3.3. Tools of Data Collection............................................................................................22

3.3.2. Data Type and Source.........................................................................................22

3.3.3. Primary Sources..................................................................................................22

3.3.4. Secondary Sources..............................................................................................22

3.4. Tools of Data Analysis...............................................................................................22

3.4.1. Qualitative Data Analysis...................................................................................22

3.4.2. Quantitative Data Analysis.................................................................................22

3.5. Data Interpretation Design.........................................................................................23

3.6. Ethical Consideration.................................................................................................23

4. DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION.......................................................................24

5.1. over all of social protection program implementations..............................................38

5.2. Selection and identification........................................................................................38

5.4. Coordination and data management...........................................................................39

5.5. Appropriate budgeting, financing and transfer..........................................................40

5.6. Monitoring and evaluation /M&E /............................................................................40

6. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................41

TABLE 1 SAMPLE FRAME..........................................................................................................21

AAFSPSNA- Addis Ababa food security production safety net agency

AAPOSSA -Addis Ababa private organization social security agency

AASSA -Addis Ababa social security agency

CBHI -Community-based health insurance

GOE -Government of Ethiopia

GTP I -First Growth and Transformation Plan, Ethiopia