Dynamic, ongoing Costs can be higher if When registry is well entry and easier to social workers must or well publicised update (including verify (via home (and outreach changes linked to visits) information campaigns events) provided encourage applications in poor More democratic Can be a slow areas) nationally everyone process, involving — has the to be long queues and When people have interviewed at any time bureaucracy higher education levels Permanent process Requires large build and maintain network of staff at a network of administrative and local level social protection logistical structures offices is available at Unlikely for people to local level or report positive municipal staff are changes to household well trained to conditions perform the registration function Does not for easy (to minimise travel collection of for applicants) household’s GIS data Census Better chance to Periodic surveys can In areas with high approach the poorest and other lead to static/inflexible poverty rates (more vulnerable groups, who registries than 70%) and/or — are less informed and especially if target high poverty density more stigmatised (less population is linked to In homogeneous likely to apply) life-course events areas (rural areas (pregnancy, children Lower marginal registry and urban slums) 0–3 etc.) costs (per household In areas with interviewed) due to Members of eligible relatively stable economies of scale households may not poverty dynamics with travel be home or respond when the survey is With new registries If conducted conducted (programs), enough, there is a particularly when a higher chance of Costly in areas with large program needs capturing positive many non-eligible to start quickly changes to household households or where conditions (less likely households are very For registries that to be reported) dispersed also want to keep a record of near-poor House check Re-registration very and non-poor conducted during costly and often households (e.g. to survey process (no postponed beyond be targeted in case misreporting assets recommended 2 of an emergency or etc.) years linked to social insurance schemes) Virtual data Less burden of proof Requires additional Where high-quality integration/ and application time for and complementary administrative data sharing from citizens data collection already exists existing (information from Lower data collection Where there is a databases existing databases costs overall wider shift towards will not be sufficient) e-government
Dynamic, ongoing entry and easier to update (including changes linked to events) More democratic nationally — everyone has the to be interviewed at any time Permanent process build and maintain administrative and logistical structures Costs can be higher if social workers must verify (via home visits) information provided Can be a slow process, involving long queues and bureaucracy Requires large network of staff at local level Unlikely for people to report positive changes to household conditions Does not for easy collection of household’s GIS data When registry is well or well publicised (and outreach campaigns encourage applications in poor areas) When people have higher education levels a network of social protection offices is available at local level or municipal staff are well trained to perform the registration function (to minimise travel for applicants) Census approach Better chance to the poorest and other vulnerable groups, who are less informed and more stigmatised (less likely to apply) Lower marginal registry costs (per household interviewed) due to economies of scale with travel If conducted enough, there is a higher chance of capturing positive changes to household conditions (less likely to be reported) House check conducted during survey process (no misreporting assets etc.) Periodic surveys can lead to static/inflexible registries — especially if target population is linked to life-course events (pregnancy, children 0–3 etc.) Members of eligible households may not be home or respond when the survey is conducted Costly in areas with many non-eligible households or where households are very dispersed Re-registration very costly and often postponed beyond recommended 2 years In areas with high poverty rates (more than 70%) and/or high poverty density In homogeneous areas (rural areas and urban slums) In areas with relatively stable poverty dynamics With new registries (programs), particularly when a large program needs to start quickly For registries that also want to keep a record of near-poor and non-poor households (e.g. to be targeted in case of an emergency or linked to social insurance schemes) Virtual data integration/ sharing from existing databases Less burden of proof and application time for citizens Lower data collection costs overall Requires additional and complementary data collection (information from existing databases will not be sufficient) Where high-quality administrative data already exists Where there is a wider shift towards e-government