L7yo~ r'A ~ocomENTS Supplemental Letter No. 2 BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA August 20, 2014. International Development Association 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 United States of America Re: Credit No.4704-BA (Social Safety Nets and Employment Support Project) Performance Monitoring Indicators Dear Sirs and Mesdames: This refers to the provisions of Section II.A of Schedule 2 to the Financing Agreement dated May 11, 2010 between the International Development Association (the Association) and the Bosnia and Herzegovina (Recipient) for the above referenced Project. The Recipient hereby confirms to the Association that the revised indicators set forth in the attachment to this letter shall serve as a basis for the Recipient to monitor and evaluate the progress of the Project and the achievement of the objectives thereof. Very truly yours, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA By___________ Authorized Rpresentative Attachment BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA: Social Safety Nets and Employment Support Project RESULTS FRAMEWORK Proposed Revisions 1. Original PDI No.1: "Increase in % ofNon-War Invalid benefits received by the poorest quintile from 30% in 2007 to 40% by 2014. (% of benefits going to the lowest quintile improved) after the implementation of the PMT)". Revised PDI No. 1: "Improved targeting methodology implemented (min in 80% of CSWs) in RS and BiH with respect to the last resort social assistance program and for benefits for families with children." This becomes a Yes/No indicator. 2. Original PDI No 2: "Evidence of improved application processing time (Average application processing time for non-insurance cash transfers decline from 7 months to 2.5 months)" Revised PDI No 2: "Average application processing time for last resort social assistance program, and benefits 1r families with chillren declinei from 7 to 3.5 months." The end target is revised as 3.5 months as opposed to 2.5 months. Since the estimates for application processing time are very different between the two entities, separation of baselines and targets by entity is proposed for this indicator. The two will be reported separately and as an aggregate. 3. Original PDI No 3: "Total Number of Annual reports detailing benefits, beneficiaries, duplications, fraud/errors, and other relevant information, published and made available to the geneial public. (Evidence of improved transparency about the benefits and beneficiaries of the three cash trznrfer programs as per abov- indicators)". Revised PDI No 3: "Total Number of Annual reports detailing benefits, beneficiaries, duplications, and other relevant information, published and made available to the general public." "Fraud and error" is removed from the formulation as it does not relate to the activities of the project. The annual targets have been revised such that the total (cumulative) number of reports at Year 5 (end of project) will be 3. 4. Origina! PDI No 4: "Percentage of non-inurarce cash transfe- beneficiaries satisfied with services received at CSWs." Revised PDI No f: "Percentage of last resort social assistance program, and families with children program beneficiaries satisfied with services received at CSWs (to be measured as a composite of satisfaction on physical appearance, professionalism of CSW workers, expertise of CSW workers and waiting time during visit) The end project (Year 5) target is revised as 5 percent of the baseline. Baselines and end targets will be reported separately for each entity and as an aggregate since they do differ considerably. 5. Original PDI No.5: "Percentage of job brokerage service beneficiaries (approximately 10,000 targeted) who find a job after the service or stay employed 1 year after the completion service". Revised PDI No. 5: "Percentage of (i) employment subsidy and (ii) training beneficiaries who find a joL i.nd stay employed (a) 6 months ind (b) 1 year after the subsidy or the training ends" The indicator will be calculated as a weighted average of th, four different sub-elements; (ia), (ib), (iia). and (iib). The end project target is revised as 30%. Component 1 6. Original Intermediate Indicator No. 1: "Proxy Means Test formulae updated using Hoisehold Budget S u-vey 2010". Revised Intermediate Indicator No. 1: "An improved targeting methodology is developed using the Extended Household Budget Survey 2011". The target is revised to year 4. 7. Intermediate Indicator No. 2: "Grievance redressal system strengthened to address claims in a transparent and standardized manner". To be dropred as. the pr.j-ct does not directly support related activities. 8. Intermediate Indicator No. 3: "Percentage of participating CSWs, applying new targeting approach". This indicator is formulated as the revised Project Outcome Indicator I hence to be removed from the list of intermediate outcome indicators. 9. Intermediate Indicator No. 4: "New apprcaches to disability certification/ verification are being applied by the Institute for Medical Examinations in FBH and the relevant Medcal Ex-rrinalion Beards in RS". To be drcppee as there are no sub,tantial dire,- actvities in this a-Ca. 10. New intermediate indicator to be added: "Social protection laws incorporating improved targeting methodology adopted." The target year is 5. Component 2 11. Original Intermediate Indicator No.1 (benefit administration and oversight): "Entity level integrated management information system, integrating all social protection programs' databases, established." Revised 'ntiermediate Indicator No. 1: "SOTAC irformatioin system is upgraded integrating of last resort social assistance program, and families with children program beneficiaries' databases" Target year is 5. 12. Origna-natermeCU':he Indicator No.2: "Percentage of Centers of Social Work using SOTAC database for entering infor-aticn 3n non-iusurailce cash transfers." Revised Intermediate Indicator No. 2: "Percentage of Centers of Social Work using SOTAC database for entering be-efits and beneficiary information for the last resort social assistance program, and families vith children program" Target is changed from 100 percent to 80 percent in year 5. 13. Intermediate Indicator No 3: No change. Already achieved 14. Origiaal Intermedi -te Indicator No 4: "Number of quarte ly progress reports produced by MIS (M&E) Implementation Units according to agreed reporting standards." Revised 'ntermediate IN 1cator No 4: "Number of quarterl, progress reports produced by Implementaticn 'Units acccrding to agreed reporting standards." The targets are revised as cimulative numbers per year; i.e. Yr 1: 1; Yr 2: 5; Yr 3: 9; Yr 4: 13; Yr 5: 17 15. Intermediate Indicator No: 5: "Monitoring and evalation information regarding non- arieranet ash tra-z 4ers (from admiistrrt*'e data Ir addiion to other sources) used far policy i"rrnulativn by MLSW in FBH; and MDLVA ard MHSW in RS." To be dropped due to di'ficultes in measuring and attribution. 16. Intermediate Indicator No. 6: "Percentage of participating CSWs in which beneficiary lists are publicly available". To be dropped as it contradicts the principle of confidential*ty tha: the CSWs need to follow. Component 3 17. Intermediate Indicator No. 1: "Number of persons who ineligible to receive cash transfers or who are vulnerable (e.g. poor, disabled but able to work, hard-to-serve, demobilized soldiers, etc) that receive job brokerage. No change; remains as is. Component 4 18. Intermediate Indicator No. 1: "Public communication campaign developed, approved and implemented" No change; remains as '. 19. Original Intermediate Indicator No. 2: "Percentage of (non-insurance cash transfer) beneficiary population aware of eligibility criteria for (or reform of) non-insurance cash transfers." Revised Intermediate Indicator No. 2: "Percentage of last resort social assistance program, and farnles with children prograrn beneficiary pcpulk'Ion awar- of e!igibility criteria for these programs Year 5 taiget to be revisd as 20% increase (to be measuree as an increase as a percentage of the base'ine). 20. Org'n! LatermediAte Indicator No 3: "Percentage of genr-al population aware of eligbility criteria for (or reform of) non-insurance cash transfers." Revisfc -tenrecliate I-cator No.3: 'Percenlage of general population aware of eligibility criteria fcr the slast resort social assistance progran. and fa-,ilies with children program." Year 5 (end project) target to be revised as 20% increase (to be measured as an increase as a percent2,e of the baselit e).