Integrated evidence

Join

Step 1 Select a dimension of ex/inclusion Open

Selected: Multidimensional

Exclusion and inequality operate along social, civic, political, cultural and economic axes. These dimensions form a self-reinforcing circle. They serve, in essence, as triggers and/or transmission channels. Deprivation in one of them often results in precariousness and marginalization in the rest.

 

For example, the circle could be set in motion by exclusion from education, including life-long learning, and result in unemployment and overall underperformance in the economic dimension. This factor could, in return, feed into further social service deprivation in terms of health care and/or social protection, reduced participation in political and civic life, and hampered involvement in cultural affairs. 

 

Such multi-dimensionality and progressivity make inclusion a critical lens for policy design and delivery. They translate into four inclusive policy markers.

Step 2 Select an Inclusive Policy Marker Open

Selected: Fit-for-purpose evidence

There is a general need to improve the ways in which institutions learn, generate and manage locally-produced evidence on inclusion and inequalities. To optimally serve inclusive policy and planning, such evidence should be fit-for-purpose – i.e., increasingly equity-weighted, integrated, multidimensional, timely and policy-sensitive.  Three key considerations elaborate on why and how this can be done.

 

Step 3 Select a Policy Design Consideration

Selected: Integrated evidence

Integrated, across place and time, data collection and compilation are critical in the context of inclusive policy and service delivery. Take the examples of the Multidimensional Continuum of Care for Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (RMNCH) or the multidimensional continuum for the homeless in the US. Such continuums are put in place for populations with multidimensional needs and are delivered by different actors throughout long stretches of time. Yet data on the performance of these interventions, even if available, is not collected and compiled in a coherent manner. Data is also often housed in different agencies that are not necessarily concerned with facilitating an efficient data flow to, and usage by, other bodies. To redress this, there is a need for meaningful coordinating mechanisms. These mechanisms are put in place not for centralized policy and service delivery. They are there for integrated collection of data on the effectiveness of policy and service packages, as well as their channels of delivery, allowing for the decision and policy making process to be based on comprehensive and the best data available.

 

Explore concrete policy examples on the map.

1 INCLUSIVE POLICY MARKER EXAMPLE

Join