Policy Target
‘Targeted’ approaches versus ‘proportionate’ or ‘targeted within universal’ approaches
EVIDENCE-BASED STRATEGY
Government units consider the potential unintended consequences of targeted policies and programs (e.g., stigmatization and discrimination of the recipients, limited impact on inequities, narrowed focus on the effects of the causes, and undermining of politics of solidarity in public funding) and move to ‘proportionate’ or ‘targeted within universal’ approaches.
SAMPLE INDICATORS
- Ratio of targeted policies and programs to universal policies and programs
- Acceptance levels of taxation to support publicly funded policies and programs
- Number/percentage of taxpayers agreeing with taxes being used to support public provision of services (e.g., stratified by household income)
EVIDENCE-BASED STRATEGY
Government units and organizations use a mixed approach of targeted and universal strategies (proportionate universalism or targeted within universal) for fair distribution of benefits across the socioeconomic gradient, according to population needs.
SAMPLE INDICATORS
- Number of policies and programs referring to inclusion as part of their mission and/or goals
- Proportion of policies and programs outlining plans to address the structural causes of financial strain and poor financial wellbeing
- Proportion of policies and programs focused on redressing concentrations of power and resources
EVIDENCE-BASED STRATEGY
Government units and organizations increase benefits through the socioeconomic gradient so that they are proportionate to the level of disadvantage (i.e., proportionate universalism approach).
SAMPLE INDICATORS
- Number/percentage of people receiving income from social welfare programs (e.g., stratified by total household income categories)
- Poverty levels (e.g., stratified by total household income categories)
- Trends in socioeconomic inequalities
EVIDENCE-BASED STRATEGY
Government units and organizations provide additional benefits to people experiencing more disadvantage (i.e., targeted within universal approach).
SAMPLE INDICATORS
- Changes in the number/percentage of recipients living below poverty line
- Percentage point decreases in poverty for program recipients
- Social welfare earnings (e.g., among the most disadvantaged groups)
- Share of people receiving more than half of their income from social welfare programs (e.g., stratified by total household income categories)