Adaptive Safety Nets: How the World Bank Supports Crisis-Ready Social Protection

As global crises grow in intensity and frequency, from pandemics to climate disasters, the role of social protection systems has never been more vital. An independent evaluation released in July 2025 by the World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) takes stock of how the institution has helped countries build adaptive social protection (ASP) systems from 2012 to 2022. ASP, in essence, is about making social safety nets not just reactive but flexible, scalable, and ready for future shocks.

Covering 202 operations in 67 high-risk countries, the evaluation found that the World Bank has been a conceptual pioneer in the ASP field. It developed key frameworks and diagnostic tools like the social protection stress test, supported knowledge sharing through initiatives like the Sahel Adaptive Social Protection Program (SASPP), and expanded financing significantly, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, while the Bank successfully embedded adaptive features into foundational systems, many countries struggled to deliver timely and adequate support to those hit hardest by crises.

A Global Surge in Financing and Knowledge

During the review period, the World Bank committed over $53 billion to projects with social protection elements. This included a major push into fragile, conflict-affected, and low-income countries. As the evaluation noted, the Bank's ASP strategy involved three critical pillars: expanding social assistance coverage, strengthening data and delivery systems, and ensuring that financing was available during crises.

The Bank’s conceptual ASP framework, organized around four building blocks: programs, data, finance, and institutional coordination, gained wide acceptance among development partners and governments. It produced 155 advisory activities in 44 countries, facilitated cross-border learning, and applied the stress test tool in over 40 national systems.

Despite this, only about one-third of countries received assistance for predictable financing mechanisms such as contingency funds or insurance instruments. Moreover, while 75% of projects targeted women as beneficiaries, only 6% included transformative gender measures that tackled deeper inequalities. Projects often lacked tailored, local analysis of how shocks affected women differently.

When Crises Strike: Gaps Between Design and Delivery

All eleven case study countries examined, ranging from Colombia and Lebanon to Mozambique and Pakistan, expanded their social protection systems at least once in response to a shock. Most notably, during the COVID-19 pandemic, countries used vertical expansions (boosting benefits for existing recipients) effectively and relatively quickly. In contrast, horizontal expansions, reaching new beneficiaries, remained a serious weakness.

The data revealed sobering statistics: only 10% of crisis-affected people in Lebanon received support; the Philippines managed just 11% coverage after Typhoon Haiyan; and in flood-ravaged Pakistan, a mere 8% of displaced households benefited from government programs. Even in the Dominican Republic, just under 8% of people affected by Hurricane Fiona were reached.

Why the shortfall? The culprits were consistent across countries: outdated or incomplete social registries, a lack of interoperability between data systems, funding bottlenecks, and delays in contracting financial service providers. Many countries were unable to target new beneficiaries quickly or at scale, often defaulting to manual processes or inefficient in-kind aid distribution.

Instruments That Work, But Don’t Always Reach the People

One area of success highlighted in the report was the use of contingent financing tools like the Catastrophe Deferred Drawdown Option (CAT DDO) and Contingent Emergency Response Components. These instruments enabled rapid disbursement of funds, especially during the pandemic. In the Dominican Republic, for instance, support payments were disbursed just 15–19 days after a state of emergency was declared, thanks to strong institutional readiness and early engagement by the World Bank.

However, these financial tools often failed to translate into timely payments to actual beneficiaries. In Pakistan and Mozambique, for example, bureaucratic hurdles and logistical delays meant that even after funds were available, disbursements took months, or even years, to reach affected households. In Ethiopia, only 9% of routine safety net payments were made on time, a delay that further hampered any emergency response.

Measurement was another blind spot. Only 14% of projects monitored coverage relative to needs, and few tracked outcomes such as timeliness, benefit adequacy, or targeting accuracy. While many projects measured reach (number of beneficiaries), this metric alone failed to capture effectiveness during shocks.

The Road Ahead: Three Strategic Imperatives

The evaluation offers three clear recommendations for future action. First, the World Bank should continue investing in system-building, with a focus on dual-use infrastructure, particularly data systems, early-warning linkages, and pre-arranged financing. Expanding social registries and connecting them to disaster triggers will be key.

Second, the Bank must enhance coordination, internally across sectors like disaster risk management, and externally with humanitarian agencies and national governments. Institutional fragmentation and weak collaboration were major barriers in many countries.

Third, the World Bank and its partners must improve measurement and accountability. This includes setting realistic performance benchmarks for coverage, timeliness, and adequacy, and conducting dynamic stress testing to assess progress over time.

World Bank management welcomed these recommendations, pointing to ongoing reforms and collaborations such as the Real-Time Monitoring program and the use of high-frequency household surveys. The Board’s Development Committee emphasized the need to integrate gender, climate, and institutional resilience more deeply into future strategies.

While the World Bank has successfully placed adaptive social protection on the global development agenda, its implementation across diverse country contexts remains uneven. To turn bold commitments into real impact, future efforts must bridge the gap between financial mobilization and the actual delivery of life-saving support, when and where it matters most.