CHILE SOLIDARIO

Universidad Alberto Hurgado

Third Meeting of the Social Policy Monitoring NetworkBuenos Aires, Argentina

CHILE SOLIDARIO

CHILE SOLIDARIOMarcela C. PerticaraAssistant Professor

Programa Ilades / Georgetown UniversityUniversidad Alberto Hurtado



CHILE SOLIDARIO

Poverty in Chile

• Some Statistics, 2003– 4.7% below indigence line (728,100)– 14.1% below poverty line (2.179.600)– Persistence of the extreme poverty– Rural poverty: 6.2% / 20.1%– Subsidies: 17.6% of the monetary subsides go

households with pc income above the median



CHILE SOLIDARIO

Social Policy in Chile

• Why has been difficult to address exclusion in Chile?(1) inefficient use of available information

(2) weakness of the targeting instrument

(3) multiple programs

(1) + (2) + (3) = insufficient coordination + bureaucracy



CHILE SOLIDARIO


• Multiple Programs– 225 social programs identified in Chile (2003)– Very specialized– They partially respond to different needs– Depend on different public offices at different

levels



CHILE SOLIDARIO


• Instrument for targeting: Proxy Mean Test• Population covered: 7 M. (45%); 341 municipalities

• Programs: 750 U$ Millions (2002-2003)

• Leakages from targeted programs to the non-poor



CHILE SOLIDARIO


• Leakages • Family allowances beneficiaries: 66 percent are poor• Non-contributory pensions: 54 percent are in the

lowest quintile• Data is not updated often enough• Ficha CAS misses some poor people = homeless• Data is not cross-checked with other sources of

information



CHILE SOLIDARIO


• Gaps in monitoring and evaluation of social programs and policies



CHILE SOLIDARIO

Chile Solidario

• Reach poorest households in the country– not targeted through the existing instruments– focus on families– integrate existing social services and cash

transfers, create new ones– reduce bureaucracy => intermediaries between

providers and beneficiaries



CHILE SOLIDARIO

Critical Issues

• As any reform, they have been some resistance from public/private institutions to accept the initiative– Agreements between MIDEPLAN and public

institutions– consultations with civil society organizations

and municipalities



CHILE SOLIDARIO

Critical Issues

• Ability of the poxy mean test to target the extremely poor population – some families have not been surveyed– disagreement about the cut-off points and

minimum conditions set to select participants– Modifications to the Ficha CAS



CHILE SOLIDARIO

Critical Issues

• Instruments used by social workers were inappropriate in some settings

• Need to promote links between the program and existing social networks in the community– Families will need the support of social

networks within the community



CHILE SOLIDARIO

Critical Issues

• Complex setting: strong participation of local level, but a lot of decisions taken at the center

• Potential problems in the flow of information and policy directions from the center to the local level

• Problems of politic “clientelismo”?



CHILE SOLIDARIO

Critical Issues

• Concern about the long-term sustainability of the Program– Families need to secure a stable source of

income

• Effective implementation of Chile Solidario will require a strong monitoring and evaluation system



CHILE SOLIDARIO

Evaluation

• Impact evaluation / Monitoring– Final Objectives

• Reduce extreme poverty in the country

• Raise the quality of life and welfare of indigent families

• Raise the level of income of indigent families



CHILE SOLIDARIO

Evaluation

• Impact evaluation / Monitoring– Intermediate Objective

• Raise human/social capital of families

• Raise economic/ social capacities of families

• Raise school retention rates and school completion rates

• Raise access of indigent families to social/productive programs



CHILE SOLIDARIO

Evaluation

• Impact evaluation / Monitoring– Output

• number of family protection bonds issued

• the preferential access to monetary subsidies

• preferential access to social promotion programs

• technical quality of the goods and services delivered would be monitored



CHILE SOLIDARIO

Impact Evaluation

• Agreed between WB and MIDEPLAN

• Strategy• Main household survey instrument in Chile

(CASEN) was carried out in November 2003

• Questions added to the survey– identify families who have completed the proxy means

instrument survey

– participating in Chile Solidario



CHILE SOLIDARIO

Impact Evaluation

• Strategy• Identify a sub-sample of Chile Solidario families

and know when they began their participation

• Identify a sub-sample of non-participating families who could serve as a control group

• Apply the same survey instrument in 2004 and 2005 to both samples, with the addition of some retrospective questions in 2004



CHILE SOLIDARIO

Impact Evaluation

• Strategy• In 2006, the full CASEN would be implemented

again– that would provide the data needed for the final impact

evaluation

• The sample of families and controls (averaging 15,000 per year) would be representative at the regional level



CHILE SOLIDARIO

Impact Evaluation

• Strategy-Control Group• The control group would be chosen among the

following:(1) Families close in the proxy means instrument score (and

within the same region), relative to current Chile Solidario participants

(2) Families who would enter Chile Solidario in the future (entering in 2004, 2005, 2006)

Will these work??



CHILE SOLIDARIO

Evaluation/Monitoring

• complementary studies over beneficiaries• understand processes that influence the impact of

the intervention/dynamics o f poverty

• study vulnerability o f the families in extreme poverty in the face of shocks

• asses differences in impacts between the waves of entering families

• study impact on specific groups



CHILE SOLIDARIO

Evaluation/Monitoring

• Examine changes in the way public and private services are managed at the local level



CHILE SOLIDARIO

What have been done...

• Asesorías para el Desarrollo - 2002– Evaluate implementation of the Program

• Analysis of available secondary information

• Interviews authorities, technical teams and local authorities

– Four Municipalities in the metropolitan region



CHILE SOLIDARIO


• Asesorías para el Desarrollo– Good

• Information flow to families about subsidies, income sources, education, emergency employment programs

– Bad• Potential existence of paternalistic relationships



CHILE SOLIDARIO


• Asesorías para el Desarrollo– Bad

• Families does not feel motivated to form a social network

• Two-year assistance might not be enough to break the poverty trap



CHILE SOLIDARIO


• CEPAL: Programa Puente– Study operational results of Programa Puente

during 2002– Methodology: cost-impact analysis– Information

• Secondary information + survey social workers (response rate 28.6%) + survey families (random stratified sample, selected regions)



CHILE SOLIDARIO


• CEPAL: Programa Puente• Good coverage but heterogeneous

• Focalization: 2.7% of the families in the program are not part of the targeted population

• It requires at least 12 extra months to conduct the whole program

• Family support activities: productivity of social workers have increased



CHILE SOLIDARIO


• CEPAL: Programa Puente• 17.5% of the minimum standards were achieved• 1.7% of the families achieved the minimum standard “to

have income above the Indigence Line”.– Great influence of the socioeconomic context over the program

results

• 97% of Beneficiaries is satisfied with the Program• 94% think the Program has help them solve important

problems



CHILE SOLIDARIO


• CEPAL: Programa Puente• 95% think that thanks to the Program they now

know better how to solve their problems



CHILE SOLIDARIO


• Universidad de Chile– First Semester 2004– Evaluation Programa Puente– Results

– 94.8% of the participants consider the minimum conditions and goals set by the program to be relevant to their lives



CHILE SOLIDARIO


• Universidad de Chile-Results– 94.8% of the participants consider the minimum

conditions and goals set by the program to be relevant to their lives

– 93.6% agreed that the most important thing about the program goals is that they themselves are the ones responsible for bringing about the changes in their lives.

– 94.5% stated that the program helped them to gain a greater sense of self-worth.



CHILE SOLIDARIO


• Universidad de Chile-Results– 92.7% agreed that their family support counselor helped

them to face their problems and provided them with encouragement.

– 91.5% believed that they would be able to continue using what they’ve learned to improve their lives once the family counselor is no longer working with them.

– 72.8% stated that since the Chile Solidario System was implemented, they have been better attended at public offices and agencies.



CHILE SOLIDARIO


• Universidad de Chile-Results– 74.8% believe that when the Programa Puente and the

Chile Solidario System conclude, they won’t return to the place that they started from

Documents

CHILE SOLIDARIO