CHILE SOLIDARIO Marcela C. Perticara Assistant Professor Programa Ilades / Georgetown University Universidad Alberto Hurtado

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

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

Social Policy in Chile 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

Social Policy in Chile 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

Social Policy in Chile 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

Social Policy in Chile Gaps in monitoring and evaluation of social programs and policies

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

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

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

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

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”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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??

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

Evaluation/Monitoring Examine changes in the way public and private services are managed at the local level

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

What have been done... Asesorías para el Desarrollo Good Bad Information flow to families about subsidies, income sources, education, emergency employment programs Bad Potential existence of paternalistic relationships

What have been done... 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

What have been done... 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)

What have been done... 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

What have been done... 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

What have been done... CEPAL: Programa Puente 95% think that thanks to the Program they now know better how to solve their problems

What have been done... 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

What have been done... 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.

What have been done... 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.

What have been done... 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