The Puente Program, a bridge between the family and its rights Panel 1 – Modernizing social assistance to promote social inclusion World Conference - Social protection and inclusion: converging efforts from a global perpective. Lisboa, Portugal – 2 & 3 October of 2006 Fernando Ossandón C. Head of Communications, representing Cecilia Pérez Díaz Excecutive Director Solidarity and Social Investment Fund – FOSIS (Chile)

The Problem  Overcoming extreme poverty is a question of dignity.  Why has the reduction of extreme poverty stagnated? Social benefits intended for the indigent have been used by others. It is not easy to deal with Hard Poverty.  The State itself should deal with the problem, by building an adequate model of social intervention.

The Task Objective “to overcome the situation of extreme poverty in which 259,398 indigent families live.” “that at least 70% of the participating families, at the end of the intervention, are families with mutual support practices, who are integrated into their local environment, who make use of the social benefits intended for the poorest upon demand, who are linked to the existing social networks and have an autonomous economic income above the line of extreme-poverty” Result

Guaranteed Social Protection for 5 Years Commitment to participate Continuity Voucher Guaranteed Subsidies Student Retention SAPPASISSUF Protection Voucher psychosocial sprt. Preferential access to social promotion programs Families in Extreme Poverty Families autonomously using the network of social services available

1.The government “goes to” the people, where they live and feel comfortable. 2.Social intervention seeks to be integrated and holistic, and is designed around 53 minimum social rights. 3.The focus of the intervention is: the family, and within it, the woman. Each family receives personalized accompaniment. “A bridge between families and their rights”

4.¿What are the elements that provoke “a bridge for change”? Subjective conditions. Access to resources and networks. Personal and family projections for the future. As a result, conversations change within the families as well as with the public agencies. 5.Joint effort: Central government (FOSIS), along with local government (municipality) + a social public (and private) network.

6.Family participation is always on a volunteer basis. 7.Co-responsibility. 8.Standardized device for conversations. 9. On-line control, capacity-building and training.

Criticism  The program design incorporates elements that the State was not prepared to deal with.  What happens to those citizens who received subsidies or support, and now are not eligible to receive them, because they are not the poorest?  The risk of politicization and patronage.  The Program could do more to build social capital.

Tensions  From assistentialism to promotion.  From sectorial to integrated work.  From the Counselor who “knows everything” to the Counselor who seeks key information & opportunities.  From individualized social protection, to a guaranteed minimum social right system.

Challenges for 2010  Social rights must be guaranteed, not only provided as a response to the pressure of group demands.  More extensive, now seeking to include: homeless persons, senior citizens who live alone, children up to 10 years of age, and increasing worker¨s social guarantees.  Families must be more linked to their communities and social environment, including citizenship and civic participation. To consolidate a social protection system founded upon rights, means:

Thank you for your attention!