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

2. Poverty in Chile Some Statistics, 2003
4.7% below indigence line (728,100)
14.1% below poverty line ( )
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

3. 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

4. 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

5. Social Policy in Chile Instrument for targeting: Proxy Mean Test
Population covered: 7 M. (45%); 341 municipalities
Programs: 750 U$ Millions ( )
Leakages from targeted programs to the non-poor

6. 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

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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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”?

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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 to both samples, with the addition of some retrospective questions in 2004

19. 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

20. 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??

21. 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

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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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)

27. 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

28. 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

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

30. 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

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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