1. Qualitative evaluation, Mexico’s CCT CLEAR Global Forum, Mexico City 2013

2. Mexico’s CCT in 2007 5 million households, 7 million scholarships Children who started in 3rd grade are 20 years old Becoming adults: education, labor, family formation

3. Main goals Differential impact: indigenous vs. Non-indigenous Long term (10 years) allows potentially large differences between those in program and those who never joined it Focus on children experiencing maximum exposure Assess services and possible discrimination Follow chain of service / command

4. Sampling technique 3 communities in each state 4 states Ethnic coexistence to control service quality 48 families in each state Track history in program Choose according to SE level IN 1997

5. Time 14 weeks in communities Long fieldwork allowed interviewing migrants returning for festivities or other events

6. Intermediate and final reports State monographs Temas: Health Education Targeting Impact

7. Impact on labor participation, 10 years on Methodological aspects Analytical sample consists of in-depth case studies of each household (182) and scholarship receiver Observe migrant and non-migrant performance (high-schooled leave) Thus, the most successful as well as those not moving. Without migrants, no evidence of impact.

8. Studying as main activity of youths Youths 15-25 Indigenous males: 26.6% (vs. 12.1% non- beneficiaries) Indigenous women: 28% (7.4) Non indigenous women: 32.7% (10.7%)

9. Differential occupational distribution Indigenous males beneficiaries 4.9% more /high stratum 25.8% more / medium 26.5% less / low Indigenous females, beneficiaries 10.5% more / high stratum 23.8% more / medium 34.3% less / low Non-indigenous male beneficiaries 8.3% less / high 6.2% more / medium 2% more / low Non-indigenous female beneficiaries 18.75% more / high 18.75% less / medium Low / no change

10. Education: differential impact (I) Higher level of supply (more schools) in Oaxaca and Chiapas strengthen impact Chihuahua and Sonora: highly dispersed population, lower impact

11. Education: differential impact (II) More impact in So states, especially among women and indigenous groups. Interethnic and gender gap seems to disappear Northern states: less impacts. Interethnic gap persists, but narrower.

12. Educational impact (791 individuals; 448 offspring 15-25) Difference in intergenerational schooling gap: Two years more schooling 2.9 more years among indigenous males (1 among non-indigenous) 3.4 years among indigenous women (-0.3 among non-indigenous women)

13. Education: Total impact? Many still in school, therefore impact not yet known 26.6% indigenous men 28% indigenous women 32.7% non-indigenous women Emigration itself should enhance their earning potential

14. Education: the problem with quality The CCT reduces schooling gaps, but huge differences remain in schooling quality. Particularly severe gaps between indigenous – non indigenous schools, and “telesecundarias” vs. Standard high schools.

15. Educational quality: a look at inside the schools (I) Problems:  Absent teachers  Programs not covered  Impossible to assess students according to national norms

16. Educational quality (II) Vivious circle reproduces schooling for indigenous children as a segregated system But even so it is not adapted to indigenous needs