View
216
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Context: FFF Crisis
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
I2008
II2008
III2008
IV2008
I2009
II2009
III2009
IV2009
I2010
II2010
III2010
Annu
al %
Cha
nge
GDP: 2008-2010
Total GDP Manufacturing GDP
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009P
ov
ert
y H
ea
dco
un
t R
ati
on
(%
)
Total Urban Rural
Government Response • Government set up in 2009 its Global Anti-Crisis and
Five-Year Plan to help lower-income citizens in vulnerable areas.
• It also set the basis for a Universal Social Protection
System, with its core strategy “Comunidades Solidarias” in both rural (CCTs, social pension, access to services) and urban areas (slum upgrading, scholarships, PATI).
• Within this context, the Temporary Income Support Program – PATI (in Spanish) was designed as one of the temporary response to reduce the impact the economic crisis on urban Salvadoran families.
3
The PATI Project Innovative program designed by the Salvadoran Government to respond to the FFF crisis.
– Core objective: – Program aims to guarantee a minimum level of income support to vulnerable
individuals… – … as well as to enhance beneficiaries’ employability by providing them with labor
market experience and a technical and life skills training component. – Characteristics:
– Beneficiaries work on projects identified and managed by local communities. – Benefit: $100 a month during 6 months, 80 hours of training.
– Targeting:
– Most vulnerable and violent urban settlements in 36 municipalities. – Unemployed individuals. – Prioritizing young people and female household heads.
Community Projects and Training
6-month community project 90 hours of technical training + 16 of labor market orientation
+
Targeting Geographic Targeting: Urban Poverty and Social Exclusion Map Aspects considered: • Employability levels of each
household’s economically active members.
• Educational levels. • Access to social basic State
services. Settlements (AUPs) are classified into precarious status (PATI only applies to severe and high poor) Individual Targeting: Self-Selection + Prioritization formula (female HH head, low-skilled unemployed youth, etc)
,6
Decentralized structure: • Social Development Fund is main executing agency • Municipalities and Municipal Committees are strategic partners in
the territory: – Formulate projects – Coordinate local dissemination in urban settlements – Support registration and validation of participants – Manage and provide counterpart funding for the implementation of
community projects.
Training component: • Training provided by national public training institution:
– Ample experience in technical training; funding guaranteed (payroll taxes) – First time working in these communities/participant profiles – Opportunity to better link with local employment opportunities, and
evaluation of training performance
7
Key factors for implementation
Program has reached 35,000 beneficiaries (of 56,000 by end of 2014): • From 17% of households in targeted urban settlements • 37% of young people between 16-24. • 73% of women. • 35% of female household heads. • 62% of those enrolled have never worked before (only 7%
were unemployed) • 9% victim of violence/assault in the previous 6 months. • 91% of the initial registered participants finalized the
program. .
8
Program as of today
Program has reached 35,000 beneficiaries (of 56,000 by end of 2014): • From 17% of households in targeted urban settlements • 37% of young people between 16-24. • 73% of women. • 35% of female household heads. • 62% of those enrolled have never worked before (only 7%
were unemployed) • 9% victim of violence/assault in the previous 6 months. • 91% of the initial registered participants finalized the
program. .
9
Program as of today
MDTF Support: Evaluating PATI’s effectiveness
• With MDTF support, an Impact Evaluation (IE) has been designed to rigorously assess the impact of the program on beneficiaries income and employability.
• MDTF was used to: – Develop the design of the prospective impact evaluation and oversee
the implementation of its first phase. – Produce a report to analyze the targeting effectiveness of the program – Supervise data collection – Build capacity in the area of monitoring and evaluation, jump-starting
national M&E institutions
Evaluation Status • March 2010: Delivery of National Impact Evaluation Training Event (attended by 75
policy-makers, academics and think thank staff) • January 2011: hiring of local think-thank (FUSADES) to design evaluation and
oversee implementation of activities. • May 2011: approval of final design and implementation plan by Government • November-December 2011: Baseline data collection (for project 2nd round) • June 2012: Delivery of report on targeting effectiveness • July-November 2012: First follow-up data collection (short-term impacts) • May 2013 (expected): Report on short-term impact evaluation results and
in-country dissemination • July-November 2013 (expected): Second follow-up data collection (medium-term
impacts) • March 2014 (expected): Report on medium-term impact evaluation results and in
country-dissemination
Recommended