B. Diversity in co-responsibility transfer programmes
3. Programme coordination systems or networks
with conditionalities
While the third type of CTP could be considered an extension of the previous two —a kind of “third-generation” CTP— it takes a qualitatively different approach to the needs of poor and vulnerable sectors of the population and the benefits required to support them, in addition to serving as a means for uniting and channelling a set of existing benefits and entitlements. Rather than a CTP per se, it is more a coordination structure designed to ensure or guarantee access to the benefits offered by various specific programmes and so create a minimum level of social inclusion. This classification is modelled on the Solidarity Chile programme, although Colombia’s Juntos network for overcoming extreme poverty (Juntos Network) is similar.
The rationale behind such systems is that social vulnerabilities stem not only from lack of income or access to specific social services, but also from a host of psychosocial, cultural, economic, geographical
and other factors.21 A combination and accumulation of such factors
results in situations of social exclusion and rights violations that are hard to administer for a public policy accustomed to operating on a “waiting list” basis, where families with the most information about public benefits and entitlements end up being first in line to receive them. The rationale behind type-3 CTPs is that public provision should approach families and not vice versa, as part of a coordinated and proactive system. This also provides a means for resolving programme and institutional fragmentation and laying the foundations for cross- sector intervention via a single entry point to all social programmes and services. This is done by implementing a “one-stop shop” for
20 Younger, Ponce and Hidalgo (2008) compared the different assessments of Progresa and
Oportunidades in terms of nutritional outcomes and found that changing information sources and the year in which measurements were made, as well as the methods and techniques used, could alter the results radically. Veras Soares, Perez Ribas and Issamu Hirata (2008) also address the conflicting aspects of impact assessments, stating that, given the diversity of results and methods used, it is not possible to make conclusive assertions. 21 For example, a combination of such factors as living in a slum or rural area and suffering
from malnutrition, poor health and education, problems in securing formal employment, low income and poor self-esteem leads to situations of exclusion, with a high likelihood of remaining in extreme poverty.
care, which, in the case of Solidarity Chile, is embodied by its family support counsellors (apoyos familiares) (Raczynsky, 2008), that is to say, professionals who work on psychosocial aspects aimed at promoting and facilitating a match between supply and demand for social services and enhancing family dynamics. Through its strategy of caring for families and boosting their access to a range of social benefits, Solidarity Chile aims to promote improvements in areas considered crucial to enabling people to escape from marginalization and to establish a minimum level of social inclusion (see annex II.3).
Type-3 CTPs rely on the existence of a fairly extended network of social programmes and services, which must be of proven quality and effectiveness and constantly evaluated to meet the proposed objectives. That is why the requirements in terms of service provision are perhaps the strictest of all three types of CTP, with not only high-quality services available but also a widely varied programme offering (see diagram III.5).
Diagram III.5
TYPE-3 CO-RESPONSIBILITY TRANSFER PROGRAMMES: PROGRAMME COORDINATION SYSTEMS OR NETWORKS WITH CONDITIONALITIES
Problems Beneficiaries Objectives Importance of supply Infringement of economic, social and cultural rights Social exclusion Very high (availability + quality + variety) Multiple vulnerabilities Invisible to public providers Guarantee minimum levels (dimensions) Integrate public policy channels
Source: Prepared by the authors.
Experience with Solidarity Chile has shown that local service networks are not always able to meet the user expectations raised by family support counsellors or the system’s quality standards (MIDEPLAN, 2009a; 2009b). The problems of matching supply to users’ specific requirements and the expectations raised in them during the support period can lead to frustration and regression in the psychosocial work
achieved by family support counsellors (Nun and Trucco, 2008). For example, job requirements for the positions offered through Municipal “Labour-market intermediation” Offices (OMIL) were observed to be far in excess of the experience and educational level of members of
Puente programme beneficiary families (Rangel, 2005). Failure to meet
beneficiaries’ expectations and their resulting disappointment can compound emotional problems and prompt programme participants to abandon work (MIDEPLAN, 2009b).
(a) Operating rationale
While, at first sight, such plans might not resemble co-responsibility transfer programmes, in a number of ways they share the basic structure common to all CTPs. First, they incorporate cash transfers, even though the amounts may be low, not to say, insignificant, intended only to reduce the transaction costs of entering the other social programmes to which the system provides access. This applies to the Solidarity Chile programme’s “protection bonus” and “exit bonus” transfers. A second aim of type-3 CTPs is to link beneficiaries with other non-contributory social protection programmes fulfilling a specific income transfer function, such as social grants or pensions. For example, Colombia’s Families in Action programme represents the income transfer component of a wider system of interventions: the Juntos network. In Solidarity Chile, the Single Family Subsidy (SUF) plays a similar income-transfer role. Both incorporate conditionalities for the use of education and health services.
Thus, type-3 CTPs include the conditionality concept, albeit to a limited extent, in that families must meet certain basic minimum social standards. In such cases, the conditions to be met by each family are variable and fairly flexible and are established in line with the specific
work that families carry out in conjunction with support counsellors.22
In Solidarity Chile, for example, the “protection bonus” provided during the support period requires the family to have worked, during the current month, on at least one of the seven dimensions considered important for improving their living conditions. However, given the programme characteristics and intervention dynamics, it seems reasonable, in practice, for delivery of the protection bonus not to be linked directly to compliance or non-compliance with minimum standards, but rather to the effort made by each family to comply with them, as perceived by their family support counsellor. By contrast, the “exit bonus” is granted to all families who
22 The flexibility comes not from the definition of dimensions on which to work but rather from allowing families to rank their own order of needs and from their contracts for compliance with minimum standards. Another element of flexibility is the possibility of gearing the supply of services and programmes to the specific realities of these families (see Nun and Trucco (2008) for the case of Chile).
succeed in meeting the minimum standards established upon completion of the support process. This cash benefit and the other grants to which beneficiary families are entitled continue to be paid on a monthly basis for three years following completion of the psychosocial counselling period, with no other conditionalities.
In type-3 CTPs, cash transfers and conditionalities therefore play a secondary role, with primary importance accorded to providing families with psychosocial guidance and support (see diagram III.6). In Solidarity Chile’s Puente Programme the basic objective of family support counsellors is to carry out psychosocial work with beneficiary households and support them over a 24-month period. During this time, families are asked to commit to improving certain aspects of their quality of life considered to be minimum social standards in terms of rights of
citizenship.23 This requires the family support counsellor to facilitate the
linkage of households with public sector networks of social programmes and services and to ensure that they have access to the various benefits on offer. The ultimate aim of the support activities is to prepare for the family’s gradual exit from the programme. As the family meets the successive objectives of the various dimensions, visits from the family support counsellor gradually diminish in frequency, while the transfer amount (protection bonus) shrinks. As a coordinating unit, the Solidarity Chile system is responsible for ensuring that supply meets incremental demand, managing inter-agency agreements and administering the transfer of funds.
The “social administrators” in Colombia’s Juntos Network play a similar role in focusing public provision of social programmes and
services around families and work in order to attain certain basic goals.24
In its coordinating role, the Juntos Network does two things. First, it sets a baseline for identifying family demand for services and programmes in order to meet minimum social standards. Second, it administers the necessary supply and coordinates the different sectors in order to ensure that beneficiaries have access to the various services and programmes, while increasing municipal institutional capacity and supply.
23 These are 53 aspects grouped into 7 dimensions forming the basis of the programme’s poverty reduction goal. These aspects are addressed jointly by the family support counsellor and individual households in line with each household’s priorities, capabilities and needs (see annex III.3).
24 The dimensions tend to coincide with those of Solidarity Chile, except for the addition of “insurance and banking” and “legal support”. Even though these two are not among the dimensions required to meet the minimum standards of the Puente programme, Solidarity Chile allows linkages with public programmes that do address these considerations, such as access to the Support for Entrepreneurship programmes of the Solidarity and Social Investment Fund (FOSIS) and the legal aid corporations of the Ministry of Justice.
Diagram III.6
TYPE-3 CO-RESPONSIBILITY TRANSFER PROGRAMMES: OPERATING RATIONALE Used to cover linkage costs Secondary role Negotiated co-responsibilities (family commitment)
Agreed upon with psychosocial support Improvement of the dimensions where the CTP operates Multidimensional poverty indices
Cash transfer Conditions outcomesExpected
Source: Prepared by the authors.
Several CTPs in the region have incorporated the family guidance and support component for a variety of reasons. In Panama’s Opportunities Network it is used to inform beneficiaries about programme characteristics and the transfers and services to which they are entitled, as well as to facilitate compliance with conditionalities. In practice, its family liaison officers (enlaces familiares) have been used as a social auditing instrument, as well as to provide feedback to the programme on the beneficiaries’ conditions and unmet needs (MIDES, 2008; Rodríguez, 2010).
In Paraguay’s Tekoporâ programme, family support counsellors are required to achieve a range of objectives, from informing and training families in various human capital areas (including education, nutrition and sanitation) and in family dynamics (domestic violence and alcoholism) to evaluating compliance with health and education conditionalities. They must also devote much of their time to discussing with families strategies for boosting both household and community productive capital (Veras Soares and Britto, 2008). Assessments suggest that, even though the family support component is considered a key element in the programme’s operation, lack of infrastructure and resources are obstacles that constrain its response capacity (Veras Soares and Britto, 2008). However, it is acknowledged that incorporating and coordinating social protection, social promotion and economic inclusion activities into a single programme is no easy matter (Veras Soares and Britto, 2008). Another Paraguayan programme, Abrazo, is a special form of CTP that includes the family support component. Abrazo focuses its intervention on reducing
child labour by targeting family dynamics, in particular by encouraging the restoration of family ties and ensuring that fathers and mothers take more responsibility in their respective roles and participate in the process set in motion when a child returns to education. This intervention entails regular family visits, case tracking and training workshops (SAS/ILO, 2007a). Finally, El Salvador’s Solidarity in Communities programme includes non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for family support and follow-up, which are responsible for verifying the conditionalities of beneficiary families and, in so doing, act as the link between families and service provision. NGOs work with families to identify the causes of non- compliance. They are also active in promoting community participation and organization by means of training seminars.
(b) Expected outcomes
The impact of type-3 CTPs should be analysed on the basis of variations in the specific indicators of each dimension, addressed via the concept of “minimum social standards” (including identification, nutrition, health, education and housing), as well as via indices that integrate different aspects of poverty.
The outcomes to be expected from type-3 CTPs are evident from the experience of Solidarity Chile. An assessment of the first cohorts to enter the programme in the period 2002-2005 reveals that, by the time they exited, half the families had met all the minimum conditions, while 85% had managed to comply with at least 50 of the 53 conditions (Larrañaga and Contreras, 2010). Other quantitative assessments of the programme indicate that it took some years before improvements were observed in the various areas —especially employment, incomes and poverty— which is consistent with the programme’s long-term approach (Galasso, Carneiro and Ginja, 2007). However, there was a tendency for these improvements to diminish or disappear altogether when compared with a control group (Larrañaga, Contreras and Ruiz-Tagle, 2009), raising doubts about the programme’s effectiveness. Two of the possible explanations put forward are that Chile’s general context of economic growth during the programme start-up period enabled non-participant families to achieve similar improvements in their living standards (Galasso, Carneiro and Ginja, 2007), or that the improved overall provision of public services as a result of introducing the programme had a positive spillover effect onto non-beneficiary families (Larrañaga, Contreras and Ruiz Tagle, 2009; Lehmann, 2009).
From another standpoint, the qualitative assessments have provided important insights into the development of the Solidarity Chile intervention process. Assessments reveal that Puente programme family support is considered to be the most successful component of Solidarity Chile, especially in improving beneficiaries’ quality of life by
meeting minimum social standards (Nun and Trucco, 2008; MIDEPLAN, 2009b). In addition, benefits from the psychosocial work emerge in the space of reflection opened up in families and act as a catalyst for their own self-development initiatives (Nun and Trucco, 2008; MIDEPLAN, 2009b). However, there are still some problems with the Solidarity Chile intervention model, such as the need for minimum social standards to be considered from a perspective that takes explicit account of the interdependence of achievements in the various dimensions and the flexibility and adaptability of the minimum conditions. Even though multidimensionality is a pillar of the Solidarity Chile intervention, the method used by support counsellors to address compliance with minimum social standards has tended to focus on individual dimensions, to the detriment of improving them across the board (Nun and Trucco, 2008). As the everyday reality of families is sometimes far removed from the rigid minimum social standards that they must meet, the standards should be made more flexible.
It is also important to highlight the family support counsellor’s role in sustaining improvements in households’ quality of life, as well as in conveying the programme’ social promotion objectives correctly, to prevent families from interpreting them as welfarist or paternalistic (MIDEPLAN, 2009a). Improvements in dimensions such as employment and housing have been found to be concentrated in the family-support period and to decline in subsequent years (Larrañaga, Contreras and Ruiz-Tagle, 2009; MIDEPLAN, 2009b). Problems have also emerged with the sustainability of the link between beneficiaries and the provision of public programmes and services once the family support counsellor’s intervention is complete (MIDEPLAN, 2009a). The way in which family support counsellors appropriate the programme’s guiding principles is therefore crucial in ensuring sustainable outcomes (MIDEPLAN, 2009a; 2009b; Nun and Trucco, 2008) —a concern that extends to the other actors involved in providing services to programme beneficiary families (Arriagada and Mathivet, 2007; MIDEPLAN, 2009a; 2009b).
Follow-up of families that have exited the Puente programme shows those that were in a better situation at the start of the intervention, in terms of both socio-economic vulnerability and family dynamics, experience the most positive outcomes in terms of successful completion of the support period (MIDEPLAN, 2009b). By contrast, families that were in a worse situation at the outset tend to have difficulties in meeting the minimum standards or simply abandon the programme before the end of the support period (Nun and Trucco, 2008). A large proportion of the latter consist of single-parent households headed by women or poorly educated young people (MIDEPLAN, 2009b) or families with domestic violence, alcoholism or substance abuse issues (MIDEPLAN, 2009b).
Finally, adverse effects on social capital have been reported, owing to lack of community-level interventions (Nun and Trucco, 2008). To overcome this and help to foster collaboration and collective decision- making, Colombia’s Juntos Network has incorporated a “community support” phase into its psychosocial support component, consisting of organizing meetings between beneficiary families to enable them to share experiences and learning relating to their family work plans.
Chapter IV
Towards a comprehensive social
protection system
Previous chapters have discussed a number of issues relating to the development of social protection in Latin America, including the various conceptual approaches and frameworks that have shaped it in recent decades, existing proposals for consolidating broader access to social protection instruments and some of the main initiatives and policies that countries have designed and implemented in the area of social protection. This chapter explores the components, scope and prospects for building comprehensive social protection schemes in the region, identifying their role within the wider set of social policies. After presenting the social protection components guided by this approach, this chapter goes on to review some of the central tenets underpinning social protection management and implementation, bringing to light a number of challenges and unresolved issues.