Income Support and Employability Project in El Salvador

1. El Salvador:
Income Support and Employability
Project (PATI)

2. Context: FFF Crisis
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
I
2008
II
2008
III
2008
IV
2008
I
2009
II
2009
III
2009
IV
2009
I
2010
II
2010
III
2010
Annual%Change
GDP: 2008-2010
Total GDP Manufacturing GDP
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009PovertyHeadcountRation(%)
Total Urban Rural

3. 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

4. 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.

5. Community Projects and Training
6-month community project 90 hours of technical training + 16 of
labor market orientation
+

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 12
Working towards local productivity…..
MORE THAN JUST A PROGRAM FOR URBAN UNITED COMMUNITIES