TemporaryTemporary EmploymentEmployment ProgramsPrograms::
LessonsLessons LearnedLearned
ARGENTINA
1
Claudia Berra
ARGENTINA
1997‐2010
OutlineOutlineOutlineOutline
1. Context1. Context
2 Workfare Programs2. Workfare ProgramsTRABAJAR (To Work) 1997‐2001
Unemployed Heads of Household (Jefes) 2002 ‐2009p y ( )
3. Exit Strategy3. Exit Strategy
EvolutionEvolution of Keyof Key IndicatorsIndicatorsEvolutionEvolution of Key of Key IndicatorsIndicators
Trabajar
Jefes/Jefas
TRABAJAR TRABAJAR ProgramProgram 19971997--20012001
Objectives :
Cushion the drop in household income. Provide temporary workto unemployed workers.
Small public works of social value to help satisfy basic needs.
Trabajar Trabajar ‐‐ thethe WorkersWorkersjj
Target Populationa get opu at o Poor unemployed, over 18 years old; Low skilled; Not receiving unemployment insurance; other employment or Not receiving unemployment insurance; other employment or
training through the Ministry of Labor, or other safety net programs
Selection of Participants:Selection of Participants: Self‐targeting: willingness to work (6 hours/day) for
the benefits– Social contribution of US$160 y $200
(¾ of the mean salary of the poorest decile)– Covered by workers compensation for accidentsCovered by workers compensation for accidents– Health insurance provided by sub‐projects executors– Payments made directly to beneficiary via banks
TrabajarTrabajar –– thethe WorkersWorkersTrabajar Trabajar thethe WorkersWorkers
Trabajar concentrates benefits on thek d fi t i C d Location of Trabajar participants in the nationalpoor – program ranked first in Coady‐
Grosh‐ Hoddinott review of 122 programs in 48 countries
45%
50%
Location of Trabajar participants in the national distribution of household income percapita (1997
sample households )
But coverage low: – 700,000 jobs;
25%
30%
35%
40%
80% of workers are men Consistent with participation in these
professions in labor market 5%
10%
15%
20%
Net gain in income large: – Mean for all participants: 26%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deciles
– For those in poorest ventile: 75%
TrabajarTrabajar –– TheThe WorksWorksTrabajar Trabajar TheThe WorksWorks
Federal govt designs, supervises Number of approved projects by type of implementing agency Country total
closely Projects co‐executed with
municipalities and NGOs;
implementing agency. Country total. August 1998 –January 2002
p ;Monthly competitive approvals; Evaluation criteria:
U it t– Unit costs, – Social value of works, – Poverty of area,
C i f i i– Capacity of executing organizagencies to operate and maintainthe works.
Mean of 2 5 supervision visitsMean of 2.5 supervision visitsover life of project.
Trabajar: Trabajar: TargetingTargeting of of worksworksii ll ill i ff b db dviavia allocationallocation of of budgetbudget Resources assigned and monitored:
– Inter‐provincial: according to size of target population– Intra‐ provincial : according to basic needs index of each municipality
Criteria for prioritizing projects: Criteria for prioritizing projects:– Local poverty level; – Project type; – Coordination with other programs;Coordination with other programs;– Size of target population; – Unemployment rate
Requirement to pay for the materials waived for the poorest provinces
Poorest departments and municipalities receive 30% more than the less Poorest departments and municipalities receive 30% more than the lesspoor ones, i.e. $80 per person versus $50 per person.
w1
Slide 8
w1 If there is an Argentina case in the targeting session, then drop this here. If htere is not, then doe this in more detailwb17929, 6/8/2010
TrabajarTrabajar –– TheThe WorksWorksTrabajar Trabajar TheThe WorksWorks
Table with kind of projects Labor intensity: 60%Table with kind of projects Labor intensity: 60%
Average project size:
< US$100,000$ ,
Average number of workers: 20
Average duration of project: 4.5months
72% completed successfully 72% completed successfully
Trabajar:Trabajar: ReflectionsReflectionsTrabajar: Trabajar: ReflectionsReflections
StrengthsStrengths N ti l hi h i iblit
WeaknessesWeaknesses National coverage – high visiblity –
present in 85% of municipalities)
Good targeting, both of participants and of works
When the unemployment ratecontinued high, people neededcontinued support but employmentwas only temporaryparticipants and of works.
Coordination with other programs
Good monitoring and supervisionwith monthly indicators and agile
was only temporary
Municipalities began to run out of counterpart funds for materials.
with monthly indicators and agile management
Credible impact evaluation
A i t t hi h
When the crisis became sharpest, the program lowered coverage dueto fiscal constraints. Very low
Appropriate response to highunemployment rate
ycoverage from 1999.
JefesJefes ProgramProgram: 2002: 2002‐‐20092009Jefes Jefes ProgramProgram: 2002: 2002 20092009
Instituted under the ‘right of social inclusion’ in the national constitution
Requirements:
Be unemployed head of household with minor children
Obtain health and education for the children
Work in community services, or participate in education or training ( 4‐6 hrs/day)
Benefits.
Economic support : $150= U$50 + Seguro de salud (monthly)
$(In May 2002, labor earnings for full‐time workers in the poorest decile was $157 later the relative wage in Jefes fell by 20%)
Direct payments to beneficiaries via ATM cardp y
PublicPublic Works Works ProgramProgram ( Trabajar and ( Trabajar and othersothers; Jefes); Jefes)N bN b ff ti i tti i t bb dd ththNumberNumber of of participantsparticipants byby yearyear and and monthmonth
20 38 053
.116
2.250
2.500
Jefes budget peaks at 1% of
1.67
9 1.83
0
1.85
1 2.0 2 2.0 2.0 2
1.750
2.000
Jefes budget peaks at 1% of GDP in 2003, declines to0.5% in 2006
1.22
9
1.10
4
1.000
1.250
1.500
0 339500
750
20
180
-
250
io 1
994
io 1
995
io 1
996
io 1
997
io 1
998
io 1
999
io 2
000
io 2
001
io 2
002
Ene-
02
Feb-
02
Mar
-02
Abr-
02
May
-02
Jun-
02
Jul-0
2
Ago-
02
Sep-
02
Oct
-02
Nov
-02
Dic
-02
Prom
ed
Prom
ed
Prom
ed
Prom
ed
Prom
ed
Prom
ed
Prom
ed
Prom
ed
Prom
ed
Programas de Empleo y Capacitación Plan Jefes
JefesJefes: The Works/Activities: The Works/ActivitiesJefesJefes: The Works/Activities: The Works/Activities
Change in Implementation Types of Work ActivitiesChange in Implementation Much Larger Program Scale
Severe Fiscal and Management
Types of Work Activities Community services most
common (soup kitchens, municipal services low‐value
Constraints
Beneficiaries included before works/activities identified
municipal services, low value activities such as handicrafts, 2ndhand clothing exchanges)
Infrastructure projects less More responsibility to
municipality
Sample based supervision
common , mostly education, health and social infrastructure
Participation in Education and P f i l T i i li ibl
Monitoring focused on beneficiaries, not work activities
High Female Participation
Professional Training were eligible activities (10%)
Productive activities for groups of beneficiaries added (8%)g p beneficiaries added (8%)
Jefes: Rapid Jefes: Rapid ExpansionExpansion and and ScaleScaleii h llh llBringBring ChallengesChallenges
Managing eligibility (from May 2003)
No new enrollments;
More cross‐checks of databaseParticipation rates
May 2003
2nd
semester
2nd
semester
1st
semester
1st
Semester
1st
Semester
Difficulties in arranging activities
More cross checks of database
More supervision of municipalities
Improved system for handling
ter 2004
er 2005
ter 2006
ter2007
ter2008
Work Activities
20 hours or 62.6 51.9 37.9 35.6 23.4 15.2
fraud
These measures remove about400,000 from roster
more
15‐19 hours
5.6 6.3 5.0 3.7 2.4 1.4
10‐14 h
4.1 7.5 8.2 5.9 5.8 2.8hours
1‐9 hours 2.6 8.0 8.8 8.1 9.2 8.2
Education 4.0 2.3 3.8 3.0 4.9* 3.9*
Training 1.3 1.7 3.2
None*Includes training
21.1 22.7 34.6 40.5 54.4 68.7
Jefes Jefes ProgramProgram: : TheThe WorkersWorkersJefes concentrates benefits on the poor:
89% of beneficiaries from poorest 50% of population
Less progressive than Trabajar, but still quite respectable by world standards
Coverage very high:
Workers
Location of Jefes participants in the cross‐sectional distribution of income (2002 sample households)
Workers
70+% are women
Half were previously inacitve
Net income gain 20%
25%
30%
Abril 2002: 22.7% of famlily expenditureMay 2005: 17.7%
Foregone income : 1/3 of transfer5%
10%
15%
Lowers unemployment by about 2.5 percentage points
Lowers extreme poverty nationally by about 2 percentage points
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Deciles
percentage points
Without program, an additional 10% of participantswould have fallen into extreme poverty
Jefes:Jefes: ReflectionsReflectionsJefes: Jefes: ReflectionsReflections
WeaknessesStrengths Weaknesses Treatment of two different
problems – unemployment and poverty
Strengths Rapid emergency response Wide coverage and good targeting Redistrubtion of income Program poverty
Disorderly installation of program Difficulties in arranging for work
requirement.
Redistrubtion of income . Programmade post‐crisis growth more pro‐poor
Useful social services and community infrastructure q
Difficulties in provided personal attention
Low quality of information in the
community infrastructure Participation by communities and
local institutions. Incorporation of new activities –
i i d i i j b registry. Unequal local capacity.
training, education, service jobs, etc.
Gradual improvement in control and accountability mechanisms.
TransitionTransition StrategyStrategy forfor Jefes Jefes ProgramProgram(Decreto 1506/04)(Decreto 1506/04)(Decreto 1506/04)(Decreto 1506/04)
Reactivation of Economy
Plan Familias (Conditional Cash Transfer) for social inclusion. To build human and social capital in vulnerable households .
Transfer size varies by number of children Transfer size varies by number of children Schooling and health requirements for children
Seguro de Capacitación y Empleo (Non‐Contributory Unemployment Insurance)Active labor policies to improve employability and job placement of participants Public employment services Job search assistance Skills training Skills training Job placement
Program closed in December 2009og a c osed ece be 009