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

Muchas Gracias