Results Report · Executive Summary 4 Acronyms Feeding: PROSPERA’s food and nutrition component...

Results Report

PROSPERA National-level Results

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Puntos Centinela 2017. Results Report Executive Summary

2

Lead Research Team CLEAR LAC

Gabriela Pérez Yarahuán

Nelly Aguilera Aburto (†)

Carolina Romero Pérez Grovas

María del Carmen Herrera Bautista

Jorge Luis González Cruz

CLEAR LAC Research Assistant Team

Karol Ugalde Ávila

Rodrigo Sánchez Ramos

Germán Paul Cáceres Castrillón

Daniela Granillo Lara

Alejandro Téllez Arévalo

CIDE Research Team

Juan Manuel Romero Padilla

Blanca Heredia Rubio

Itzel Cabrero Iriberri

External Research Team

Omar Stabridis Arana

Juan Pablo Gutiérrez Reyes

Edgar Franco Vivanco

Citlalli Hernández Juárez

Laura Guadalupe Dávila Lárraga

Mariana Rodríguez Muñoz

PROSPERA Social Inclusion Program

National Coordinator’s Office Team

Jaime Gutiérrez Casas

Daniel Rosales Méndez

Guillermo del Mar Vera Hernández


3

Contents

Acronyms .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 6

Objetives of Puntos Centinela ............................................................................................................ 7

General Objective .......................................................................................................................... 7

Specific Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 7

Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 8

Main Results .................................................................................................................................... 11

Profile of PC 2017 participants ...................................................................................................... 11

2017 Indicators ............................................................................................................................ 15

Indicator Results for the PROSPERA study area: ECC ...................................................................... 16

Indicator Results for the Education Study Area .............................................................................. 19

Indicator Results for the Healthcare Study Area ............................................................................ 20

Indicator Results for the PROSPERA Study Area: ESC ..................................................................... 23

Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 25

Findings in the PROSPERA Study Area ........................................................................................... 25

Findings in the Education Study Area ............................................................................................ 27

Findings in the Healthcare Study Area ........................................................................................... 28

Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 28

Recommendations for the PROSPERA Study Area .......................................................................... 29

Recommendations for the Education Study Area ........................................................................... 31

Recommendations for the Healthcare Study Area ......................................................................... 31

References ....................................................................................................................................... 33


4

Acronyms

Feeding: PROSPERA’s food and nutrition component

Form: Questionnaire

CIDE: Center for Research and Teaching in Economics

CLEAR LAC: Center for Learning on Evaluation and Results, Latin America and the Caribbean

CNP: PROSPERA’S National Coordinaton

CPC: Community Promotion Committees

DGPS: General Directorate for Planning and Monitoring

EB: Basic Education

ECC: Benefits Scheme with Shared Responsibility

Education: PROSPERA’s educational component

EFC: Community Strengthening Liaison

EIPL: Productive and Labor Inclusion Liaison

EMS: Higher-Middle Education

ESC: Benefits Scheme without Shared Responsibility

Study: Puntos Centinela

IPC: Punto Centinela Indicator, under the ECC

IPC SC: Punto Centinela Indicator, under the ESC

MABIC: Support Desk for Higher Education Scholarship Recipients

MAC: Support Desk for Community Promotion Committees

MAP: Program Support Desks


5

MAPO: Personalized Attention Model for the Operation

MSO: Operational Monitoring Model

PC: Puntos Centinela

Program: PROSPERA Social Inclusion Program

PROSPERA: PROSPERA Social Inclusion Program

RA: Support Officer

ROP: Operational Rules for PROSPERA Social Inclusion Program

Healthcare: PROSPERA’s healthcare component

SEP: Secretariat of Public Education

TCC: PROSPERA beneficiaries under the Benefits Scheme with Shared Responsibility

TSC: PROSPERA beneficiaries under the Benefits Scheme without Shared Responsibility

US: Healthcare Medical Units

Outreach: PROSPERA’s outreach component


6

Introduction

Since 2000, the PROSPERA Social Inclusion Program has implemented an Operational

Monitoring Model (Modelo de Seguimiento Operativo, MSO) which includes a study called

Puntos Centinela (PC). This study consists of a periodic set of measurements on core program

processes and the level of satisfaction with the services provided by the program’s main

components (education, feeding, healthcare, and outreach), as seen by the program

beneficiaries’ and operators’ perceptions. PC’s results are useful to detect operational problems

in a timely manner, to know the beneficiaries’ opinions in detail, and to make decisions for

program improvement.

Derived from changes to PROSPERA’s goals and components, the program’s Coordinator

decided to update the Puntos Centinela Survey in 2017. The Center for Learning on Evaluation

and Results, Latin America and the Caribbean (CLEAR LAC), hosted by the Center for Research

and Teaching in Economics (Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, CIDE), was

commissioned with implementing the re-construction of this survey and analyzing the collected

information.

The project consisted of revising, analyzing, reformulating, updating, designing, estimating,

verifying and visualizing the variables and indicators obtained from Puntos Centinela, its

questionnaires and indicators, the sample design and data analysis, as well as the presentation

of results through more comprehensive reports and a website containing all necessary

information for understanding the most relevant components of PC.

The analyzed universe includes program beneficiaries, Higher-Middle Education scholarship

recipients, spokespersons, program staff, and staff at the Schools and Healthcare Units that

provide services to PROSPERA families.


7

Objetives of Puntos Centinela

General Objective

To provide information that helps monitoring PROSPERA’s management, by measuring the

attributes that compose the program’s operation according to official norms. Such attributes

are related to the goods and services provided by PROSPERA. The measurement of these

attributes is based on the perceptions of a representative sample of program beneficiaries and

program staff.

Specific Objectives

• Establish the reference framework for monitoring and assessing PROSPERA’s operation

through the perceptions of program beneficiaries and program staff.

• Gather continuous information about the program’s operation through a representative

sample of program beneficiaries and program staff responsible for providing the goods

and services stated on current official norms.

• Analyze information on aspects that are relevant for the program’s operation,

considering a set of essential attributes needed to achieve adequate results, such as:

quality, satisfaction, sufficiency, knowledge, usefulness, efficacy, efficiency, accessibility,

relevance of the information, opportunity, and conditioning.

• Allowing public access to the information, methodology and analyses of data collected

for this study.


8

Methodology

The 2017 Puntos Centinela analysis encompasses three main study areas: education,

healthcare, and PROSPERA. The study areas for education and healthcare look into information

related to the operation of these two components within the program. The PROSPERA area

included the feeding and outreach components, as well as cross-component program elements

such as electoral protection, transparency, the right to be heard, among others. The PC analysis

was framed around these study areas to allow tying the individuals responsible to the actions

they perform, and link them to the applicable regulations in each case.

The analysis of these study areas is based on the following dimensions: a) the inputs needed for

generating the program’s services and benefits, as well as for operating the program; b)

program staff’s perceptions on the delivery process of program services and benefits; c)

program beneficiaries’ and program delivery staff’s perceptions on the component-reception

process; and d) perceptions on the attention offered by the program.

In addition, the study incorporates some other aspects related to the context of the program’s

beneficiary population, such as indigenous self-identification, disabilities, component

accessibility, perceptions on poverty and social disadvantages, among others.

PC 2017’s methodology focused on measuring nine variables that allowed for a more

comprehensive study with deeper qualitative characteristics: i) sufficiency of inputs; ii) quality

of program operation; iii) relevance of the information provided by the program; iv) knowledge

about the program among beneficiaries, program staff, and service providers; v) access to

services and benefits; vi) conditions on delivery; vii) timeliness of benefits; viii) beneficiaries’

and staff’s satisfaction with the program; and ix) potential usefulness of program benefits and

services.

Based on this conceptual framework, the indicators for the perception-measurement

instruments were subjected to analyses of how relevant and informative they were. New

indicators were also created to allow a more comprehensive measurement of the information,

as well as measurement of variables that go beyond dichotomous elements and allow for


9

reliable information to be gathered regarding the current state of PROSPERA. Despite this,

some questions and answer options were maintained for comparability purposes with previous

editions of the study.

The indicators generated for the 2017 redesign were adapted to the information needs of each

sector within the program. This meant that all sectors were required to verify that existing

indicators would provide useful information for decision-making. Thus, indicators that fulfilled

the basic characteristics were kept, while those that did not provide useful information for the

sectors were eliminated. New indicators were also created to allow for more comprehensive

and qualitative measurements.

The 2017 indicators are grouped by the three study areas that framed the PC 2017 study: a)

Education, b) Healthcare, and c) PROSPERA. For the first time, indicators were designed more

comprehensively to allow cross-referencing information among respondents. Subindicators

were also included to analyze a greater number of elements within each study area.

The logic behind the design of indicators and their objectives determined the scale in which the

result was presented, since each indicator responds to specific needs that cannot be met by

using the same scale for all.

Indicators for PROSPERA and Education employed two scales: a percentage-based scale and a

decimal-based scale, as well as stratifying by schooling types to allow for color-coding of results

using the “traffic light” approach. This helps ensure comparability among indicators.

Table 1. Scale and traffic light color coding for Education and PROSPERA indicators

Level Decimal Scale Percentage Scale

Deficient (Red) 0.00 – 4.99 0.00% - 49.99%

Regular (Yellow) 5.00 – 6.99 50.00% - 69.99%

Adequate (Green) 7.00 – 10.00 70.00% - 100.00%

In contrast, Healthcare indicators used a heterogeneous methodology to establish the scales and

stratification values used in the traffic-light reporting, based on the information requirements for this

sector and on the type of indicator. Table 2 shows the values used for color coding the Healthcare

indicators.


10

Table 2. Scale and traffic light color coding for Healthcare indicators (all percentages)

Indicator Classification Associated Indicators Deficient Regular Adequate

Indicators for compliance with activities related to the operation of health units.

IPC33, IPC34, IPC35, IPC36, IPC37, IPC38

0.00

84.99

85.00

89.99

90.00

100.00

Perception indicators IPC39 0.00 74.99 75.00 79.99 80.00 100.00

Indicators for compliance with activities related to interaction with users

IPC40, IPC41, IPC42, IPC43, IPC44, IPC45,

IPC52

0.00

79.99

80.00

89.99

90.00

100.00

Indicators for structural aspects of tangible/concrete elements

IPC46, IPC47, IPC48, IPC49, IPC50, IPC53

0.00

79.99

80.00

84.99

85.00

100.00

Indicators for structural aspects of subjective elements

IPC51, IPC54, IPC55

0.00

74.99

75.00

84.99

85.00

100.00

Descending Indicators IPC56 100 5.10 5.09 1.10 1.09 0.00

All information related to the instruments, technical datasheets for indicators, and the

methodology used for the PC 2017 study are public, available in the program’s website.1

1 http://www.puntoscentinela.info/index.php/es/

http://www.puntoscentinela.info/index.php/es/


11

Main Results

Profile of PC 2017 participants

The sample design for the 2017 survey is representative at the national and state levels. The

design allowed stratifying information among rural and urban localities based on the benefits

scheme to which the beneficiaries belong: the Benefits Scheme with Shared Responsibility

(Esquema de Apoyos con Corresponsabilidad, ECC)2 or the Benefits Scheme without Shared

Responsibility (Esquema de Apoyos sin Corresponsabilidad, ESC).3 The information on

indigenous localities is only representative at the national level for families included in the ECC.

As the determining criterion for the remaining units of analysis were the beneficiaries, the

study was complemented by nationally-representative information and by urbanization strata

of the basic education schools, higher-middle school scholarship recipients, and spokespersons,

as well as by nationally-representative information on higher-middle schools and Healthcare

Units. Moreover, information regarding the operating staff was included. However, as this was

an individually-completed survey, the rate of response only allows us to provide statistically

descriptive results.

Data was analyzed for 872 healthcare units included in the effective sample, distributed across

the 32 Mexican states. Of these, 84 were mobile units and 788 had fixed locations. Due to the

characteristics of this sample, the mobile units are not statistically representative. Therefore,

the indicator for this type of units only allows for descriptive results at the national level.

Information on each healthcare unit was obtained from an identified informant for each

location. This informant was defined as the doctor or assigned staff member who provides

services to PROSPERA families. A total of 872 participants from among Healthcare staff were

included.

2 Under this scheme, the coverage and ability to provide attention for education and healthcare services allows for the educational, healthcare, and feeding components to operate simultaneously, allowing families to receive benefits from all program components (PROSPERA, 2017). 3 Under this scheme, the coverage and/or ability to provide attention for education and healthcare services do not allow for both components to operate fully and simultaneously, and thus families can only receive benefits related to the feeding and outreach components, and educational benefits for higher education (PROSPERA, 2017).


12

Also, 3,050 higher-middle education scholarship recipients were surveyed. Recipients’ age

range is between 14 and 20 years old, with an average age of 16. Most of them (42.6%) are

studying the first year of preparatory school, while 32% are in their second year and 25.4% are

in their third. Furthermore, 7 out of 10 students surveyed attend the Morning school shift.

Out of all higher-middle education scholarship recipients surveyed, 58.8% mentioned that,

apart from studying, they are engaged in another activity. Their average commuting time to

school is 28.63 minutes (29.5 minutes in urban localities, and 27.97 in rural ones). On average,

scholarship recipients spend 14.61 pesos to travel from home to school.

The analysis also included education centers staff. 2,168 informants were surveyed at the basic

level of education, with 565 for higher-middle education, including principals, teachers, and

administrative staff in charge of certifying beneficiary compliance with PROSPERA conditions.

In the case of the basic education staff, 80.7% said they hold the position of principal, 12.8%

teachers, and 18.9% administrative staff. On average, basic education schools have 14 teachers

each, and about half the teachers (53.68%) serve students who receive a PROSPERA

scholarship.

57% of the higher-middle education staff said they hold the position of Principal, with 10.44%

being teachers and 41.06% being administrative staff. On average, higher-middle education

schools have 26 teachers, with 67% of teaching staff serving students who receive a PROSPERA

scholarship.


13

Additionally, the study analyzed sampling data from

15,120 beneficiaries (ECC 13,820/ESC 1,300),

representing a total of 6.65 million beneficiaries

(ECC 5.98 million/ESC 664,350), of whom 53% reside

in rural localities and 47% in urban localities. 90% of

respondents are registered under the ECC, with the

remaining 10% under the ESC.

Under the Benefits Scheme with Shared

Responsibility (ECC), representing 5.98 million

beneficiaries, 57% live in rural localities, while 43%

live in urban settlements. On average, beneficiaries

in rural localities had been with PROSPERA for 10

years, compared to 8 years for urban populations.

31% of beneficiaries in rural communities claimed to

speak an indigenous language, as did 24% of urban

beneficiaries. However, considering both types of

localities together, 99% of beneficiaries surveyed

spoke Spanish or were bilingual. 25% of rural

households receive a scholarship, compared to

18.7% of urban households.

Under the ECC, the age distribution of beneficiary

families for rural localities was: 9% in the 0-6 years

old range; 24% in the 7-14 range; 18% in the 15-22

range; 45% in the 23-69 range; and 4% in the 70 and

over range. Although the age distribution in urban

areas was similar, the proportion of youth between 15 and 22 years old was greater, while that

of people 70 and over was lower.


14

Under the Benefits Scheme without Shared

Responsibility (ESC), the 664,000 represented

beneficiaries have been in the program for 5

years on average. 22% of beneficiaries in rural

localities claimed to speak an indigenous

language, compared to 7% in urban localities.

Considering all localities altogether, 98% are

Spanish-speaking or bilingual.

The age distribution for beneficiary families

under the ESC in urban settings was: 12% in

the 0-6 years old range; 23% in the 7-14

range; 16% in the 15-22 range; 45% in the 23-

69 range; and 4% are 70 and over. The

distribution in rural localities was similar,

although showing a greater proportion under

14 years old and a smaller proportion of

people 15-69 years old.


15

There were over 15.6 million school-age people (14 million in the ECC and 1.68 million in the

ESC) at the time of the survey, based on the program’s definition of school age4 (3-29 years of

age). As for this population’s schooling status, considering both schemes at a national level,

31% did not attend school,5 8% attended pre-school, 29% was in basic education, 15% in

secondary education, 12% in preparatory school, and 4% were attending a university.

When disaggregating the data by rural/urban stratification, we find a greater rate of

absenteeism among rural families within the ESC. This may be due to access difficulties for rural

families to attend higher-middle education institutions.

2017 Indicators

In 2017, 70 indicators were used. They were divided into the three study areas defined by the

PC 2017 methodology. Of these, 56 correspond to the ECC and 14 to the ESC.

Of the indicators related to the ECC, 22 were related to the PROSPERA study area, 10 to

Education, and 24 to Healthcare, while all 14 indicators for the ESC relate to the PROSPERA

study area. Technical datasheets for indicators and their results are publicly available.6

4 According to the Rules of Operation 2017, Educational Scholarships may be given to support young people up to 29 years old, under various modalities. It is therefore important to consider the current schooling status of the members of beneficiary households who are between 3 and 29 years old. 5 Of 31% of respondents who claimed not to be in school, 94% were 23 years old and over. 6 For further reference, see the website http://www.puntoscentinela.info/index.php/es/

http://www.puntoscentinela.info/index.php/es/


16

Indicator Results for the PROSPERA study area: ECC

Indicator Results. PROSPERA Study Area (Part 1)

Benefits Scheme with Shared Responsibility

state Indicator Number

IPC 01 IPC 02 IPC 03 IPC 04 IPC 05 IPC 06 IPC 07 IPC 08 IPC 09 IPC 10

Aguascalientes 4.75 8.72 7.60 6.46 9.70 6.25 6.34 8.63 6.92 6.67

Baja California 4.97 8.43 7.56 6.42 9.46 6.23 5.88 8.58 7.20 4.15

Baja California Sur 4.65 7.53 7.72 4.43 9.88 6.34 6.03 8.44 7.05 5.67

Campeche 4.70 8.43 7.09 5.51 9.90 6.53 5.61 8.75 7.08 7.08

Coahuila 4.55 7.26 7.44 6.52 9.78 6.33 5.62 8.90 7.51 7.90

Colima 4.88 8.74 7.03 7.44 9.63 6.43 5.95 7.78 7.29 6.26

Chiapas 4.66 7.82 7.24 4.33 9.86 5.86 4.51 8.67 6.53 6.67

Chihuahua 4.81 8.01 7.61 4.84 9.70 6.29 5.91 8.17 6.40 6.67

Ciudad de México 4.83 7.68 7.51 5.40 9.45 5.92 4.55 8.64 5.71 7.43

Durango 4.93 8.46 7.88 5.83 9.85 6.93 6.29 8.95 7.58 6.24

Guanajuato 4.45 8.20 7.69 4.34 9.77 6.51 5.69 8.89 6.64 6.11

Guerrero 4.61 7.29 7.06 5.27 9.83 6.64 5.75 9.04 6.92 7.99

Hidalgo 4.32 7.82 7.46 5.38 9.68 6.27 5.45 8.66 6.23 7.13

Jalisco 4.44 8.53 8.19 5.54 9.75 6.39 5.11 8.76 6.62 6.67

México 4.64 7.07 6.98 4.29 9.77 5.95 4.89 8.51 7.29 6.67

Michoacán 4.18 8.49 7.17 5.41 9.61 6.14 5.62 8.40 5.86 3.88

Morelos 4.65 7.86 7.11 5.16 9.83 6.38 5.73 8.90 7.53 7.17

Nayarit 4.54 7.51 6.80 4.88 9.78 6.37 5.73 8.21 6.71 5.86

Nuevo León 4.61 7.66 7.97 5.26 9.74 6.45 5.96 8.77 6.59 8.70

Oaxaca 4.49 7.58 7.23 4.49 9.80 6.11 5.43 8.71 7.05 6.57

Puebla 4.45 6.83 7.25 5.56 9.88 6.16 5.14 8.47 6.07 6.65

Querétaro 4.62 7.29 7.87 4.89 9.81 6.27 5.31 8.56 6.57 6.10

Quintana Roo 4.84 8.24 7.52 6.95 9.78 6.41 5.99 8.34 7.64 6.67

San Luis Potosí 4.42 8.03 7.39 5.29 9.87 6.66 5.91 8.87 6.34 7.00

Sinaloa 4.98 8.09 7.47 4.07 9.66 6.70 6.00 8.71 7.56 6.67

Sonora 5.05 8.43 7.89 7.36 9.87 6.66 6.57 9.16 7.53 7.46

Tabasco 5.02 8.07 7.49 5.46 9.95 6.25 5.39 8.87 6.69 5.20

Tamaulipas 4.98 8.35 8.45 7.39 9.68 6.41 5.83 8.71 5.97 5.21

Tlaxcala 5.07 7.29 7.65 6.15 9.75 6.11 5.11 8.49 6.83 4.56

Veracruz 5.09 8.17 7.65 5.37 9.89 6.01 5.01 8.85 6.16 1.98

Yucatán 4.63 8.07 7.43 5.79 9.75 6.43 6.15 8.62 6.47 6.21

Zacatecas 4.52 7.85 7.11 6.18 9.80 5.95 5.88 8.54 7.04 7.88

Nacional 4.66 7.77 7.41 5.16 9.80 6.26 5.43 8.69 6.66 4.81

IPC 01 Beneficiaries’ degree of knowledge about the program’s relevant benefits and processes

IPC 02 Rating for the quality of sessions imparted by the Support Desk staff (MAP-MAPO) to program beneficiaries

IPC 03 Rating for the quality of information received by beneficiaries from program staff

IPC 04 Rating for beneficiaries’ costs associated to accessing monetary support from the program

IPC 05 Rating for processes efficacy when delivering monetary support to beneficiaries

IPC 06 Rating for the process for paperwork assistance offered to beneficiaries

IPC 07 Rating for the process for responding to beneficiaries’ complaints

IPC 08 Beneficiaries’ rating for the CPC’s usefulness and attention

IPC 09 Beneficiaries’ rating of products and services provided by BANSEFI as part of the financial inclusion element of the

program

IPC 10 Beneficiaries’ rating of the support received from program staff to facilitate their inclusion into productive labor


17



State Indicator Number

IPC 11 IPC 12 IPC 13 IPC 14

Aguascalientes 6.67 8.59 8.12 9.70

Baja California 6.68 8.53 8.00 9.55

Baja California Sur

6.66 8.62 7.81 9.56

Campeche 6.09 8.77 7.68 9.48

Coahuila 6.72 8.40 7.16 9.58

Colima 6.24 8.76 8.27 9.65

Chiapas 6.87 8.57 7.26 9.47

Chihuahua 6.77 8.70 7.62 9.55

Ciudad de México

6.86 8.77 7.48 9.00

Durango 6.73 8.52 7.95 9.64

Guanajuato 6.77 8.80 7.77 9.47

Guerrero 6.56 8.55 7.65 9.53

Hidalgo 6.92 8.54 7.43 9.40

Jalisco 7.64 8.66 8.06 9.64

México 6.57 8.60 6.91 8.71

Michoacán 6.99 8.53 7.48 9.53

Morelos 6.53 8.75 7.68 9.56

Nayarit 6.82 8.64 7.24 9.72

Nuevo León 6.90 8.59 8.04 9.62

Oaxaca 6.88 8.75 7.58 9.14

Puebla 6.69 8.56 7.41 9.32

Querétaro 7.17 8.83 7.35 9.44

Quintana Roo 6.54 8.77 6.96 9.10

San Luis Potosí 6.57 8.84 7.74 9.51

Sinaloa 6.73 8.68 7.67 9.70

Sonora 6.75 8.73 8.27 9.81

Tabasco 6.65 8.57 7.70 9.24

Tamaulipas 6.63 8.78 8.49 9.69

Tlaxcala 6.49 8.92 6.68 9.28

Veracruz 6.00 9.17 7.08 9.62

Yucatán 6.93 8.52 7.58 9.17

Zacatecas 6.73 8.95 7.40 9.38

Nacional 6.59 8.70 7.47 9.39

IPC 11 Beneficiaries’ rating of the support received from program staff to facilitate their social inclusion

IPC 12 Beneficiaries’ perceived degree of the program’s reliability, transparency, and security

IPC 13 Rating of the quality of attention offered by program staff

IPC 14 Integral rating of the program


18

Indicator Results. PROSPERA Study Area

PROSPERA’s Staff

State Indicator number

IPC 15 IPC 16 IPC 17 IPC 18 IPC 19 IPC 20 IPC 21 IPC 22

Aguascalientes 8.41 2.14 8.31 9.28 6.21 0.48 6.35 8.84

Baja California 7.96 6.00 8.38 9.54 6.66 0.67 6.00 8.63

Baja California Sur 8.43 4.50 8.84 9.26 7.18 4.67 6.78 7.69

Campeche 8.00 0.63 8.55 9.42 6.05 3.75 5.69 7.81

Coahuila 8.28 5.83 7.94 9.10 6.88 5.33 7.56 8.65

Colima 8.90 4.06 8.98 9.49 7.41 2.71 7.05 8.52

Chiapas 8.29 2.02 8.18 9.00 6.93 6.10 6.59 8.36

Chihuahua 8.73 6.36 8.21 9.08 6.47 4.35 7.06 8.59

Ciudad de México 7.20 0.00 7.95 8.68 4.05 3.33 3.33 6.88

Durango 8.58 6.88 8.51 9.62 5.98 5.83 6.11 8.59

Guanajuato 8.20 3.62 8.35 9.25 6.24 3.33 6.77 8.36

Guerrero 8.41 3.14 8.68 9.19 7.23 3.93 6.41 8.28

Hidalgo 7.78 1.88 7.48 8.61 5.56 1.67 5.69 8.83

Jalisco 8.00 3.90 7.82 9.39 6.18 3.01 5.91 8.29

México 7.56 2.22 8.05 9.00 6.45 3.11 5.89 8.26

Michoacán 8.23 3.78 8.39 9.26 6.26 1.05 5.78 8.31

Morelos 8.38 1.25 8.29 9.12 5.25 1.25 6.04 8.36

Nayarit 7.52 0.00 8.78 9.12 6.85 2.08 7.22 8.98

Nuevo León 8.47 2.79 8.68 9.50 6.95 3.92 7.29 8.22

Oaxaca 8.38 2.75 8.11 8.78 6.56 4.51 6.09 8.11

Puebla 7.72 1.40 7.94 8.73 5.97 3.06 5.79 8.31

Querétaro 7.96 5.00 8.16 8.78 5.96 5.95 5.56 8.39

Quintana Roo 8.39 2.35 7.70 9.10 6.28 3.73 5.42 8.16

San Luis Potosí 8.86 6.88 9.01 9.48 7.33 8.13 6.88 8.28

Sinaloa 8.67 4.14 9.16 9.44 7.49 4.90 6.60 8.25

Sonora 8.95 3.97 8.39 9.06 6.80 3.24 6.14 8.62

Tabasco 8.54 2.33 8.74 9.24 7.50 3.04 8.00 8.56

Tamaulipas 8.43 2.50 8.17 8.85 6.68 2.86 7.14 8.30

Tlaxcala 8.63 2.14 8.25 8.96 6.35 2.62 6.11 8.30

Veracruz 6.99 1.73 7.78 8.79 6.44 5.64 6.60 8.40

Yucatán 8.15 0.00 7.98 8.97 6.66 8.00 4.22 8.75

Zacatecas 7.54 3.75 7.53 8.46 6.31 6.25 5.42 7.97

Nacional 8.14 3.08 8.26 9.09 6.60 3.84 6.37 8.35 Note: Although the survey was sent to the entire PROSPERA staff who participates in assisting beneficiaries, the response rate did not allow for statistically representative results. Therefore, these should be considered as descriptive results only.

IPC 15 Program staff’s rating for the conditions under which they perform their duties

IPC 16 Program staff’s costs associated to accessing inputs needed to perform their duties

IPC 17 Quality of information received by PROSPERA staff for performing their duties adequately

IPC 18 Program staff’s rating for the topics taught at the Support Desks (MAP, MAPO, MAC, MABIC)

IPC 19 Program staff’s rating for the process of paperwork assistance to beneficiaries

IPC 20 Program staff’s rating for beneficiaries’ issues with BANSEFI’s products and services

IPC 21 Rating for the process for responding to beneficiaries’ complaints

IPC 22 Program staff’s perceived degree of the program’s reliability, transparency, and security


19

Indicator Results for the Education Study Area

Indicator Results. Education Study Area




Aguascalientes 38.86 8.65 5.52 5.57 5.21 4.75 36.55 5.42 5.68 48.56

Baja California 39.62 8.29 5.37 5.15 5.38 5.20 41.59 4.15 3.83 58.45


Campeche 38.76 8.74 5.11 5.10 5.12 4.96 43.72 4.80 5.16 51.02

Coahuila 38.18 8.90 5.60 5.60 5.63 5.06 38.37 5.49 5.06 52.59

Colima 37.97 8.96 5.19 5.09 4.88 4.81 28.06 5.75 5.68 44.64

Chiapas 36.22 8.86 5.33 5.26 5.02 4.75 45.78 4.77 4.69 53.67

Chihuahua 38.39 8.92 5.26 5.19 5.49 5.47 41.14 4.34 4.06 49.09

Ciudad de México 34.93 8.10 5.18 4.79 5.14 4.67 24.58 5.89 1.36 48.42

Durango 42.10 9.15 5.69 5.75 5.75 5.44 46.13 5.26 4.76 57.06

Guanajuato 36.74 8.22 5.67 5.45 5.51 4.90 33.77 4.62 3.33 50.11

Guerrero 38.44 9.07 6.05 6.07 5.97 5.77 36.91 5.85 5.59 58.00

Hidalgo 35.35 8.26 5.46 5.49 5.32 4.85 34.11 5.12 5.34 50.03

Jalisco 35.84 8.54 6.24 6.06 6.18 6.00 27.44 5.11 5.28 56.86

México 40.06 8.75 5.60 5.32 5.77 5.28 36.51 4.41 4.21 48.36

Michoacán 37.13 8.39 5.20 5.14 5.04 4.75 33.39 3.64 3.76 48.88

Morelos 37.68 8.43 5.81 5.72 5.28 4.94 34.85 5.16 5.03 50.21

Nayarit 39.13 8.76 5.31 5.26 5.10 4.67 32.24 4.69 5.10 53.06

Nuevo León 38.45 8.69 5.77 5.65 5.41 5.23 34.08 5.51 5.98 48.95

Oaxaca 33.60 8.85 5.56 5.47 5.23 4.69 40.35 4.23 4.49 51.74

Puebla 35.91 9.01 5.52 5.51 5.55 5.11 35.28 4.22 4.26 51.34

Querétaro 37.37 8.46 5.12 4.92 5.20 4.74 32.22 4.15 3.80 49.70

Quintana Roo 38.83 8.64 5.06 4.97 5.02 4.78 44.50 4.35 4.47 47.56

San Luis Potosí 38.74 8.53 6.37 6.34 6.16 5.81 36.21 4.74 4.95 55.80

Sinaloa 44.54 8.69 5.62 5.67 5.42 5.35 42.51 4.95 4.97 50.54

Sonora 42.97 8.97 6.09 6.24 5.89 5.34 38.75 5.52 5.38 56.93

Tabasco 42.81 9.47 5.42 5.48 5.34 5.16 42.37 4.40 3.71 48.49

Tamaulipas 44.29 8.93 6.11 5.95 6.17 5.56 45.41 5.44 6.09 62.59

Tlaxcala 44.51 8.61 5.33 5.46 5.11 4.89 42.08 5.28 5.22 44.34

Veracruz 37.99 9.19 5.46 5.53 4.41 4.89 47.71 5.84 5.29 50.80

Yucatán 43.03 8.58 5.50 5.52 5.31 5.58 37.53 5.21 4.98 55.71

Zacatecas 36.10 8.90 5.36 5.45 5.23 5.03 40.05 4.99 4.98 46.55

Nacional 38.08 8.82 5.58 5.53 5.38 5.10 38.61 4.93 4.74 51.97

IPC 23 Beneficiaries’ degree of knowledge about the Educational component

IPC 24 Degree of compliance in the delivery of grants

IPC 25 General evaluation of PROSPERA’s educational benefits’ processes

IPC 26 General evaluation of PROSPERA’s educational benefits’ elements

IPC 27 Degree of satisfaction with the attention provided by school staff

IPC 28 Degree of satisfaction with educational services received

IPC 29 School staff’s degree of knowledge about the Education component

IPC 30 General evaluation of PROSPERA Scholarships’ elements and processes

IPC 31 General evaluation of the Shared Responsibility certification process

IPC 32 Perceived impact of educational benefits


20

Indicator Results for the Healthcare Study Area

Indicator Results. Healthcare Study Area (Part 1)




Aguascalientes 96.25 N/D 100.00 75.00 90.28 98.94 63.02 100.00 87.64 81.25

Baja California 97.36 N/D 100.00 100.00 92.73 88.13 46.24 95.74 86.98 89.36

Baja California Sur 100.00 N/D 94.44 94.44 92.60 87.42 64.91 100.00 87.64 100.00

Campeche 96.43 N/D 100.00 100.00 97.13 97.64 66.40 100.00 98.05 91.67

Coahuila 100.00 N/D 100.00 100.00 94.18 96.94 74.42 90.91 87.06 100.00

Colima 98.18 N/D 96.00 88.00 96.59 97.00 70.03 92.00 91.35 96.00

Chiapas 97.48 N/D 77.78 83.33 96.42 94.34 60.85 94.44 88.87 72.22

Chihuahua 92.89 N/D 100.00 100.00 93.01 96.10 69.05 100.00 87.48 94.74

Ciudad de México 98.18 N/D 81.82 90.91 95.21 97.39 59.09 81.82 92.71 81.82

Durango 100.00 N/D 100.00 100.00 89.39 94.14 71.37 100.00 95.15 96.00

Guanajuato 92.68 N/D 92.86 85.71 87.79 87.95 62.70 100.00 90.75 100.00

Guerrero 99.43 N/D 95.00 95.00 98.08 97.18 43.95 97.50 92.46 100.00

Hidalgo 97.74 N/D 100.00 100.00 97.68 97.00 53.51 80.95 87.98 80.95

Jalisco 98.44 N/D 97.44 97.44 90.81 97.97 66.86 89.74 85.63 89.74

México 96.45 N/D 94.74 94.74 86.51 98.06 43.56 94.74 90.32 94.74

Michoacán 96.21 N/D 93.33 96.67 91.61 93.45 53.33 93.33 84.66 86.67

Morelos 99.10 N/D 100.00 100.00 96.50 95.78 58.29 94.12 91.27 90.91

Nayarit 92.72 N/D 100.00 100.00 94.14 97.33 75.55 95.24 77.48 95.24

Nuevo León 96.42 N/D 82.76 85.06 94.33 93.99 65.83 100.00 92.67 75.95

Oaxaca 100.00 N/D 91.67 100.00 92.78 92.29 56.42 83.33 79.78 83.33

Puebla 99.70 N/D 96.15 96.15 94.96 96.16 58.36 100.00 88.04 96.15

Querétaro 100.00 N/D 100.00 100.00 87.14 99.37 51.51 86.36 89.91 100.00

Quintana Roo 98.46 N/D 100.00 100.00 95.30 98.45 56.69 100.00 93.87 100.00

San Luis Potosí 96.83 N/D 95.24 95.24 97.03 92.70 54.19 95.24 85.61 85.00

Sinaloa 99.33 N/D 93.75 100.00 96.57 98.29 80.41 93.75 90.89 100.00

Sonora 94.32 N/D 85.71 94.29 97.35 96.91 75.07 91.43 87.26 97.14

Tabasco 100.00 N/D 66.67 80.00 96.90 98.18 56.50 93.33 94.56 60.00

Tamaulipas 98.41 N/D 84.91 84.91 90.78 94.54 62.90 98.11 92.88 78.85

Tlaxcala 93.17 N/D 70.00 73.33 96.40 95.08 52.26 96.67 87.68 76.67

Veracruz 100.00 N/D 100.00 100.00 96.47 91.94 65.77 100.00 94.58 100.00

Yucatán 100.00 N/D 100.00 100.00 93.99 98.26 46.69 100.00 91.07 92.11

Zacatecas 100.00 N/D 100.00 100.00 92.24 80.34 67.98 96.15 89.57 96.15

Nacional 98.00 95.69 92.95 94.70 93.91 94.96 57.95 94.38 89.37 89.41

Note: N/D=No Data. As the number of mobile units was not very large, results failed to be representative at the State level.

IPC 33 Percentage of days worked by healthcare staff in the healthcare unit

IPC 34 Percentage of days worked by mobile units relative to scheduled work days

IPC 35 Percentage of Healthcare Units where medical appointments for families are scheduled and performed

IPC 36 Percentage of Healthcare Units where community-based family workshops are scheduled and performed

IPC 37 Percentage of beneficiaries with scheduled medical appointments

IPC 38 Percentage of beneficiaries who attended their appointment at the Healthcare Unit and received attention

IPC 39 Percentage of beneficiaries who think waiting times for receiving attention at Healthcare Units are adequate

IPC 40 Percentage of Healthcare Units where it is a doctor who provides care for PROSPERA families

IPC 41 Percentage of beneficiaries who report receiving care from doctors at the Healthcare Units

IPC 42 Percentage of Healthcare Units that perform monitoring of children’s nutrition


21





Aguascalientes 87.80 100.00 12.48 95.14 94.44 64.02 54.96 86.67 62.50 37.50

Baja California 98.97 85.00 6.32 98.17 97.28 81.67 81.94 97.87 100.00 29.79


Campeche 93.21 91.67 80.50 94.44 90.58 78.55 63.62 91.67 83.33 8.33

Coahuila 98.71 90.00 15.19 94.28 92.59 89.95 66.86 90.91 100.00 18.18

Colima 96.43 80.00 19.94 97.16 93.61 88.51 75.84 100.00 80.00 32.00

Chiapas 88.88 88.89 18.14 83.46 76.69 66.07 34.81 100.00 72.22 44.44

Chihuahua 97.65 100.00 23.33 93.18 89.67 77.91 78.60 100.00 78.95 15.79

Ciudad de México 86.41 90.91 0.00 93.27 91.25 84.33 67.56 100.00 90.91 18.18

Durango 89.58 91.30 14.77 93.60 92.86 65.31 84.19 96.00 72.00 36.00

Guanajuato 98.11 100.00 56.41 88.60 87.16 86.12 91.67 100.00 100.00 35.71

Guerrero 99.22 95.00 27.79 85.09 76.48 42.78 49.68 95.00 85.00 25.00

Hidalgo 99.39 100.00 45.96 95.06 92.24 73.06 67.89 100.00 42.86 33.33

Jalisco 93.71 94.29 31.27 89.51 85.29 61.88 49.42 100.00 82.05 17.95

México 97.07 94.44 50.84 91.59 87.39 50.40 44.37 100.00 81.58 10.53

Michoacán 82.63 100.00 0.00 87.28 80.37 53.21 55.39 96.67 93.33 0.00

Morelos 99.14 97.06 37.43 94.70 92.08 75.29 50.75 90.91 50.00 8.82

Nayarit 92.25 89.47 52.54 89.04 83.85 73.72 52.42 95.24 71.43 0.00

Nuevo León 95.39 79.31 0.00 85.52 81.60 66.17 73.90 80.23 81.61 32.18

Oaxaca 88.74 70.00 39.17 90.12 87.04 86.78 50.71 83.33 66.67 8.33

Puebla 91.69 100.00 13.58 96.28 94.51 82.96 72.54 92.31 92.31 15.38

Querétaro 95.46 95.00 0.00 94.33 92.98 79.18 62.55 100.00 72.73 22.73

Quintana Roo 93.01 100.00 36.45 87.75 78.92 71.94 52.35 96.15 61.54 38.46

San Luis Potosí 97.99 84.21 30.43 97.59 96.48 76.10 61.78 100.00 71.43 33.33

Sinaloa 97.08 100.00 15.76 88.66 83.10 81.29 74.97 87.50 75.00 6.25

Sonora 96.82 97.06 6.41 81.12 79.93 71.51 82.55 100.00 97.14 2.86

Tabasco 90.97 100.00 67.24 94.10 92.07 60.75 41.89 86.67 100.00 0.00

Tamaulipas 93.47 85.71 100.00 77.39 71.23 75.81 58.32 96.23 80.77 20.75

Tlaxcala 100.00 90.00 61.32 96.79 95.56 71.32 66.35 100.00 63.33 23.33

Veracruz 100.00 100.00 85.79 94.97 90.74 84.79 60.47 85.71 78.57 14.29

Yucatán 94.90 97.37 28.55 91.69 89.33 88.10 66.19 94.44 76.32 5.26

Zacatecas 86.56 88.00 19.72 94.94 92.66 75.28 81.97 96.15 92.31 7.69

Nacional 93.40 92.82 36.14 90.65 86.66 70.85 58.03 94.21 79.31 18.87

IPC 43 Percentage of beneficiaries who have information on children’s nutritional status

IPC 44 Percentage of Healthcare Units where pregnancy monitoring is carried out

IPC 45 Percentage of pregnant beneficiaries who have information on pregnancy care

IPC 46 Percentage of priority inputs available to healthcare units for providing medical care

IPC 47 Percentage of functional priority inputs at healthcare units

IPC 48 Percentage of Medicines included in the Guaranteed Basic Healthcare Package and the 27 public health interventions

set by CAUSES available at healthcare units

IPC 49 Percentage of beneficiaries who received all prescribed medications

IPC 50 Percentage of Units that offer food support for the target population

IPC 51 Percentage of Healthcare staff who received training on the program over the past 12 months

IPC 52 Percentage of Healthcare staff who knows the Healthcare component’s benefits that PROSPERA families should

receive


22




IPC 53 IPC 54 IPC 55 IPC 56

Aguascalientes 78.72 100.00 89.33 0.00

Baja California 83.39 63.83 81.07 0.00

Baja California Sur 77.66 72.22 90.38 0.00

Campeche 94.95 91.67 78.66 0.06

Coahuila 73.95 90.91 92.78 0.17

Colima 82.08 88.00 93.08 1.46

Chiapas 96.96 94.44 91.96 1.70

Chihuahua 90.80 89.47 91.44 0.00

Ciudad de México 79.44 72.73 93.05 0.04

Durango 85.17 92.00 90.90 0.00

Guanajuato 90.35 85.71 92.58 0.19

Guerrero 97.05 90.00 86.79 0.18

Hidalgo 97.22 100.00 90.86 0.34

Jalisco 91.60 97.44 91.24 0.41

México 92.88 76.32 74.34 1.42

Michoacán 94.95 96.67 89.89 0.00

Morelos 92.98 85.29 91.74 0.00

Nayarit 90.07 100.00 90.25 0.91

Nuevo León 82.12 91.95 93.81 0.00

Oaxaca 96.82 100.00 82.99 0.82

Puebla 95.96 84.62 86.59 0.00

Querétaro 97.20 86.36 89.23 0.28

Quintana Roo 95.49 88.46 88.76 0.14

San Luis Potosí 92.33 95.24 92.37 0.99

Sinaloa 84.37 87.50 88.87 0.08

Sonora 86.16 97.14 84.25 0.00

Tabasco 92.89 100.00 84.39 1.67

Tamaulipas 83.57 92.45 89.34 2.13

Tlaxcala 92.83 100.00 89.81 1.21

Veracruz 95.30 100.00 89.31 0.41

Yucatán 80.72 89.47 87.37 3.21

Zacatecas 91.95 92.31 89.13 0.74

Nacional 93.12 91.90 87.42 0.73

IPC 53 Percentage of beneficiaries affiliated to the Popular Health Insurance

IPC 54 Percentage of Healthcare staff who considers the level of care provided to be good

IPC 55 Percentage of beneficiaries who are satisfied with the care given to them at their latest appointment

IPC 56 Percentage of beneficiaries reporting extra charges for the delivery of healthcare services


23

Indicator Results for the PROSPERA Study Area: ESC


Benefits Scheme without Shared Responsibility

State

Indicator number

IPCSC 01

IPC SC 02

IPC SC 03

IPC SC 04

IPC SC 05

IPC SC 06

IPC SC 07

IPC SC 08

IPC SC 09

Aguascalientes 4.58 8.63 5.83 5.45 9.49 7.06 6.35 6.36 6.07

Baja California 4.61 8.81 7.22 5.26 9.09 5.79 5.73 8.30 6.89

Baja California Sur

4.71 8.20 7.03 4.01 9.92 6.36 6.58 7.88 7.00

Campeche 4.45 8.25 6.95 5.11 9.92 5.56 5.33 8.97 7.77

Coahuila 4.55 7.16 6.67 4.00 9.96 6.54 6.03 8.53 7.96

Colima 4.51 8.88 7.44 6.63 9.91 6.45 5.47 6.19 7.81

Chiapas 4.80 8.09 7.01 3.33 9.92 5.58 5.75 8.17 6.12

Chihuahua 4.59 7.98 8.18 3.15 9.59 6.17 5.69 8.17 4.97

Ciudad de México 4.72 7.36 7.59 6.96 9.69 4.67 5.70 8.51 6.06

Durango 4.62 8.54 8.56 6.90 10.00 6.25 6.55 9.04 7.72

Guanajuato 4.31 8.80 7.67 5.48 9.87 6.53 6.61 7.91 6.09

Guerrero 4.53 7.87 8.54 3.59 9.90 7.05 6.74 9.10 6.70

Hidalgo 4.55 8.38 7.51 7.07 9.83 5.92 5.22 8.13 6.64

Jalisco 4.28 8.23 8.41 6.46 9.80 6.25 5.35 8.96 6.84

México 4.63 8.03 7.95 4.33 9.80 5.90 5.66 8.98 8.49

Michoacán 3.90 8.98 7.28 4.58 9.86 5.98 5.82 8.43 7.62

Morelos 4.13 7.74 6.67 1.51 9.95 5.93 5.90 8.72 7.93

Nayarit 4.42 8.29 7.52 3.65 9.86 6.28 6.00 8.57 7.35

Nuevo León 4.34 8.77 9.06 2.04 9.98 7.26 6.04 8.12 7.05

Oaxaca 4.01 7.44 7.62 2.26 9.83 5.14 4.92 8.89 5.90

Puebla 4.30 7.50 7.76 6.15 9.75 5.82 5.74 8.58 6.66

Querétaro 4.72 7.90 6.90 3.56 9.96 6.69 5.81 9.01 6.88

Quintana Roo 4.19 8.61 7.37 6.42 9.91 6.10 6.13 8.17 7.53

San Luis Potosí 4.20 8.32 7.88 3.18 9.70 6.53 5.82 8.59 6.24

Sinaloa 5.02 8.27 7.35 4.35 9.83 7.03 6.48 8.78 7.39

Sonora 4.66 7.40 7.22 3.78 9.94 7.02 5.26 8.63 7.04

Tabasco 4.77 8.97 7.31 3.84 9.72 5.62 5.20 8.98 5.95

Tamaulipas 5.26 8.38 8.10 6.93 9.61 5.56 5.49 9.36 4.44

Tlaxcala 5.54 7.75 7.32 5.43 9.85 7.01 5.78 8.29 7.01

Veracruz 4.97 8.57 6.81 6.34 9.93 5.43 5.77 8.84 6.69

Yucatán 4.76 7.92 7.33 6.49 9.90 6.67 7.30 9.12 7.21

Zacatecas 4.80 8.44 6.67 5.00 9.90 3.89 5.42 8.64 8.72

Nacional 4.54 8.14 7.77 4.85 9.76 6.00 5.82 8.62 6.90

IPC SC 01 Beneficiaries’ degree of knowledge on the program’s relevant benefits and processes

IPC SC 02 Rating for the quality of sessions offered to beneficiaries by program staff at the Support Desks (MAP-MAPO)

IPC SC 03 Rating for the quality of information provided by program staff to beneficiaries

IPC SC 04 Rating for beneficiaries’ costs associated to accessing the program’s monetary supports

IPC SC 05 Rating for the efficiency of the process for delivering monetary support to the program’s beneficiaries

IPC SC 06 Rating for the process for paperwork assistance to program beneficiaries

IPC SC 07 Rating for the process for responding to beneficiary complaints

IPC SC 08 Rating for beneficiaries of the CPC’s usefulness and degree of attention

IPC SC 09 Rating for beneficiaries of the products and services provided by BANSEFI as part of the financial inclusion element

of the program


24


Benefits Scheme without Shared Responsibility


IPC SC 10 IPC SC 11 IPC SC 12 IPC SC 13 IPC SC 14

Aguascalientes N/D 5.83 8.47 8.67 9.64

Baja California 3.23 7.55 8.21 7.83 9.37

Baja California Sur N/D 6.67 8.62 8.04 9.55

Campeche 8.33 6.51 8.60 8.03 9.53

Coahuila 6.67 6.67 8.42 8.43 9.71

Colima 6.67 6.67 8.65 7.70 9.63

Chiapas N/D 6.67 9.00 6.98 9.51

Chihuahua N/D 6.59 8.10 7.54 9.50

Ciudad de México N/D 6.67 8.55 7.18 9.13

Durango 6.67 6.50 8.43 8.62 9.82

Guanajuato 6.67 6.67 8.55 7.74 9.87

Guerrero 3.55 6.53 8.37 8.18 9.73

Hidalgo 6.67 7.26 8.21 7.40 8.92

Jalisco 6.67 7.36 8.60 7.58 9.41

México N/D 6.84 8.88 7.93 9.35

Michoacán N/D 6.67 8.36 7.23 9.59

Morelos N/D 7.83 8.08 8.33 9.39

Nayarit 3.33 6.67 8.39 7.21 9.86

Nuevo León 3.33 6.56 8.33 9.23 9.82

Oaxaca N/D 7.01 8.04 7.30 9.12

Puebla N/D 6.74 8.41 7.42 9.53

Querétaro N/D 7.09 8.91 8.00 9.52

Quintana Roo N/D 6.42 8.84 6.86 9.54

San Luis Potosí 6.67 8.76 8.45 7.63 9.56

Sinaloa N/D 5.83 8.57 7.93 9.91

Sonora N/D 8.53 8.68 8.75 9.43

Tabasco N/D 6.70 8.52 8.53 9.12

Tamaulipas N/D 6.97 8.89 8.41 10.00

Tlaxcala N/D 6.40 9.08 6.09 9.23

Veracruz 0.67 6.51 9.02 7.49 9.41

Yucatán N/D 6.67 8.43 7.28 9.53

Zacatecas N/D 7.50 8.80 7.47 9.73

Nacional 4.57 6.90 8.61 7.67 9.47

Note: N/D=No Data because any beneficiary in that state claimed that received support by program staff to facilitate their inclusion

IPC SC 10 Beneficiaries’ rating for the support received by program staff to facilitate their inclusion in productive labor

activities

IPC SC 11 Beneficiaries’ rating for the support received by program staff to facilitate their social inclusion

IPC SC 12 Beneficiaries’ perceived degree of the program’s reliability, transparency, and security

IPC SC 13 Rating for the quality of attention offered by program staff

IPC SC 14 Overall rating of the program


25

Conclusions

Puntos Centinela should be understood as an instrument capable of generating information

about PROSPERA’s operation and, therefore, as a key instrument to influence an informed

decision-making that will continue to improve the program.

Among the general findings, we find that all of PROSPERA’s components enjoy a wide coverage

and adequate operational capacity for monitoring and tracking their processes.

Program staff performs their job in a way that is adequate to carry out the program’s

operational processes. However, we identified a need to strengthen staff capacity for providing

services with higher quality, usefulness, sufficiency, relevance, and levels of satisfaction.

We also found that program information, benefits, and services generally reach beneficiaries in

an adequate and timely manner. However, operational capacities must be directed towards the

implementation of mechanisms that focus on attributes such as quality, acquired knowledge,

and changes in behavior that may result from the former.

Considering the characteristics of informants and the actions taken by each Sector, it is

necessary to highlight some further findings related to each study area.

Findings in the PROSPERA Study Area Beneficiaries see the quality of information and the sessions offered by program staff to be

adequate. Information is seen as clear, reliable, complete and timely, as well as useful for their

daily lives. However, these ratings are related to the processes of incorporation, the delivery of

monetary benefits (scholarships, feeding and complementary grants) and their timely

reception. However, there is a general lack of knowledge among beneficiaries regarding causes

for suspension of benefits associated to processes such as Re-registration or Permanent

Verification, as well as regarding the mechanisms for re-joining the program. Non-monetary

benefits offered by the program are mostly unknown.


26

Even when PROSPERA spokespersons receive more detailed training during their dedicated

sessions (MACs), their degree of knowledge does not significantly differ from that of

beneficiaries.

In terms of the program’s permanent processes, the delivery and reception of monetary

benefits are seen as adequate, and people are certain that they received them, even in the

most remote and spread-out locations. However, there is a deficient rating of the costs

associated with this delivery. These costs are also heterogeneous, as they depend on the local

context and available infrastructure. This mostly affects beneficiaries who receive support

through the MAP.

Access to paperwork assistance and responsiveness to complaints have regular ratings from

beneficiaries, as are the resolutions derived from their use. Likewise, they consider response

times to be deficient.

Another important finding is that, due to PROSPERA’s well-known operational capacity, which

allows it to be in contact with nearly 25% of the national population every two months, the

program has also been approached to support and participate in a series of national strategies

that have little to do with its objectives. While this could be claimed as a result of the program’s

efficiency, it seems to be negatively affecting the execution of essential tasks for the beneficiary

population, such as keeping them well-informed and ensuring a prompt handling of their

bureaucratic procedures.

Additionally, the operational staff that participated in the survey mentioned that they often

lack all of the inputs needed for the proper execution of their duties, although they consider

the inputs delivered by the program to be sufficient and timely (formats, travel allowances),

while also considering the allocated time and space to be adequate.

As for the program’s Outreach component, only a very small percentage of beneficiaries know

or have been involved with the benefits it provides in some of its four modalities. Beneficiaries

rated the products and services offered by BANSEFI as regular, as well as the information

provided by program staff to facilitate their social inclusion. On the other hand, benefits related


27

to the productive labor inclusion modality (guidance, information and integration of productive

projects) are seen as deficient.

Despite the scant knowledge about BANSEFI products and services, beneficiaries consider them

to be of satisfactory quality, in contrast to the program’s operational staff who founds them to

be deficient, based on their perception that beneficiaries face problems or have complained

about them.

Lastly, the overall perception held by beneficiaries on the quality of program benefits, attention

and services offered was very good.

Findings in the Education Study Area The most notable positive result is that PROSPERA’s processes, in terms of their delivery of

educational benefits, tend to work effectively most of the time—according to beneficiaries and

scholarship recipients, educational grants arrive on time and in form. Greater challenges are

found, however, in informing all players involved on the functional details of PROSPERA’s

educational component, especially for scholarship recipients in higher-middle education, who

presented a lower degree of knowledge when compared to beneficiaries and education staff.

Staff at educational centers gave stricter ratings. Their ratings are lower for indicators related to

elements and processes in general, as well as in specific processes of shared-responsibility

certification. In contrast, beneficiaries showed a regular degree of satisfaction with the

attention received from school staff and with the educational services provided.

Beneficiaries sense a larger effect from scholarships on their children’s likelihood of staying in

school, while basic education staff is least in agreement with this correlation. Generally, all four

informant profiles either agree or strongly agree with the positive influence of further years of

schooling on student’s lives. However, their opinion is somewhat divided when asked about the

effects of scholarships on the likelihood of recipients staying in school, although a majority still

agrees with the scholarships’ helpfulness.


28

On aggregate, the results gathered from the indicators for the educational component highlight

the need for more efficient communication processes between the program, beneficiaries and

intermediaries (education center staff), and activities tied mainly to the certification, which

must find more effective processes, especially considering the current workload of education

staff, which is already often beyond their capacity.

Findings in the Healthcare Study Area Nationally, we may consider that the first level related with protections to facilitate access to

healthcare services has been achieved, both due to the high rates of registration into Seguro

Popular and the falling percentage of additional charges for healthcare.

However, a second level related to the timeliness of care faces some important challenges.

While programming and compliance objectives are achieved, waiting times for care are clearly

deficient in the view of program beneficiaries. Additionally, in terms of the structural quality of

these services, the outlook shows us that they have inadequate capacity. The equipment in

units with functional inputs was rated as regular, as reported by healthcare providers.

Furthermore, both according to supplies reported by the units and the availability reported by

beneficiaries, medication is being handed out at a limited rate. This is a crucial aspect, since

healthcare’s capacity for successful resolution is compromised when the prescribed medication

is absent.

Results point to relevant challenges in terms of training for Healthcare staff about this

component, both in terms of its frequency and its content. The indicators results suggest that

healthcare staff have only limited knowledge of the program.

Recommendations

Based on the most relevant findings, PC can work as a mechanism for creating an integrated

research agenda that gathers this study’s results, information from other research projects as


29

well results from evaluations conducted for the program. This would allow for a more complete

assessment on the program’s progresses and challenges. It is important to incorporate data

from administrative records into PC; this would improve the robustness of the program’s

information.

Likewise, future editions of the study should analyze the feasibility of including a panel

subsample or follow-up case studies for some of the populations and components in the

program. This would make short-term monitoring of results possible, as well as allowing the

study to follow up on new actions and ongoing changes in PROSPERA’s operation.

Drawing from the program’s characteristics, it is necessary to emphasize certain

recommendations relating to each of the study areas, as suggested by the findings, since each

area’s needs and improvement possibilities vary.

Recommendations for the PROSPERA Study Area The Support Desks (Mesas de Atención) carry out a number of activities, sometimes

simultaneously: orientation sessions and support for filling out paperwork to update the

Beneficiaries Registry (on top of the delivery of monetary grants to the MAPs). It would be

important to assign clear timings to each task, particularly for orientation sessions.

It would be desirable to consolidate the program’s educational communication strategy,

customizing it to the profiles, needs, and even interests of the population attending orientation

sessions (mostly beneficiaries), to allow for a better understanding of the contents. We would

recommend the use of adequate support materials (including the use of modern technology,

where available) depending on the audience and group size.

We should consider that, over only six sessions held with beneficiaries a year, the idea of

covering a wide range of subjects to a desirable quality, including issues not specifically covered

by the program, is extremely ambitious. Therefore, the program should prioritize the issues

that are relevant to reaching PROSPERA’s overall goals, and that are also important for


30

beneficiaries due to their potential influence on their status within the program, or on the

requirements for receiving the program benefits they are eligible for.

Operational capacity should improve in areas such as quality, acquired knowledge, and

behavioral changes that could be generated, as well as making better use of the time spent

waiting to receive support.

We recommend conducting a detailed analysis of the costs that program staff has to face to

adequately perform their duties. Also, the program could identify staff’s proposals that could

help reduce the high turnover rate among program staff.

We recommend exploring whether the beneficiaries’ ratings have more to do with the

reception of some benefit (loans) rather than the actual quality of the service offered by

BANSEFI under the financial inclusion modality. We suggest that the BANSEFI operational staff

act as an additional channel to receive complaints on irregularities, grievances, and doubts on

BANSEFI’s products and services so that this information enriches further discussions on

BANSEFI’s performance, allowing PROPERA to reach specific agreements for improvement and

monitor their progress.

In general, the limited knowledge that beneficiaries, spokespersons, and operational staff have

on the Outreach Component within the PROSPERA study area makes clear that its

implementation needs improvement. There should be a broader dissemination and bigger

efforts to improve access among the beneficiaries who are interested in some of the benefits it

offers through its four modalities (e.g., some beneficiaries run or would like to run a productive

project). This highlights the importance of having those responsible for the operation of the

four modalities to engage with beneficiaries more actively, since some positions such as the

Liaison Officers or Productive and Labor Inclusion Officers are unknown to most beneficiaries.

Although every effort in terms of linking beneficiary households with other benefits is positive,

it is worth reflecting more deeply on the real scope of this strategy.

In terms of the ratings for the Community Participation Committee (Comité de Participación

Comunitaria, CPC), beneficiaries recognize the time and responsibility investment it takes to run


31

it. However, it would be important for the program to reinforce among them the information

on activities expected from the CPC, such as the promotion of community supervision.

In terms of the degree of reliability, transparency, and security for the program, we suggest to

review through supervision operations whether their staff has asked from support from

beneficiaries to cover the expenses related to the performance of their duties.

Recommendations for the Education Study Area There is a need for stronger cooperation between PROSPERA and school staff to improve the

educational experience of beneficiaries. A first step would be to raise awareness on the

particular context and educational needs of scholarship recipients, coupled with joint efforts to

develop relevant educational materials.

Also, the program could consider the possibility of turning the school into a focal point for the

educational community engagement. The school space could serve as a meeting point,

information center and gathering area for parents, tutors, scholarship recipients, teachers,

directors, and administrative staff.

As an additional effort, it would be worth better identifying the scholarship recipients’

expectations, analyzing their experiences at school and work, and identifying more precisely the

determinants of school dropout among PROSPERA’s student population. This would provide the

program with the information needed to focus its efforts and improve its own efficiency.

Recommendations for the Healthcare Study Area There are important challenges in achieving effective access to healthcare for the PROSPERA

population. These challenges are amplified when we consider that the supply and management

of these healthcare services is distributed across 33 different suppliers (the 32 state-level

services plus IMSS-Prospera), which means that the strategies to overcome these challenges

must be developed with input from all suppliers to facilitate appropriation.


32

There is a need for strengthening the structural capabilities of health units, such that waiting

times can be reduced and medication supply can be increased. The delivery of medication has

been identified as particularly relevant in ensuring effective access to healthcare. Out-of-pocket

expenses on medicines are a significant barrier for adequate care, and it is a visible signal for

the population about the quality of services. Concretely, it is desirable for the program to

promote consolidated purchasing mechanisms, which allow obtaining greater product volume

given the available resources, while also developing more efficient distribution systems that use

available technology in optimizing distribution routes.

One mechanism that has not been sufficiently explored in Mexico is offering incentives to

healthcare units directly, which allows to detect and promote practices that bring about a more

effective provision of healthcare services.


33

References

Althria Consulting Group S.A. de C.V. (2016), Evaluación de Diseño PROSPERA Programa de

Inclusión Social. Accessed on September 4, 2017. Available at:

https://evaluacion.prospera.gob.mx/es/wersd53465sdg1/docs/2016/MOCyR_Informe

Final_S072_20_c.pdf

CNP (2017). Anexo Técnico, Actualización del diseño del estudio y procesamiento de datos,

análisis y elaboración de informes de resultados de Puntos Centinela 2017.

CONEVAL (2014). Manual para el diseño y la construcción de Indicadores. Accessed on September

6, 2017. Available at:

https://www.coneval.org.mx/informes/coordinacion/publicaciones%20oficiales/manual

_para_el_diseno_y_contruccion_de_indicadores.pdf

EASE. (2016). Evaluación de Resultados del Programa Integral de Inclusión Financiera (PROIIF).

1st Stage. Final Report. CDMX: EASE.

PROSPERA, P. d. (2017). ACUERDO por el que se emiten las Reglas de Operación del Programa

PROSPERA, Programa de Inclusión Social, para el ejercicio fiscal 2017. D.F: “Diario Oficial

de la Federación (DOF Original Text 29-12-2016)”. Consulted at:

http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5468069&fecha=29/12/2016

−P.d. (s.f.). ¿Qué es PROSPERA Programa de Inclusión Social? Programa de Inclusión Social

PROSPERA. Consulte don August 24, 2017. Available at::

https://www.gob.mx/prospera/documentos/que-es-prospera.

− (2015) ACUERDO por el que se emiten las Reglas de Operación del Programa PROSPERA,

Programa de Inclusión Social, para el ejercicio fiscal 2016. D.F: “Diario Oficial de la

Federación del 30 de diciembre de 2015”, Consulted August 20, 2017. Available at:

https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/177672/Reglas_de_Operaci_n_201

7.pdf.

https://evaluacion.prospera.gob.mx/es/wersd53465sdg1/docs/2016/MOCyR_InformeFinal_S072_20_c.pdf

https://evaluacion.prospera.gob.mx/es/wersd53465sdg1/docs/2016/MOCyR_InformeFinal_S072_20_c.pdf

https://www.coneval.org.mx/informes/coordinacion/publicaciones%20oficiales/manual_para_el_diseno_y_contruccion_de_indicadores.pdf

https://www.coneval.org.mx/informes/coordinacion/publicaciones%20oficiales/manual_para_el_diseno_y_contruccion_de_indicadores.pdf

http://www.gob.mx/prospera/documentos/que-es-prospera

https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/177672/Reglas_de_Operaci_n_2017.pdf

https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/177672/Reglas_de_Operaci_n_2017.pdf


34

Puntos Centinela 2016 (2016). Informe Nacional de Resultados de 2015 de Puntos Centinela:

Tema PROSPERA. Consulted September 4, 2017. Available at:

http://puntoscentinela.mx/2015/informe/GENERAL_NACIONAL.pdf

Rubalcava, L. (2015). Estrategia de seguimiento, monitoreo y evaluación de los componentes de

inclusión productiva, laboral y finaciera de PROSPERA Programa de Inclusión Social. .

CDMX: PROSPERA.

San Pedro, P. (December, 2006). El Individuo como agente del cambio: El proceso de

empoderamiento. Desarrollo “En Perspectiva”(1), 1 - 5. Available at:

http://fride.org/download/BGR_IndiviCamb_ESP_dic06.pdf

Chiapas Polytechnic University. (2016). Servicio de consultoría para la reingeniería del estudio

Puntos Centinela de Prospera Programa de Inclusión Social. Mexico.





Results Report · Executive Summary 4 Acronyms Feeding: PROSPERA’s food and nutrition component...

Documents

Transcript of Results Report · Executive Summary 4 Acronyms Feeding: PROSPERA’s food and nutrition component...