1 / 16

Qualitative evaluation, Mexico ’ s CCT

Qualitative evaluation, Mexico ’ s CCT. CLEAR Global Forum, Mexico City 2013. Mexico ’ s CCT in 2007. 5 million households , 7 million scholarships Children who started in 3rd grade are 20 years old Becoming adults : education , labor, family formation. Main goals.

Download Presentation

Qualitative evaluation, Mexico ’ s CCT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Qualitative evaluation, Mexico’s CCT CLEAR Global Forum, Mexico City 2013

  2. Mexico’s CCT in 2007 • 5 millionhouseholds, 7 millionscholarships • Childrenwhostarted in 3rd grade are 20 yearsold • Becomingadults: education, labor, familyformation

  3. Maingoals • Differential impact: indigenous vs. Non-indigenous • Long term (10 years) allows potentially large differences between those in program and those who never joined it • Focus on children experiencing maximum exposure • Assess services and possible discrimination • Follow chain of service / command

  4. Samplingtechnique • 3 communities in eachstate • 4 states • Ethniccoexistenceto control servicequality • 48 families in eachstate • Trackhistory in program • Chooseaccordingto SE levelIN 1997

  5. Time • 14 weeks in communities • Long fieldworkallowedinterviewingmigrantsreturningforfestivitiesorotherevents

  6. Intermediate and final reports • State monographs Temas: • Health • Education • Targeting • Impact

  7. Impacton labor participation, 10 yearson Methodological aspects • Analytical sample consists of in-depth case studies of each household (182) and scholarship receiver • Observe migrant and non-migrant performance (high-schooled leave) • Thus, the most successful as well as those not moving. • Without migrants, no evidence of impact.

  8. Studying as main activity of youths Youths 15-25 • Indigenous males: 26.6% (vs. 12.1% non-beneficiaries) • Indigenous women: 28% (7.4) • Non indigenous women: 32.7% (10.7%)

  9. Differential occupational distribution

  10. Education: differential impact (I) • Higher level of supply (more schools) in Oaxaca and Chiapas strengthen impact • Chihuahua and Sonora: highly dispersed population, lower impact

  11. Education: differential impact (II) • More impact in So states, especially among women and indigenous groups. Interethnic and gender gap seems to disappear • Northern states: less impacts. Interethnic gap persists, but narrower.

  12. Educational impact (791 individuals; 448 offspring 15-25) Difference in intergenerational schooling gap: • Two years more schooling • 2.9 more years among indigenous males (1 among non-indigenous) • 3.4 years among indigenous women (-0.3 among non-indigenous women)

  13. Education: Total impact? • Many still in school, therefore impact not yet known • 26.6% indigenous men • 28% indigenous women • 32.7% non-indigenous women • Emigration itself should enhance their earning potential

  14. Education: the problem with quality • The CCT reduces schooling gaps, but huge differences remain in schooling quality. • Particularly severe gaps between indigenous – non indigenous schools, and “telesecundarias” vs. Standard high schools.

  15. Educational quality: a look at inside the schools (I) • Problems: • Absent teachers • Programs not covered • Impossibletoassessstudentsaccordingtonationalnorms

  16. Educational quality (II) • Vivious circle reproduces schooling for indigenous children as a segregated system • Buteven so itisnotadaptedtoindigenousneeds

More Related