1. Fundación Bavaria
Evaluating the sustained impact of an
extreme poverty free zone in Colombia
Marcel Bock
Felipe de Souza Camargo
Laura Galindo
Andrew Kelton
Grace Philipp

2. 1
CONTENTS
TABLE OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................ 3
ACRONYMS..........................................................................................................................................5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... 7
OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................................9
BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 10
THEORIES OF POVERTY REDUCTION AND MPI ........................................................................ 14
METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................... 18
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 19
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OVERVIEW .............................................................................................. 19
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ............................................................................20
JANUARY FIELD TRIP ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY—STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ...20
MARCH FIELD TRIP ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY—FOCUS GROUPS..............................20
QUALITATIVE RESULTS ..............................................................................................................22
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW RESULTS .................................................................................22
FOCUS GROUP RESULTS .............................................................................................................29
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 34
INCOME ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS ........................................................... 34
1) TOTAL FAMILY INCOME ..................................................................................................... 35
2) WEIGHTED INCOME PER CAPITA ..................................................................................... 35
3) CROSS-MUNICIPALITY COMPARISON ............................................................................36
4) MOVEMENTS WITHIN INCOME THRESHOLDS IN 2012, 2015, AND 2016 ................ 37
FINDINGS...................................................................................................................................... 38
WEIGHTED POVERTY INDEX (WPI)..................................................................................................39
WPI METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................39
WPI RESULTS............................................................................................................................. 39
INTERVENTION ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................................45
INTERVENTION IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ................................................................45
INTERVENTION ANALYSIS RESULTS...........................................................................................45
FINDINGS......................................................................................................................................48

3. 2
LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .............................................................................50
MAIN FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................52
A) STAKEHOLDER INTERACTION....................................................................................................54
B) PROGRAM EXECUTION ...............................................................................................................58
C) METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................................60
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS IN THE AREA OF METHODOLOGY ........................................................... 61
D) ZOLIP DIMENSIONS ....................................................................................................................62
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS IN THE AREA OF ZOLIP DIMENSIONS ......................................................63
E) EXTERNAL FACTORS ...................................................................................................................64
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OTHER STAKEHOLDERS ......................................66
A) STAKEHOLDER INTERACTION....................................................................................................66
B) PROGRAM EXECUTION ............................................................................................................... 67
E) EXTERNAL FACTORS ................................................................................................................... 70
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS IN THE AREA OF PROGRAM EXECUTION..................................................71
CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................... 72
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 74
APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................................... 76
APPENDIX 1: SIPA TEAM PROJECT PHASES....................................................................... 76
APPENDIX 2 – NUESTRO PLAN FAMILIAR: ANSPE’S 9 DIMENSIONS AND 45 GOALS
.......................................................................................................................................................77
APPENDIX 3 – FOCUS GROUP GUIDES ................................................................................ 78
APPENDIX 4 – SURVEY ............................................................................................................ 83
APPENDIX 5 – CODING METHODOLOGY STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ......................... 102
APPENDIX 6 –GANOMESPASADO FOR FAMILIES IN COTA, NOBSA, CAJICA,
MADRID AND MOSQUERA 2015-2012 ................................................................................ 103
APPENDIX 7 - MEAN OF GANOMESPASADO PER CAPITA AND WEIGHTED PER
CAPITA FOR FAMILIES IN COTA, NOBSA, CAJICA, MADRID AND MOSQUERA 2015-
2012 ........................................................................................................................................... 106
APPENDIX 8 – WPI METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 108

4. 3
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Bavaria S.A. Plant Locations................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2: Measuring multidimensional poverty ..................................................................................... 15
Figure 3: Measuring multidimensional poverty. SOURCE: OPHI1 2015 ................................................. 16
Figure 4: MPI in Colombia ......................................................................................................................17
Figure 5: Research Methodology........................................................................................................... 18
Figure 6: Private sector interviews ........................................................................................................22
Figure 7: Public sector interviews ..........................................................................................................25
Figure 8: Independent actor interviews.................................................................................................26
Figure 9: Overall interview results.........................................................................................................28
Figure 10: Word cloud analysis..............................................................................................................29
Figure 11: Nine dimensions exercise - 5 years ago and now................................................................... 30
Figure 12: Mean of GANOMESPASADO for families in Tocancipá 2015-2012 ....................................... 35
Figure 13: Mean of GANOMESPASADO per capita and weighted per capita for families in Tocancipá
2015-2012 .............................................................................................................................................36
Figure 14: Change in GANOMESPASADO for families in Cota, Nobsa, Cajica, Madrid and Mosquera
2015-2012 ............................................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 15: Number of of families in Tocancipá per Income Threshold 2012, 2015, and 2016.................. 38
Figure 16: Overall MPI results................................................................................................................40
Figure 17: Family Level Trends in WPI ...................................................................................................40
Figure 18: Housing WPI results.............................................................................................................. 41
Figure 19: Income WPI results............................................................................................................... 41
Figure 20: Healt & Nutrition WPI results................................................................................................42
Figure 21: Education WPI results........................................................................................................... 43
Figure 22: Children WPI results ............................................................................................................. 43
Figure 23: Other WPI results..................................................................................................................44
Figure 24: Multivariate OLS regression .................................................................................................46
Figure 37: Univariate regression............................................................................................................ 47
Figure 26: Logistic regression ...............................................................................................................48
Figure 27: Intervention analysis results..................................................................................................49
Figure 28: Summary of main recommendations ...................................................................................52

5. 4
Figure 29: Summary of additional main findings................................................................................... 53
Figure 30: Summary of additional recommendations for other stakeholders........................................66
Figure 31: Summary of additional findings for other stakeholders ........................................................66

6. 5
ACRONYMS
ANDI: Asociación de industrials de Colombia—Association of Colombian Industries
ANSPE: Agencia Nacional para la Superación de la Pobreza Extrema—National Agency to Overcome
Extreme Poverty
COP – Colombian Pesos (1 USD ~ 3000 COP)
CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility
DPS: Departamento para la Prosperidad Social—Department for Social Prosperity (formerly known as
ANSPE)
SIPA: Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs
ZOLIP: Zonas Libres de Pobreza Extrema—Zones Free from Extreme Poverty

7. 6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The SIPA research team would like to thank all of those who made this project possible through their
guidance and support. The team would like to thank Fundación Bavaria´s staff for their valuable and
ongoing input and help through all stages of the project. In particular, the team gratefully acknowledges
Jorge Enrique Bedoya and Blanca Ariza’s work in developing this project, and their constructive
comments throughout the process. The project´s goals would not have been achieved without their
invaluable time and effort. In addition, the SIPA research team would like to highlight the instrumental
role of Adriana Sanabria and Duván Quintana- their guidance was essential for a successful trip to
Tocancipá for collecting data.
In addition, the team would like to thank the ANSPE/DPS team in Bogotá for their warm welcome and
for sharing their experiences with the ZOLIP and Red Unidos program. The team is particularly thankful
to Andrea León, María Consuelo Castro, Claudia Martínez, Estefanía Pardo as well as Carlos Álvarez,
Carlos Garzón and the rest of the staff that met with the SIPA research team during January and March.
Theteamisalsogratefulto SIPAfacultyadvisorsfor theirdirection,motivationandinvaluableassistance.
In particular, the team would like to thank Rainer Braun, Eugenia McGill, José Antonio Ocampo, and Ilona
Vinklerova for their continued support.

8. 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Eradicating extreme poverty in Colombia by 2020 is one of the major policy objectives of President
Santos. In order to achieve this ambitious goal, the National Agency to Overcome Extreme Poverty
(ANSPE)1
, Colombia’s leading poverty reduction agency, has created the strategy of Red Unidos. An
essential part of Red Unidos are Zones Free from Extreme Poverty (Zonas Libres de Pobreza Extrema,
ZOLIP). The ZOLIP program involves an intensive set of interventions led or co-led by a private or
municipal actor, with the participation of local government, businesses, NGOs, foundations and civil
society - an integral dynamic to facilitate the transition of families toward the path of prosperity.
The Bavaria Foundation, referred to as Fundación Bavaria or “the Foundation”, is the corporate social
responsibility (CSR) arm of the beverage manufacturing firm Bavaria S.A., a subsidiary of SABMiller and
is one of the leading private sector participants in this initiative. Fundación Bavaria requested the
assistance of the SIPA team, or “the team”, to assess whether the ZOLIP strategy was successful in
helping participating families in the town of Tocancipá to move and stay out of extreme poverty, if and
how Fundación Bavaria’s participation as a private sector actor added value, and to investigate
programmatic areas of improvement.
The SIPA team hasused quantitative and qualitative research methods complemented by extensive desk
research in its assessment. In January 2016, the team conducted 28 stakeholder interviews, and in March
2016, the team administered a survey to 128 families and conducted five focus groups among beneficiary
families of the Tocancipá ZOLIP. The team then used survey data and existing data (collected by ANSPE
in 2012 and 2015) to inform analyses based on income and a proprietary multidimensional Weighted
Poverty Index (WPI).
Particularly, in the qualitative analysis, the SIPA team found the following: Stakeholders from the private
and public sector stressed (1) that the private sector was a key accelerator of the ZOLIP program and (2)
that the overall methodology, especially base lining and impact evaluation, has significant room for
improvement. Focus group participants, who had an overall positive impression of Red Unidos, valued
the contributions of the social workers and conveyed a perception that their lives had improved over the
course of the last 5 years. However, they were also pessimistic about the future, highlighting the rising
cost of living and the negative impact of migration.
In the quantitative analyses, the team found that average income levels stagnated or decreased amongst
beneficiaries and that the Tocancipá ZOLIP, led by Fundación Bavaria, did not outperform similar
municipalities in the Red Unidos program without a ZOLIP (without a private sector lead) in terms of
income growth. The Weighted Poverty Index (WPI) indicator showed a slight increase in overall well-
being, driven particularly by improvements in health and nutrition but mitigated by regression in the
education metrics. According to the limited attendance records the team had access to, interventions
seem to have had little measurable impact on participating families WPI scores.
Based on the findings, the team cannot credibly substantiate a significant positive impact on poverty in
Tocancipá caused by the ZOLIP. However, these results need to be regarded with a high degree of
caution as there have been a range of observed (e.g. migration, mining) and possibly unobserved shocks
that could have biased the nominal results. Foremost amongst the factors confounding the ability to
1
ANSPE has been merged with the Departamento para la Prosperidad Social (DPS) in the beginning of 2016, see
chapter “Background” for more details. The report will be using ANSPE to describe the government body that
leads the Red Unidos program. DPS will be used in the recommendations section.

9. 8
draw firm qualitative conclusions regarding the efficacy of the program is the fact that the team is not
able to observe a credible counterfactual necessary to quantify the direct effect of the program on
poverty.
Based on all findings, this report will present a range of recommendations across five areas: Stakeholder
interaction, program execution, methodology, ZOLIP dimensions and external factors. The following are
summaries of some of the key recommendations. For example, in “stakeholder interaction”, there are
several proposed ways to improve accountability within a ZOLIP and how to better “sell” the concept of
ZOLIP to private sector participants in order to foster buy-in. Within “program execution”, there is a
proposal to enhance the program agility by fully exploiting the available data and improve effectiveness
of social workers by enhancing their support infrastructure. In terms of “methodology”, the team
proposes to include post-graduation monitoring and highlight the finding that the current targeting
methodology may exclude many families in extreme poverty. In the “ZOLIP dimensions” section, the
report explains the need for further analysis to understand dynamics and trends in income, health and
education and to design more effective interventions. In “external factors”, the team proposes ways to
counteract “asistencialismo” and improve the local labor market transparency.

10. 9
OBJECTIVES
FundaciónBavaria’sengagement with the ZOLIPprogram began in 2012,with the explicit goalofhelping
families living in communities surrounding Bavaria production plants to overcome extreme poverty.
The Foundation has been seeking the assistance of the SIPA team to
 Assess whether the ZOLIP strategy was successful in helping the participating families in the
town of Tocancipá to move out and stay out of extreme poverty
 Investigate whether Fundación Bavaria’s participation as a private sector stakeholder added
value in the implementation and/or impact of the program
 Suggest strategic and tactical opportunities for improvement of and within the ZOLIP strategy.
Multidimensional data collection was conducted by ANSPE at regular intervals throughout the program.
However, no systematic or local impact evaluation has ever been conducted for the ZOLIP program. As
a result, there is little evidence to suggest if, after graduation, participating families remained out of
poverty and whether they are better off as a result of having participated in this program.
The SIPA team has sought to contribute to this effort by bringing in an unbiased external perspective,
reviewing literature on poverty reduction and, thereby, identifying best practices; collecting and
analyzing quantitative data on poverty indicators; interviewing stakeholders from Fundación Bavaria,
ANSPE, participating families, as well as other key actors and experts; and exploiting available secondary
data to measure the ongoing outcome of the ZOLIP initiative and develop corresponding
recommendations.
These objectives have been translated into the following main tasks:
1. Review project documents, reports and monitoring data for the ZOLIP program
2. Review secondary information on poverty reduction and impoverished communities in
Colombia, particularly in the five ZOLIP zones
3. Meet with and interview Foundation staff, other key stakeholders involved in implementing the
ZOLIPs program, members of the local community, and additional experts in order to better
understand the local context, objectives of the ZOLIPs program, and implementation experience
(initiated in the January field trip, continued in March field trip)
4. Design and apply information-gathering tools to measure the outcome of the ZOLIP program
through a mixed methods approach - interviews, focus groups and surveys with participants of
the ZOLIP program
5. Analyze information gathered, and develop related findings and recommendations.
The SIPA team conducted these tasks over the course of 6 main project phases (Appendix 1)

11. 10
BACKGROUND
FUNDACIÓN BAVARIA
Fundación Bavaria, a non-profit entity initiated in
2005, is the CSR arm of Bavaria S.A., a beverage
manufacturing firm and a subsidiary of parent
corporation SABMiller Corporation. The stated
purpose of Fundación Bavaria is: “to benefit the
poorest communities in Colombia through social
investment programs aimed at job and revenue
generation, poverty reduction, progress and
sustainable development in the country”
(Bavaria, 2015.1). The Foundation pursues this
mission primarily through activities such as
education support, provision of microcredit
services for shop owners, support for
entrepreneurs, and the Uni2 volunteer program
through which employees donate time and
wages to local community projects (the company
matches all employee donations by 200%). To
date, the Foundation has contributed 100 billion
pesos (~USD 31 million) to local communities,
participants in its value chain, and society in
general (Bavaria, 2005).
Bavaria S.A. is the largest beverage company in Colombia and the largest SABMiller operation in Latin
America. The company produces 11 different beer labels in Colombia at six brewing plants located
throughout the country. Bavaria contributes 0.45% of the total GDP of the country, 2.89% of the
industrial GDP and represents 45.9% of the GDP in the beverage sector (Bavaria, 2015.2). They directly
employ 4,100 people, and nearly 3.500 indirectly comprising 1% of the total employment in the country
(Bavaria, 2015.3).
In 2012,BavariaS.A. began the process ofcontributing to the ZOLIPstrategy. At thispoint, the company
has created a total of four ZOLIPs, each one close to a Bavaria S.A. industrial site. Tocancipá was the first
implemented ZOLIP site. Fundación Bavaria recruits volunteers (from within Bavaria S.A.’s ranks and
other local companies) who organize fundraisers, hold events in the community, visit families in need,
provide mentoring for individuals, help job seekers to create CVs, and assist with infrastructure, among
other projects. Tocancipá’s ZOLIP encourages entrepreneurial locals to launch their own small
businesses byproviding professionalguidance, seed capital,equipment andstock supplies. The program
also helps extremely poor families to improve their lives through relaying critical health information
along with home improvement measures, replacing leaky roofs, providing bunk beds to relieve
overcrowding, and creating proper bathrooms and toilet facilities. (SAB-Miller, 2014)
Figure 1: Bavaria S.A. Plant Locations

12. 11
LOCAL CONTEXT: TOCANCIPÁ
The project focused on the municipality of Tocancipá, located in the Northwestern part of the
metropolitan area, 47 km from Bogotá. Its population is estimated to be 31,975 people, of which 13,618
live in the urban area (42.6%) (Town Hall Tocancipá,2015). In the municipality, the number of households
in 2015 enrolled in the Red Unidos program, defined by ANSPE data2
, was 172, thereof 142 enrolled in
ZOLIP.
Tocancipá’s main income source is industrial activity from local industrial infrastructure, such as Zona
Franca de Tocancipá (Free Business Zone of Tocancipá) and the Parque Industrial y Logístico Del Norte
(Industrial and Logistic Park of the North) (Zona Franca, 2015). Industries consist of multinational
companies, which in addition to Bavaria – SABMILLER, include Belcorp, Colpapel, Sika, Quala, Sidenal,
Coca Cola and Toptex. The flower industry is also a fundamental employer for Tocancipá’s citizens,
according to data collected from the SIPA team’s field research.
EFFORTS TO ADDRESS POVERTY
ANSPE & RED UNIDOS STRATEGY
Overall, from 2010 to 2013, Colombia’s poverty rate was reduced from 37.2% to 30.6% and its extreme
poverty rate was reduced from 12.2% to 9.1% (World Bank, 2016). President Santos’ second term
reelection campaign advocated towards building on the previous poverty reduction strategy and
committing to eradicating extreme poverty by 2020 through different action plans, one of which involves
the leading poverty reduction agency, the National Agency to Overcome Extreme Poverty (ANSPE)
(Santos, 2014.1).
ANSPE redefined its strategy in 2014 to go in line with the 2014-2018 National Development Plan
objectives. The three main pillars of the 2014-2018 plan are a peaceful, fair andeducated country. ANSPE,
in the context of shared responsibility with other government agencies, focuses on the second pillar,
fairness. Reducing poverty, enhancing social inclusion through social protection, strengthening the
middle class, and having effective income and employment generation mechanisms define ANSPE’s
main work focuses.
Recently, ANSPE merged with Social Prosperity Department (Departamento para la Prosperidad Social,
DPS). Now, DPS plays a key national role given its position as the articulator among households living in
extreme poverty, the community, social organizations, the private sector, social innovators and the
government (Santos, 2014.1). DPS coordinates the efforts of 37 national organizations, 32 departments,
1,102 municipalities, strategic partners from other sectors (private and nonprofit actors), social
innovation organizations, and international cooperation.
DPS’s current strategy to accompany families in the process of overcoming extreme poverty is called
“Red Unidos”. Under this strategy, DPS aims to:
2
Based on promotion data “Promocion_23122015”

13. 12
1. Operate within defined territories
2. Promote and help articulate a strategic partnership between mayors and governors and their
vision to advance on the eradication of extreme poverty
3. Link private sector actors to extreme poverty eradication strategy and help generate innovative
ways to develop inclusive business alternatives that can help generate wealth in territories
4. Promote social innovation
5. Eradicate the extreme poverty situation of 350,000 identified families during 2014-2018, and to
improve the living conditions of 1,150,000 poor in Colombia. (ANSPE, 2015)
Considering the recent shift from ANSPE to DPS as of December 2015, the report will be using ANSPE to
describe the entity that leadsthe Red Unidosprogram.DPS willbe usedin the recommendationssection.
EXTREME POVERTY FREE AREAS — ZOLIPS
To overcome extreme poverty in specific territories across the country, ANSPE and its Red Unidos
strategy developed the ZOLIP program, which involve intense interventions in specific areas of the
country. Article 5 of Decree 4160 outlines the promotion of geographically limited strategies to
overcome extreme poverty as one of ANSPE’s goals. To meet this goal, the ZOLIP (Santos, 2014.2)
strategy was created. ZOLIPs were defined by ANSPE as geographically defined areas where the
development of intensive intervention exercises is led or co-led by a local public actor and his highly
supported by private sector entities. The public-private partnership architecture of the strategy is what
differentiates it form the traditional Red Unidos interventions. The participation of all levels of local
government, businesses, NGOs, foundations and civil society under the framework of a public-private
partnership model is an integral ZOLIP-specific dynamic which aims to help families transition towards
the path of prosperity (ANSPE, 2015). The private-public nature of the ZOLIP also entails ZOLIP-specific
dynamics such as a monthly technical committee where stakeholders from both public and private
sectors meet to analyze how ZOLIP families are doing and what interventions are needed. Each ZOLIP
must comprise between 120 and 750 families, all of which linked with ANSPE – Red Unidos.
The strategy and work streams of each ZOLIP are unique, given they are jointly defined by an ANSPE
group assigned to a particular ZOLIP and the private sector player co-leading the effort. However,
intervention goals are defined and aim to streamline processes of community and family support that
will positively impact the quality of life of the geographic area and the people living within it.
ZOLIP interventions entail working together with families on 9 dimensions:
1. Identification
2. Income and Employment
3. Education and Capacity Building
4. Health
5. Nutrition
6. Habitability
7. Family Dynamic
8. Financial Inclusion and Savings
9. Support in Access to Legal Systems

14. 13
There are 45 goals within these 9 dimensions (see Appendix 2). These 45 goals comprise the information
that ANSPE social workersuse to monitor the status of the family before the intervention starts and after
the intervention is implemented. However, there is no continuous follow-up of the graduated families
after conclusion of the program. The goals can be categorized as “achieved”, “not achieved”, or “does
not apply”. For each goal, the methodology specifies certain, specific achievements that the social
worker is able to identify whether or not the goal has been achieved.
To ensure appropriate implementation, ZOLIP and Red Unidos strategies are supported by the work that
social workers conduct on the ground. President Santos has referred to these social workers as
“Colombia’s social army” because they play an instrumental role in properly implementing the strategy
and helping a significant number of Colombian families to overcome extreme poverty. Their duties range
fromcollecting baseline data to visiting families andinforming them about publicsocialprogramsrelated
to the nine dimensions. Social workers provide key psychological support to motivate extremely poor
families to overcome their situation. Their daily work is based on personally visiting families within their
assigned geographical area. During the visit, they construct a diagnosis to understand whether the
families’ situation is improving and help households come up with a plan to achieve goals specified in the
strategy.
The implementation period for each ZOLIP must be between one and three years. The intervention time
can be adjusted according to endogenous or exogenous factors that may arise during the
implementation of the strategy.
FUNDACIÓN BAVARIA’S STRATEGY TO IMPROVE LIVING CONDITIONS OF VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES
At a national level, Fundación Bavaria started down the path of helping improve the living conditions of
1,500 families (6,800 individuals) that live in communities that surround Bavaria S.A. production plants.
FundaciónBavaria’swork wasfocusedin si zones ofinfluence acrossthe country:Cundinamarca,Boyacá,
Valle del Cauca, Santander, Atlántico y Antioquia (ANSPE, 2010).
As previously mentioned, this project focuses on the involvement of Fundación Bavaria as the private
sector leader in one of the Cundinamarca ZOLIP program in Tocancipá. In its first year of operation,
Bavaria invested COP 200 million (~$62,000) specifically in Tocancipá in order to improve the living
conditions of 142 families that lived in extreme poverty in that geographic area (ANSPE, 2010).
Fundación Bavaria aimed to establish its leadership in the implementation of the ZOLIP program as the
agency that articulated and facilitated the work of local municipalities, local government offices, various
private sector companies, and community members. Fundación Bavaria individually met each of these
stakeholders to ensure that the efforts, products and services needed to help achieve the 45 goals were
available.

15. 14
THEORIES OF POVERTY REDUCTION AND MPI
There is no consensus in the development literature regarding how to measure poverty. Schools of
thought disagree on which metrics are credible indicators of poverty. ANSPE’s Red Unidos program
adopts a multidimensional definition of poverty. Below are brief descriptions of a few of the alternative
approaches to poverty evaluation that then describe, in some detail, the theoretical and practical
justification for the use of a multidimensional approach to poverty.
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES:
Of the most prevalent theoretical justifications for poverty reduction programs, the Welfarist approach
is amongst the most liberal and the most commonly practiced. At its foundation, the Welfarist approach
insists that individuals are rational economic actors and are the best judges of their basic needs, the most
efficient employment of their limited resources, and the consumption frontiers at which marginal
improvements will beget the largest possible increase in utility. It is also important to note that the
relationship between utility and every type of consumption behavior is unique to each individual.
Essentially this approach equates poverty with utility and suggests that impoverished people make the
most efficient use of additional resources to maximize utility. According to the Welfarist approach, the
most effective poverty reduction interventions are cash transfers, which allow individuals to direct
resources toward consumption behavior that has the highest marginal utility.
The Basic Needs school suggests that there exists a specific bundle of resources which represents a
minimum threshold above which an individual or family can be credibly claimed to be out of poverty. This
threshold is generally stable and applicable throughout the world. According to this school of thought,
the goal of poverty reduction strategies should be to raise all individuals or families above this threshold.
The “basicneeds”include goodsandservices related to survival,securityandempowerment such asfood,
water, sanitation, shelter clothing, education, health services, and transportation. The Basic Needs
approach rejects the Welfarist approach to poverty by suggesting either that we cannot assume
individuals to be rational economic actors or that cash transfers are a less efficient employment of
poverty alleviation resources than large scale programs which target a specific dimension which is
deficient amongst a certain population. (Duclos, 2002)
A third school of thought, Capability, approaches poverty through looking at individual capability and
freedoms instead of goods and services. It suggests that:
“What is ultimately important is that people have the freedoms or valuable opportunities
(capabilities) to lead the kind of lives they want to lead, to do what they want to do and be
the person theywanttobe.Once theyeffectivelyhave these substantive opportunities,they
can choose those options that they value most. For example, every person should have the
opportunity to be part of a community and to practice a religion; but if someone prefers to
be a hermit or an atheist, they should also have this option.” (p.95, Robeyns 2005)
This approach boils down to the idea that giving people things is not the best way to alleviate poverty.
Instead,people maximize their utility when theyhavethe freedomandopportunity to pursue their career
and life objectives, which maximizes their sense of self-worth. This suggests that in order to reduce
poverty, society must promote social and socio-economic opportunities so that individuals and families

16. 15
are free to determine how, given their abilities and means, they can maximize their self-worth and, thus,
happiness.
MULTIDIMENSIONAL APPROACH:
The philosophy behind measuring poverty in a multidimensional way stems from the fact that looking at
income alone does not provide a comprehensive picture of an individual or family’s welfare:
“Poor people go beyond income in defining their experience of poverty. They often include a
lack of education, health, housing, empowerment, humiliation, employment, personal
security and more. No one indicator, such as income or consumption, is uniquely able to
capture the multiple disadvantages that contribute to poverty. Furthermore, levels and
trends of income poverty are not highly correlated with trends in other basic variables such
as child mortality, primary school completion rates, or undernourishment.” (p.2, OPHI1
2015).
Furthermore, a multidimensional approach inherently creates a feedback loop which can have an
informative impact on policy choices. The more policy-relevant information there is available on poverty,
the better-equipped policy makers will be to reduce it. Thus, if the MPI reveals specific deprivations
within one dimension, policy makers know where to focus their resources toward understanding the
underlying causes of the deprivation and designing corresponding interventions.
Figure 2: Measuring multidimensional poverty
By specifically defining poverty, the multidimensional approach provides a concrete framework which
directs intervention resources through institutional channels toward dimensions which are deficient.
Robust data collection informs resource deployment priorities. Essentially, population data provides
information that indicates the dimensions and sub dimensions in which people are most disadvantaged

17. 16
relative to a threshold that indicates a lack of poverty. At its most efficient, this approach should indicate
through data analysis which interventions will prove most impactful for the population. Most
multidimensional approaches encompass the 6 steps shown in Figure 2.
The most widely used approach to measure multidimensional poverty is the Alkire Foster method, which
extends these basic steps by additional 6 steps (Figure 3).
Asanexampleofamultidimensionalpovertyframeworkinaction,theGlobalMPIproject(OPHI2,OPHI3,
2015) aims to construct a comparable MPI across countries. It focuses on the three dimensions which are
equally weighted: Education, Health, and Standard of Living. Within Education, the index measures
Years of Schooling and Schooling Attendance. Within Health, the index incorporates Child Mortality and
Nutrition. Within Standard of Living, the index captures Electricity, Sanitation, Water, Floor, Cooking
Fuel, and Assets. Each of these 10 indicators is equally weighted in a given dimension. Colombia has used
the MPI to inform its national development plan (OPHI1 2015). The Colombian MPI is composed as
follows (Figure 4).
Figure 3: Measuring multidimensional poverty. SOURCE: OPHI1 2015

18. 17
Figure 4: MPI in Colombia
The SIPA team has performed analyses based solely on income (Welfarist) and, additionally, created a
proprietaryweightedpoverty index (WPI) inorderto take multidimensionalapproaches into account (see
quantitative analysis sections of this report). This index (WPI) seeks to quantify wellbeing of families in
several dimensions across a range of indicators. This methodology and the dimensions employed have
been informed by the Colombia MPI. In the WPI, as in the Colombia MPI, all dimensions and indicators
within each dimension are equally weighted. However, the WPI does not incorporate deprivation
thresholds and poverty cutoffs and is hence a more simplified version of the MPI approach described in
this section. This simplification was necessitated by inherent and unavoidable constraints the SIPA team
faced in collecting data in the field.

19. 18
METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
The team used a mixed method approach, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative research methods.
Data collection was conducted over the course of two two-week field trips to Colombia between January
and March 2016 in order to address the underlying research questions described in the previous section
(see Figure 5).
For qualitative research,the team conducted 27 stakeholder interviewsduring the January fieldtrip with
a range of actors with a stake in the ZOLIP strategy or poverty reduction in Colombia. In March, the team
conducted five focus groups with 40 beneficiaries of the program represented while in Tocancipá. Please
see Appendix 3 for focus group guide.
For quantitative research, the team constructed a survey to complement existing data on beneficiaries
collected by ANSPE for 2012 and 2015, reaching 128 participating families during team fieldwork. This
survey was then used to a) perform analyses based on family and per capita income, both within
Tocancipá and in comparison with other municipalities and b) to create a weighted poverty index based
on a multidimensional understanding of poverty in order to assess developments in family well-being
beyond income. Also, the team assessed the impact of individual interventions on the WPI, a metric
created by the SIPA team. Please see Appendix 4 for the quantitative survey.
Both areas of research have been informed and supported by extensive desk research, focusing on
poverty measurement and public private partnerships.
Figure 5: Research Methodology
Both qualitative and quantitative methods have been applied in close integration and have been
informing each other throughout the course of the research project. For example, the January interviews
informed the construction of the survey and design of focus group guides. Throughout the analysis

20. 19
phase, the team discussed quantitative and qualitative results in order to identify overlaps and
contradictions as well as inform recommendations in a concerted manner.
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OVERVIEW
Qualitative research is comprised from two sources; stakeholder interviews conducted during the
January visit to Bogotá, and focus groups conducted during the March field trip to Tocancipá.
QUALITATIVE JANUARY FIELD TRIP OVERVIEW
We conducted 27 initial stakeholder interviews during the two-week January visit, with the goal of
complementing desk research and literature review findings. Out of the total number of interviewees, 9
were from the private sector, 14 from the public sector and 4 were not affiliated with neither the public
nor the private.
Activities for January travel included:
 Interviews of Fundación Bavaria stakeholders; in particular, program officers
 Interviews of ANSPE stakeholders; in particular, program implementers and program officers
 Interviews of private sector stakeholders (those partnering with Fundación Bavaria, who have
provided services related to Tocancipá ZOLIP strategy)
 Further collection of data, information and literature from above stakeholders
We utilized a prepared script to help guide interviews, though asked appropriate follow-up questions as
stakeholders mentioned off-script topics. Extensive notes were taken during interviews, but no
recordings were used.
QUALITATIVE MARCH FIELD TRIP OVERVIEW
Qualitative data collection during the March field trip consisted of five, 60-90 minute focus group
sessionswith an average ofeight participants.Two groups consistedofonlywomen,genderswere mixed
in the other three. Ages represented in focus groups were between 18 and 80. Focus group participants
were either in process of completing the quantitative questionnaire, or had already completed it, before
participating in a focus group.
A dedicated session moderator (Galindo) directed the conversation based on a standardized focus group
guide. A note-taker/ session facilitator (Bock or Philipp), recorded the sessions, documented various
focus group activities, kept time, introduced late-comers to the group and provided other assistance as
necessary.

21. 20
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
JANUARY FIELD TRIP ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY—STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
For January stakeholder interviews, analysis involved coding the extensive notes taken during the
interviews. The coding methodology entailed:
1. Defining coding categories: Respondents were classified into industry related clusters; separated
into private sector, public sector and independent. The rationale for defining these clusters was
the public-private partnership nature of the strategy. The industry-clusters are mutually
exclusive as none of the respondents could have been included in two categories at the same
time. For the purpose of the analysis, stakeholder name and affiliation was anonymized for
confidentiality reasons.
2. Classifying relevant information: A theme analysis classification was used to categorize relevant
information from transcripts. There were 17 relevant themes identified, clustered into four high
level topics: coordination, context, theory of change, and methodology
3. Assigning symbols to categories: Once stakeholder clusters and theme categories were defined,
researchers assigned a symbol that designated the attitude or perception of each stakeholder as
they mentioned any of the 17 themes.
a. “x” represents a positive perception of such theme
b. “o” represents an opinion that was perceived as an area that needs improvement
c. “n” represents a neutral view of the topic; e.g. mention of an initiative that was being
developed by an industry but not yet implemented.
The purpose of this analysis was to:
 Understand stakeholder motivation behind engaging in the ZOLIP strategy
 Get an overarching view of ZOLIP strategy as implemented country-wide, compared to
Tocancipá
 See whether certain categories or topics were more important, or viewed more favorably, by
some sectors compared to others
See Appendix 5 for a snapshot of the coding methodology. An in depth analysis of results are explained
in the Qualitative Results section of the report.
MARCH FIELD TRIP ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY—FOCUS GROUPS
Analysis of March focus group sessions involved three separate activities:
1. Word Cloud Analysis: In the beginning of each focus group, the qualitative team asked people
what came to mind when they heard the phrase “Red Unidos”. The team transcribed everything
said in response to this prompt and used a word cloud generator to produce a visual
representation of which words were most strongly associated with “Red Unidos”

22. 21
2. Nine-Dimensions exercise:
a. Prompt: After the “Red Unidos” question, the team asked participants to partake in a
ranking exercise. The moderator would explain the various symbols on nine laminated
sheets of paper that represented the nine dimensions of poverty according to DPS (e.g.
identification, family dynamics, habitability, etc.) Participants were asked to rank the
dimensions in order of best functioning to worst functioning at two different time points:
“five years ago” and “now”.
b. Ranking: The team developed a weighted ranking methodology to assign scores to
individual dimensions depending on where the group placed it on the “functioning well
to not-so-well” spectrum. Dimension scores were averaged across all focus groups,
creating a generalized relative ranking from both “five years ago” and “now”.
c. Analysis: The team compared relative ranking from “five years ago” to “now” in order to
demonstrate trends. Considering the nature of ranking means that as one dimension
improves another dimension must fall, there is no comparison of final “averaged”
ranking numbers, but instead refer to relative rank (1-9, best to worst).
3. Focus Group Thematic Analysis: The team used an iterative process. Journal entries made at the
end of each day referring to notes taken during focus groups, were later compared to a review of
the recordings. This process resulted in a list of common themes and focus group participant’s
perceptions regarding these themes.

23. 22
QUALITATIVE RESULTS
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW RESULTS
An overall analysis was conducted to see how relevant each of the 17 topics were for private sector, public
sector and independent stakeholders. The number of positive, negative or neutral perceptions was
counted to assess the perception of each topic. When the number is close to 0%, it indicates a negative
perception, whereas numbers closer to 100% indicate positive perceptions.
PRIVATE SECTOR
Figure 6: Private sector interviews
The most mentioned themes amongst private sector respondents were:
1. Role of the private sector—Coordination
Interviewees acknowledged that engaging in the ZOLIP strategy could be beneficial for private sector
actors´ business. For example, if there are good interactions between a private sector actor and the
recipient municipality through ZOLIPparticipation,thiscouldhelp close a culturegap between industries
and build trust amongst actors. This trust was perceived as an opportunity for short and long-term
benefits towards private sector´s business lines. In Fundación Bavaria´s case, trust was enhanced
between the private sector and municipality by having multiple meetings with the mayor in office at the
time of the ZOLIP implementation, and by participating in technical committee meetings.
Interviewees perceived that the trust created by having a good relationship between the municipality
and engaged private sector actors serves everyone’s interest. When selling the ZOLIP strategy to try to
convince other private sector actors to engage, having the municipality on board is a crucial point for
success. If the municipality is on board, private sector actors know the likelihood for the implementation
of interventions running smoothly is much higher, especially as the municipality has power over ZOLIP
implementation aspects such as giving permission to use a venue to conduct interventions. As one
private sector actor mentioned,

24. 23
“we thought the overall strategy sounded interesting because having the municipality on board
meant that we were going to invest our resources in an environment with less hurdles than if we
were to invest in a strategy with no buy in from the municipality. In the end, this helped us fast track
some aspects with licenses, permissions to conduct interventions in certain public venues, etc.”
However, private sector actors felt that there was an urgent need for further private sector engagement.
They stressed that if serious commitment from various private sector actors was achieved, economies of
scale and a multiplier effect could be attained. However, their perception was that it is less about the
quantity of committed private sector actors and more about the quality of engagement by the private
sector. Some stakeholders mentioned an event intended to gather private sector actors interested in
engaging in the strategy, however only two or three companies showed up. Others mentioned the case
of private sector companies that are willing to engage but do not know what it entails or how to start.
This finding will relate to a recommendation found later in the report, which stresses the need to come
up with a strategy to support stakeholders committing fully, rather than on an ad-hoc basis.
Private sector interviewees also mentioned that their engagement should not aim to replace the
government´s role, but rather supplement some of the limited public sector capacities. Private sector
actors should have sufficient resources and knowledge to ensure that the tasks they engage in are well
implemented.
2. Eligibility and Targeting—Theory of Change
The eligibility and targeting topic relates to the methodology of “focalización” used to choose which
families would participate in the Red Unidos/ZOLIP strategy. A vast majority of stakeholder actors
mentioned this topic as a concern. Many private sector actors had detailed knowledge of the different
strategies behind the methodology of “focalización”. Some interviewees mentioned the fact that
“There have been four different methodologies, one focused in using the Familias en Acción
methodology, followed by an expansion of the beneficiaries using the SISBEN I methodology, then
SISBEN II, etc. and still we are not confident that all of the beneficiaries are the extreme poor.”
These comments were followed up by observations about the extreme gaps in the temporality of the
different methodologies. One interviewee mentioned, “a person that was “focalizada” by one of the
methodologies could have then won the lottery and would still remain as a beneficiary, the only way they
could leave Red Unidos was by graduating.”
Private sector actors acknowledge that many families who are part of the strategy are not necessarily
the ones who need it most. This creates distrust towards the strategy. Many private sector actors
mentioned underlying problems related to the data bases used for focalización. Private sector actors
want to make sure that the resources they are contributing are going to the people that truly need it.
3. ZOLIP—Coordination
Private sector interviewees had positive perceptions regarding the “ZOLIP architecture”. For example,
some mentioned that technical committees are a convenient space for all stakeholders to participate in
the design and roll-out of interventions. A ZOLIP entails that an already defined number of beneficiaries

25. 24
within a specified geographicalarea will be the area offocus. This is a selling point for some private sector
actors because they perceive it as a realistic target. One interviewee mentioned:
“ZOLIP puts a magnifying glass to a specific population. For us, it was attractive because the
strategy aims to improve a specific number of families’ situation rather than trying to engage private
sector actors to eradicate poverty in all of Colombia, a clearly unrealistic goal.”
However, while the architecture behind the strategy looks good on paper, respondents mentioned it
requires a significant effort to coordinate all parties and ensure that it´s well implemented. Some
respondents mentioned that the technical committees in certain ZOLIPs were weak; there was limited
attendance from various stakeholders and no strategy to hold them accountable. There are no clear
guidelines as to the decision-making processes. Other private sector actors felt discouraged by unmet
expectations and poor execution of strategy on certain ZOLIP objectives.
Overall, private sector respondents stressed that creating partnerships amongst different sectors is a
clear benefit to participating in the ZOLIP strategy.
4. Mayor’s Office—Coordination
Perceptions regarding the level of engagement from the mayor´s office differed among private sector
interviewees. Some thought that there were ZOLIP cases where the local government was highly
committed. Other respondents criticized the fact that some ZOLIP strategies were implemented even if
there was no support from the local government. Respondents with the latter perception considered this
scenario as a red flag considering that not having buy-in from the local government would most likely
result in bottlenecks during the implementation phase. From a public policy perspective, there is no
mandate for local government to engage in the strategy.
Some private sector actors acknowledged that the underlying reasons why some local governments do
not decide to engage are:
a. Some local governments perceive that interventions behind the strategy have an
asistencialista approach
b. In the eyes of the local government, a ZOLIP can create problems and feelings of exclusion
among its populace. There are families who live in extremely poor conditions that are not part of
the ZOLIP, while other families who are beneficiaries are actually well off. To this point, it’s
important to note that when a ZOLIP is implemented in a relatively small municipality, there is
less of a need for extensive eligibility and targeting methodology- as it is may be easier to use
other methods to target which families should be eligible for ZOLIP programming.
c. The local government’s involvement in the strategy entails a significant amount of municipal
staff time and commitment. Several delegates within the mayor’s office have to be specifically
designated to mobilize resources and play active decision-making roles. Most local governments
do not have the capacity to assign staff completely to ZOLIP strategy implementation- and if
they do assign someone to the ZOLIP strategy, there may be trade-offs with other programs
active in the municipality.

26. 25
5. Motivation, Dignity and Hope—Methodology
The motivation, dignity and hope theme, which is one where respondents highlighted the value that
beneficiaries obtained from participating in the strategy, was primarily mentioned by private rather than
the public sector interviewees. Private sector interviewees were aware that the strategy had a positive
impact for families because it makes them feel important, accompanied and supported by the social
workers’ visits andthe advice theyprovide. When private sector respondents mentioned thistheme,they
were mostly referring to opinions and perceptions they had heard directly from beneficiary families. This
point is directly related to the “social worker” subtopic, which is also something mentioned by private
and independent actors but not as much by public sector respondents.
PUBLIC SECTOR
Figure 7: Public sector interviews
The most mentioned themes amongst public sector respondents were:
1. Overall Methodology—Methodology
Public sector actors recognized that are challenges regarding baseline data collection—an aspect that
generates credibility problems in ZOLIP implementation. Respondents mentioned the organizational
structure within ANSPE has gone through various changes; this entailed the elimination of certain
positions like the “National ZOLIP Coordinators”, which many viewed as key for successful
implementation and for maintaining partnerships amongst stakeholders. ANSPE’s organizational
changes are perceived to negatively impact work on the ground.
However, interviewees felt optimistic about the fusion of ANSPE and Departamento Prosperidad Social
(DPS) given that the creation of multiple “subdirecciones” will strengthen the ZOLIP strategy by allowing
for a more coordinated work structure.

27. 26
2. Impact Evaluation—Theory of Change
Public sector interviewees recognize the need to create and use impact evaluation indicators and
methodologies for the success of the overall poverty reduction methodology. There is also recognition
that some actors are already advancing work towards this goal, e.g. a toolbox created by the Asociación
de Industriales de Colombia (ANDI). Public sector actors mentioned that it would be important for all
stakeholders to assign a specific budget specifically targeted to program evaluation.
Public sector respondents acknowledged the amount of information ANSPE possesses and the potential
that such databases have in order to be able to come up with clear and consistent results.
INDEPENDENT ACTORS
Figure 8: Independent actor interviews
Independent actors are those who might have been affiliated in the past with either the public or the
private sector, but at the time of the interview were not working for either. While the sample is small (4)
their opinions are valuable as many had been directly involved with the strategy. The most relevant
themes the independent actor respondents were:
1. Role of Private Sector—Coordination
There was a general positive perception amongst interviewees regarding the role that private sector
actors playin the ZOLIPstrategy,both in Tocancipá, andin other municipalities.Interviewees mentioned
that, while difficult to attain, proper coordination amongst the municipality, Red Unidos and the private
sector is a big success factor for any ZOLIP. Bavaria was mentioned by a number of interviewees who had
a positive perception towards the company´s engagement. Interviewees thought Bavaria´s engagement
was perceived as altruistic and as a moral duty rather than as a strategy for indirect brand marketing or
as a way to gain preferential access to beverage/liquor markets. Interviewees highlighted the fact that
Bavaria was the only private sector actors that have staff working directly on ZOLIP operations and
whose efforts are dedicated exclusively to articulate the implementation of the strategy.
Independent interviewees considered that private sector involvement was much more active than public

28. 27
sector. They recognize there is a lot of potential regarding the role that a core group of private sector
players couldplay.The beneficiariesof ZOLIPsrecognize the role ofthe private sector,even iftheydidn´t
know about a certain private sector brand before. ZOLIP enabled that recognition which ultimately ends
up heightening brand reputation.
2. Social Worker—Methodology
General perception amongst independent interviewees regarding the role of the social worker was
neutral. This does not reflect a negative execution of social workers’ role but rather, interviewees
criticized:
 The urgent need to empower social workers
 The challenges that come from having such high turnover rates
 There is no feedback loop amongst social workers
 Lack of space to share best practices, challenges, andareas to improve within higher-level ZOLIP
staff
 The “cogestor por un día” (social worker for a day) exercise does not show a true feeling of what
it’s like to be a social worker, and the hurdles social workers face on a daily basis
o When high-level staff participate in the cogestor por un día exercise, social workers
ensure families will be at their house,andsites that are easyto get are chosen on purpose.
However, respondents stressed the absolutely instrumental role that social workers play and identified
strategic areas of improvement that could reduce the heavy work burden social workers face.
Interviewees mention a need to invest significant efforts to overcome contextual aspects like:
 An asistencialista mindset that participating families have even before the strategy begins
o Many government-led programs have a paternalistic approach—this contributes to
families perceptions that any intervention will be asistencialista in nature, meaning that
theyexpect to receive materialitems(money,groceries,etc.)without conditionality.The
recommendations section will further explore this point.
 Families need psychological support beyond what is outlined in the strategy.
 Leadership changes at the higher levels of the ZOLIP strategy impact social worker’s work on the
ground.

29. 28
OVERALL
Figure 9: Overall interview results
The “relevance” row denotes how many interviewees touched upon a particular topic—the closer it is to
100% means more people talked about this topic in their interview. The “perception” row denotes that,
for those that talked about a particular topic, how positively it was spoken about—the closer it is to 100%
means that everyone who spoke about a topic, spoke positively.
The most relevant themes from these interviews were:
1. Role of the Private Sector: 52% relevance (52% of people mentioned this in their interviews) of
which 63% mentions were positive (of those who mentioned the Role of the Private Sector, 63%
spoke positively about it)
2. Impact Evaluation: 48% relevance, of which only 27% were positive mentions
3. Overall Methodology: 48% relevance, of which only 31% were positive mentions
The most divisive themes from the interviews were:
1. Eligibility and Targeting: 91% of interviewees that mentioned eligibility and targeting strategies
spoke negatively about it
2. Asistencialismo: only 20% spoke positively of asistencialismo in Colombian culture and in
program development
3. Very positive mentions of the Private Sector’s “Moral Duty”, and the support of “Motivation,
Dignity and Hope” among ZOLIP participants

30. 29
FOCUS GROUP RESULTS
Focus groups analysis was conducted to investigate feelings toward Red Unidos, perceptions of current
poverty status, perceptions of barriers to improving living standards, among other themes.
WORD CLOUD ANALYSIS
Figure 10: Word cloud analysis
The above word cloud represents the phrases and words that came to the minds of focus group
participants when they heard “Red Unidos”.
Topics and words that came up most frequently during this exercise are:
 Help (Apoyo, Ayudar, Ayudas)
 Work (Trabajo, Trabajar)
 Visits and Meetings (Visitas, Visitan, Reuniones, Charlas)
Other words that came up are:
 Opportunities (Oportunidades)
 Good (Bueno)
 Community (Comunidad)
 Bavaria- which indicates that many people associated Red Unidos with Bavaria
Overall, there were mostly positive words associated with Red Unidos, with a notable exception related
to the end of the program. One woman said that Red Unidos…
“was very good up to a certain point, but then they never returned and didn’t inform us [about what
was happening], then there was nothing, nothing more”.
Participants in other focus groups agreed with this sentiment.

31. 30
NINE DIMENSIONS EXERCISE
The below diagram depicts amalgamation of the results of the exercise conducted during all five focus
groups. The exercise asked participants to rank the nine dimensions in order according to their need for
improvement, both five years ago and today. The dimensions that are ranked closer to “one” are
perceived to function well, whereas dimensions ranked closer to “nine” are perceived to be more
problematic.
Figure 11: Nine dimensions exercise - 5 years ago and now
There are several things to note from the outcome of the exercise:
Improvements:
 Identification was perceived to have the greatest improvement from five-years ago to now,
jumping from an unfavorable position at second-to-last to being seen as the most functional
currently.
 Nutrition moved from a neutral position to a more positive one.
Regressions:
 Family Dynamics moved from the best functioning five-years ago to neutral- this will be explored
more completely in the focus group thematic analysis.

32. 31
 Banking and Savings perceptions also decreased.
Notable:
 Health and Housing dynamics consistently were perceived as problematic. When speaking
about housing, complaints were generally focused around rent andrising costs ofliving, not with
the quality of their home.
 Income and Savings were perceived to be fairly good between the two time points.
FOCUS GROUP THEMATIC ANALYSIS
Below, focus group findings are separated by themes, with related quotes or general notes.
Overall Situation:
Participant’s general perception is that their lives have improved over the last five years. When asked
why people think life in Tocancipá has gotten better, one man said “Tocancipá [municipality] has a lot
more moneynow,andthat’swhywe’re getting better”. However,when thinkingabout the future, people
are pessimistic. They cite a lack of opportunities for young people, rising costs of living and drug
addiction as major concerns for the future of Tocancipá.
One young woman described her frustration at trying to access higher education, and her inability to get
educational grants. She exclaimed, “I don’t want someone to give me the money, but lend me- so I can
give it back!”
Program Implementation:
Social workers were universally lauded as excellent- people felt that social workers motivated them to
continue with school, to find work, and to set and achieve goals that improved their lives.
However, there were many frustrations about transparency around intervention eligibility. Some
believed that there was favoritism; essentially, some families had better relations with ZOLIP program
directors, and that’s why they received certain, more expensive, interventions. When talking about this
subject, all focus groups said they wanted to know how people are chosen for certain interventions.
TherewerecontrastingfeelingsaboutSocialWorker – Participantcommunication.WhileSocialWorkers
were visiting homes, everyone claimed to enjoy having them and thought their contributions were
valuable—though some thought that visits were too short. However, there were many complaints about
communication regarding informing participants about meeting times. Perhaps most concerning, many
saidtheyhadno idea that the program had ended- andwere left wondering whysocialworkersstopped
visiting. One said, “it seemed like they forgot us”.
External Factors:
There were several factors that were consistently brought up as perceived threats to the well-being of
Tocancipans. Migrant workers, whether they were seasonal workers that offered labor at lower rates, or

33. 32
workers that came in from Bogotá when new industries come to Tocancipá, were perceived to decrease
quality employment opportunities. A rising cost of living was also a concern, with specific mentions of
rising food, rent and educational costs. Also, for those living in one rural area the team visited, local
mining practices make the air harder to breathe, and vibrations from trucks that passed by disturb the
foundations of their homes and break windows.
9 Dimensions within ZOLIP Scope:
 Health:
o For those living in urban areas,manycomplaints wereabout how hard it is to see a doctor.
Some say that when you want to schedule an appointment, the only openings are
months away.
o For those living in rural areas, many cite environmental issues related to mining as
harmful to their health, and often list cumbersome distances as a primary reason for not
visiting the doctor.
o For both rural and urban people, there is greater need for education related to family
planning, disease prevention and negotiating healthy relationships. Many mentioned
that there are a lot of single mothers, and that “young women don’t realize there are
consequences”.
 Identification: Most everyone perceived identification as drastically improved, especially
regarding the libreta militar.
 Education: Urban participants voiced concerns that there are no educational opportunities for
young people past high school. The education they get in Tocancipá isn’t sufficient to get jobs in
the new industries that have recentlymoved to Tocancipá.For ruralpeople,there are not enough
teachers– the rural focus group talked about a teacher that works with 1st
, 4th and 5th
grade at
the same time. Both urban and rural focus groups mentioned that teacher quality was poor, but
especially so in the rural schools.
 Work: Though perceived to be functioning fairly well in the “nine-dimensions exercise”, work
was a source of stress for many people in focus groups. Many people were unemployed and
looking for work. Though the flower industry is always hiring, it’s unappealing for Tocancipans
because the hours are long and the work is physically intense. People do not understand what is
required in order to be hired to work at some of the factories that have recently moved to
Tocancipá.
 Family Dynamics: Many people cited concerns about family dynamics, stating long hours at
work mean less time can be spent at home with family. Some cited new technology as taking
time away between children and parents as children spend more time on the phone or internet.
o Getting correct and reliable information about sexual intercourse was cited as a big
problem- young boys and girls are getting incorrect information from friends and from
the internet in the absence of credible sources.
 Housing: Those living in rented properties were ineligible for ZOLIP housing interventions, and
therefore their housing situations were not improved.
 Access to Justice: Though not explored significantly, many cited issues with getting police to
take their calls seriously, one stated “after a call, it took police 4-5 hours to arrive […] now I don’t

34. 33
bother to callanymore”.Other legalservices were difficult to navigate, such asprocuring building
licenses.
 Banking: Though not explored significantly, many said it was hard to navigate the process for
procuring a loan.
Barriers to Well-Being
Income was seen as the main barrier to achieve well-being goals. One said, “If you don’t have income,
you don’t have anything”. Income and education were tied together, noting a cycle: “You need income
for education, but you can’t get an education without income”.
Time also was perceived as a barrier- schedules are not flexible enough to allow for both studying and
working simultaneously. Participants noted that because of long work hours, children are frequently left
alone at home, which affects family dynamics.
Drug Addiction was seen across all focus groups as a new concern for Tocancipá. No specific drug was
mentioned, but it was a strong perception- especially among urban dwellers. This also was perceived to
affect family dynamics.
All focus groups mentioned severe concerns about lack of education and work opportunities available
for young people. This was perceived as contributing to the drug problem.
Some suggested an intervention to assist with understanding how to use technology would help with
finding jobs and would open up other opportunities.

35. 34
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
Quantitatively, the team analyzed changes in total, per capita, and adjusted per capita income on a
family level; multidimensional wellbeing according to a proprietary weighted poverty index; and the
impact of individual interventions. The team utilized extensive survey data collected for families
participating in the RedUnidosand/or ZOLIPprogramin Tocancipá in 2012and2015,which wasprovided
by ANSPE, and made use of data obtained by through the survey conducted by the SIPA team in March
2016 (see Appendix 4).
INCOME ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
Income analysis is considered a standard tool for assessing poverty in many international institutions
specializing in the subject of poverty and extreme poverty. The World Bank, for example, until October
2015 defined extreme poverty as an income of less than US$ 1.25 per person/per day and US$ 2 as the
poverty threshold, with corrections made according toPurchasing power parity(PPP) (WorldBank 2015).
The United Nations (UN) also uses the same metric of US$ 1.25 for its extreme poverty measure, which
was set as the benchmark in the first Millennium goal focused on the eradication of extreme poverty
(UN.org 2014). Hence, based on the fact that these reputable international organizations regard income
as one of the most critical indicators of poverty and based on the fact that income had been stressed
within the focus groups, the team decided to dedicate an analysis to the income of the people of
Tocancipá as a way to measure change in well-being for families who participated in the ZOLIP. To this
end, the team performed the following four analyses to assess the development of income.
1) Changes in total family labor income from 2012 to 2015
2) Changes in weighted per capita labor income 2012 to 2015
3) Comparison of indicators 1) and 2) with non-ZOLIP municipalities to assess the value added of
the private sector leadership
4) An analysis of movements within proprietary income thresholds for 2012, 2015, and 2016
For analyses 1), 2), and 3), the team utilized family survey data provided by ANSPE3
for a sample of 131
families who were participating in the Tocancipá ZOLIP program in both 2012 and 2015. For analysis 4),
the team used a reduced sample of 90 families from whom the team was able to collect data during the
2016 March field trip and who were part of the 2012 & 2015 data collected by ANSPE. Because the 2012-
2015 data includes only 16 families who were part of Red Unidos, but not part of the ZOLIP program in
both years, the team could not create a meaningful counterfactual analysis within Tocancipá. It should
be noted that the SIPA team performed the following adjustment to the source data: For persons who
claimed that they had earned income (indicated by values in the column “SEMANAPASADA”), but did
not indicate the nominal quantity of their labor income, the team assumed their labor income to be equal
to the average labor income for all persons within the respective municipality who indicated that they
had earned income AND provided a nominal value for that income. We employed this methodology
because the team assumes that a respondent who indicated that they had been gainfully employed but
failed to provide anyvalue for labor income received actualemployment compensation not equalto zero.
3
Based on base line data from the files: “UNIDOS_LBF_DIC2012” and “UNIDOS_LBF_DIC2015”, provided by
ANSPE/DPS

36. 35
1) TOTAL FAMILY INCOME
In analysis 1), the SIPA team conducted a comparison between the mean value of family labor income in
2012 and 2015 in Tocancipá (provided by ANSPE for the 131 families identified as ZOLIP which appeared
in both the 2012 and 2015 data4
). We used the indicator “GANOMESPASADO”, which represents
monthly individual earning from work reported by the survey in each of the years. Earnings of all
individual members of the family were summed, in order to arrive at the total amount for each
household.
Population means were calculated for each year to show the change of labor income within the 2012-15
period (Figure 12). The results for this analysis show that the mean labor income from the sum of all
reported values for “GANOMESPASADO” for these families decreased by 2.00% from 2012 to 2015 in
nominal terms. It is important to note that the team is comparing the same 131 families for whom the
team has data across both years, thereby looking at the exact same sample for both years.
Figure 12: Mean of GANOMESPASADO for families in Tocancipá 2015-2012
. mean GANOMESPASADO_2012 GANOMESPASADO_2015
Mean estimation Number of obs = 131
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Mean Std. Err.
-------------------+------------------------------------------------
GANOMESPASADO_2012 | 729438.5 35674.76
GANOMESPASADO_2015 | 714848.9 34828.09
2) WEIGHTED INCOME PER CAPITA
The second analysis is based on the per capita labor income of each family. The team wanted to
understand trends of earnings per person in the families of Tocancipá by controlling for changes in the
composition of households between 2012 and 2015. For that purpose, the team applied two measures:
First, the standard labor wage per capita, sum of the wages from work divided by the number of people
in the household. Second, a weighted indicator of per capita labor income. This second measure is
calculated incorporating non-linear marginal costs associated with adding another individual to a
household (as has been advised in literature by Kochhar & Cohn (2011). To illustrate the point, family
members can share basic facilities, kitchen utensils, tools, etc. Hence, the additional of a member to a
given householdrequires less additionalresources andincome than the first or the previousmember and,
therefore, less than the simple average. Put simply, the cost of living for a household of 4 cannot be
assumed to be twice that of a household of 2. The measure used by the team was the sum of all wage
4
Ibid.

37. 36
income divided by the square root of number of the number of people in the household, thus creating a
decreasing marginal cost of additional household members:
 Per Capita Income = GANOMESPASADO / Number of People in the Household
 Weighted Per Capita Income = GANOMESPASADO / Square root of Number of People in the
Household
Results for both indicators, per capita labor income and weighted per capita labor income of the
household, show positive trends from 2012 to 2015 (Figure 13). Analyzing the trends in standard per
capita labor income, the results show an increase of 2.99%. In analyzing weighted per capita labor
income, the team finds a positive trend, 0.59%. Note that per capita and weighted per capita
measurements both increased while nominal family labor income decreased over the same period of
time. This seemingly contradictory outcome is due to a decrease in the average number of people per
family from 2.93 in 2012 to 2.79 in 2015.
Figure 13: Mean of GANOMESPASADO per capita and weighted per capita for families in Tocancipá 2015-2012
. mean GANOMESPASADO_PC_2012 GANOMESPASADO_PCW_2012 GANOMESPASADO_PC_2015
GANOMESPASADO_PCW_2015
Mean estimation Number of obs = 131
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Mean Std. Err.
-----------------------+------------------------------------------------
GANOMESPASADO_PC_2012 | 274697 13716.58
GANOMESPASADO_PC_2015 | 28292 14094.6
GANOMESPASADO_PCWeighted_2012 | 432778 18793.5
GANOMESPASADO_PCWeighted_2015 | 435334 18975.17
3) CROSS-MUNICIPALITY COMPARISON
In an effort to assess the value added of a ZOLIP, led by a private sector actor, relative to Red Unidos
initiatives which do not have that private sector leadership, the team compared the change in mean
family income for the two years, 2012 and 2015, within 5 cities in the Bogotá metropolitan area (Cota,
Madrid, Nobsa, Cajica and Mosquera) with Tocancipá. These cities were selected by ANSPE as having
industrial and social profiles similar to Tocancipá. The analysis for each municipality was conducted using
data from all families present in the database in both years.

38. 37
The team performed analyses for total labor income per family and weighted per capita labor income per
family across each of the six municipalities. In total labor income per family Tocancipá and Nobsa show
decreasing family labor income while the other four show an increases in family labor income. However,
this statistic is less credible than the weighted per capita labor income as it fails to control for changes in
household composition. In weighted labor income per capita the trend in Tocancipá is not substantially
dissimilar from what is seen in the other municipalities.
It is important to note that families in Tocancipá, on average, had the highest nominal and per capita
income of all six municipalities in both 2012 and 2015. Tocancipans participating in the ZOLIP program
earn, on average, per capita income from work of COP 282,920 per month which is higher than the World
Bank poverty line for families in Colombia in 2014 of COP 208,404 (Alsema 2012). In addition, in
Tocancipá, 83 out of the 131 families for whom data was available were above the poverty line defined
by the World Bank for Colombia .
Figure 14: Percentage change in total income and weighted per capita income for families in Cota, Nobsa, Cajica, Madrid and Mosquera
from 2012 to 2015
4) MOVEMENTS WITHIN INCOME THRESHOLDS IN 2012, 2015, AND 2016
The fourth family income analysis for this part of the study was done comparing data from ANSPE
database for the years of 2012 and 2015 and data collected by the SIPA team during the March field trip
in 2016(see Appendix 4 forsurvey).In the 2016data collection the teamusedthe following familyincome
ranges, informed by definitions of (extreme) poverty provided by ANSPE (in COP):
1. 0 – 49k
2. 50k – 99k
3. 100k - 299k
4. 300k – 599k
5. 600k – 999k
6. > 1million
For this analysis, the above thresholds were applied to total family labor income for all the 90 families
that could be tracked across all of the 2012, 2015 and 2016 databases. The analysis, displayed below
(Figure 15) shows a strong trend whereby families are moving out of the 4th
threshold (300k-599k) and
into both higher and lower thresholds. However, a more in depth look into the data shows that, of the
12 families who moved out of the 4th
threshold between 2012 and 2016, only 3 moved to higher
thresholds while the other 9 fell to lower thresholds (mostly into the 3rd
).

39. 38
Figure 15: Number of families in Tocancipá per Income Threshold 2012, 2015, and 2016
FINDINGS
The SIPA team generated the weighted per capita labor income statistic because, by controlling for
changes in household composition, it portrays the most accurate trend in income change from 2012 to
2015. However, when considering these numbers, bear in mind that the 2015 figures are not adjusted for
inflation. We estimate that cumulative inflation between January 2013-December 2015 was 13% (Banco
Central de Colombia, 2016). Thus, the purchasing power of the ZOLIP household in Tocancipá has
decreased significantly during this period. Given this, it is difficult to find evidence that, based on an
income analysis, the welfare of families participating in the Tocancipá ZOLIP has improved during this
time. However, in the absence of a credible counterfactual, it is impossible to say what the income of the
Tocancipá ZOLIP families would have been in 2015 in the absence of the ZOLIP program.
However, in an attempt to isolate the value added by a private sector lead, there was data available from
other municipalities which allowed for a proxy counterfactual. In the subsequent income analysis, there
was no evidence of substantial value added by a private sector lead which can be extrapolated from the
income data. However, it should be noted that the use of 5 municipalities with similar industrial and
social profiles has significant limitations as a counterfactual. Most significantly, this analysis cannot
control for economic and social trends specific to Tocancipá which may have impacted the income of
families participating in the ZOLIP program.
0
10
20
30
40
1 2 3 4 5 6
Tocancipá Number of Families by
Threshold
2012 2015 2016

40. 39
WEIGHTED POVERTY INDEX (WPI)
WPI METHODOLOGY
In attempting to measure the effect of the ZOLIP program in Tocancipá on poverty the team wanted to
adopt the theory that poverty is multi-dimensional within the analysis. In order to paint a picture of the
change in family level poverty during the course of the program the team needed to construct a
methodology for quantifying the data collected from each family in order to represent the change in
poverty families experienced between 2012 and 2016. The process began by identifying six dimensions
that are consistent with the theoretical motivation used in the construction of the Red Unidos strategy.
Using the 2012 baseline questionnaire provided by ANSPE and the questionnaire the team used in the
field,therewas credible data to create six dimensions. These dimensionswere labeled“housing”,“health
& nutrition”, “education”, “income”, “children” and “other” (where “other” includes access to justice,
banking & savings, and identification). Between the 2012 and 2016 datasets, the team was able to use
responses to 27 replicated questions in order to quantify the data. Families were given a score between
0and1 for each of the 27measures basedon their answersto corresponding questions. The scoreswithin
each dimension were divided by the number of distinct measures and then added together to calculate
a dimension score between0and1. Each dimension score wasthen divided bythe number ofdimensions
(6) and added together to calculate an overall “Weighted Poverty Index” (WPI) score for each family.
Consult Appendix 8 for details regarding the methodology used in the construction of the WPI score.
WPI RESULTS
Though the team collected data from 128 families during March fieldwork, only data from 101 of those
families could be used in the analysis because there was no baseline data for 27 of the families. Thus, the
results of the SIPA team’s study, shown in the following tables, reflect the average change in poverty
level across 101 households which graduated from the Tocancipá ZOLIP program.
Figure 16 shows the trend within each dimension and the general WPI trend (in bold) for the survey
population. The maximum possible value for the population is 1 and the minimum possible value is 0. As
the methodology was constructed specifically for this project, there is no frame of reference for this
poverty metric. In other words, the team cannot make any qualitative statement about the nominal
value of the WPI index—and the utility of this metric is purely as a means of comparing poverty levels
amongst a fixed population over time. In doing so, analysis uncovered a 1.979% increase in average WPI
scores for the 101 families included in the analysis between 2012 and 2016. Below are tables that break
down results within each dimension and each metric used to create the WPI score. Similarly, key findings
and takeaways from each dimension will be described.

41. 40
Figure 16: Overall MPI results
Dimension Housing Income H&N Education Children Other TOTAL
2012 0.137 0.123 0.114 0.079 0.120 0.118 0.692
2016 0.140 0.123 0.123 0.076 0.127 0.123 0.706
Change 0.002 -0.0003 0.008 -0.002 0.0012 0.0048 0.014
% Change 1.574% -0.223% 7.208% -3.072% 0.978% 4.086% 1.979%
Figure 17 shows the WPI trend broken down by each family. Each bar in this graph represents one of the
101 families whose data was used in this analysis. The y-axis shows the nominal change in WPI score
from 2012 to 2016. Overall, 59 of 101 (58.4%) families showed an increase in WPI score.
Figure 17: Family Level Trends in WPI
HOUSING
We found a small positive change in the condition and infrastructure of homes across the survey
population (Figure 18). Within each metric used to compute the WPI Housing score, the maximum
potential value is 0.149. The most significant positive changes were shown in ownership status of homes
(VH) and floor materials (Floor). The nearly 13% growth in the home ownership score reflects the fact
that a higher proportion of families own their homes in 2016 compared with 2012. While there are

42. 41
negative changes in Electricity and Water, these changes are not overly concerning because the average
scores in these metrics remain very close to the maximum potential value. The greatest opportunities
for improvement within this dimension are in ownership status and floor materials.
Figure 18: Housing WPI results
VH Electricity Wall Floor Water Cook Fuel Sanitation WPI Housing
2012 0.069 0.143 0.134 0.089 0.140 0.127 0.122 0.824
2016 0.078 0.139 0.123 0.102 0.138 0.130 0.128 0.837
Change 0.009 -0.004 -0.012 0.012 -0.002 0.004 0.006 0.013
% Change 12.88% -2.97% -8.64% 13.86% -1.46% 2.82% 4.62% 1.574%
INCOME
The analysis of income from 2012 to 2016 has been covered extensively above. The change found in
average income level (based on these categories) is nominally insignificant. Keep in mind, though, that
the income values have not been adjusted for inflation (Figure 19).
Figure 19: Income WPI results
WI Income
2012 0.7393
2016 0.7376
Change -0.0017
% Change -0.223%
HEALTH AND NUTRITION
For each metric used to compute the WPI Health & Nutrition score, the maximum potential value is
0.1667. This dimension showed the greatest improvement ofanyofthe 6between 2012and2016 (Figure
20:). However, all of this positive change is due to the dramatic increase in the propensity for pregnant
women and women who had recently given birth to take prenatal supplements. If this metric were
excluded, there would actually be a negative 2% change in WPI for health and nutrition. Interestingly,

43. 42
there is the exact same percentage of families with at least one member seeking cancer screenings.
There were no teenage pregnancies among the 101 families in during the 12 months prior to either data
collection period. Though there is no positive change manifested in the WPI, the maintenance of this
very positive condition is an indication of success. The inverse trends in the nutrition matrix score and
the binary “missed meal” indicator is a cause for concern. Though one might expect a strong positive
correlation between the two metrics, the opposite result shown here may suggest inefficiency within the
data collection process. While the significant improvement in the prevalence of prenatal
supplements is a strong positive result, there is significant room for improvement in family planning
practices (Birth Control) and diet composition (Nutrition).
Figure 20: Health & Nutrition WPI results
Missed
Meal
Nutrition Cancer Pregnancy Supplements Birth
Control
WPI
H&N
2012 0.114 0.146 0.106 0.167 0.052 0.103 0.687
2016 0.137 0.108 0.106 0.167 0.115 0.105 0.736
Change 0.023 -0.039 0.000 0.000 0.063 0.002 0.049
% Change 20.29% -26.32% 0.000% 0.000% 122.12% 1.86% 7.208%
EDUCATION
Within each metric used to compute the WPI Education score, the maximum potential value is 0.25.
Within this dimension, analysis showed a strong negative trend between 2012 and 2016 (Figure 21).
However, breaking down the results shows a more complicated story. The most troubling result is the
degeneration within the “Level” metric. This suggests that on average the highest level of education
achieved by young men and women between the ages of 16 and 21 decreased by more than one full level
from 6.43 to 5.34 (for a point of reference on how levels translate, consult question 38 on the 2016
questionnaire in the appendix). Given the qualitative evidence to suggest the job market in Tocancipá
has been evolving such that demand for labor intensive low-skill jobs is decreasing as a result of the
modernizing of industrial operations and modernizing of infrastructure, one would expect the labor
supply to respond by seeking to increase skill levels accordingly.
However, the results suggest that there is a glut of unskilled labor in the market which will drive down
unskilled wages and cause employers of skilled labor to tap into remote markets for labor supply. This
expected result is what was found within the “Studying” metric. The data suggests that a significantly
higher proportion of working-age men andwomen are seeking to enhance their qualifications for higher-
skill jobs by studying. The disconnect between these two trends which was expected to be strongly
correlated suggests a serious risk to youth employment opportunities currently and in the near future.

44. 43
The strong negative trend in the proportion of adults who are receiving job training is difficult to explain.
One possible explanation would be exogenous factors affecting the results. For example, there could
have been a government or NGO driven job-training program sometime around 2012, which is no longer
active.
Figure 21: Education WPI results
Level Studying MPI Job Train Literacy WPI Education
2012 0.134 0.087 0.054 0.199 0.474
2016 0.111 0.116 0.032 0.200 0.459
Change -0.023 0.029 -0.022 0.001 -0.015
% Change -16.93% 33.53% -40.91% 0.6% -3.072%
CHILDREN
Within each metric used to compute the WPI Children score, the maximum potential value is 0.25. The
results of the analysis within the “Children” dimension do not lend themselves to robust analysis. There
was a small and not significant change in the average family score between 2012 and 2016. Although
there was significant change in the proportion of children between the ages of 0 and 5 who are primarily
cared for by a person with formal training in child rearing, the nominal change and, as a result, the
influence on the WPI Children score for the population is not significant. Despite the 67% growth, the
proportion of young children cared for by a trained caregiver is still very low. The analysis demonstrated
no changes in the other metrics, which the team believes is a significant indicator of trends in either
direction (Figure 22).
Figure 22: Children WPI results
Care Train Study Work WPI Children
2012 0.208 0.022 0.243 0.250 0.723
2016 0.210 0.037 0.244 0.239 0.730
Change 0.002 0.015 0.001 -0.011 0.007
% Change 0.99% 67.23% 0.38% -4.35% 0.978%

45. 44
OTHER
Within each metric used to compute the WPI Other score, the maximum potential value is 0.2. Although
see a significant positive trend in the population’s average WPI Other score, the composition of this
dimension demands a more detailed analysis of this trend (Figure 23).
The strong negative trend in proportion of men who should have military identification but did not bears
consideration. However, the team observed confusion amongst respondents regarding how to answer
this question often during the SIPA team’s fieldwork. It is possible, therefore, that the decrease in this
metric represents an inefficiency in the construction of the data collection tool.
While the change in the “Justice” metric is nominally not very significant, the lack of significant positive
progress is troubling. This result indicates that more people are receiving unsatisfactory responses from
institutions charged with enforcing justice. However, this result cannot be directly attributed to a failure
of the ZOLIP program but rather decrease in the efficiency of the justice infrastructure.
One of the most positive results from the analysis can be found within savings and banking practices.
Analysis demonstrated both an increase in the percentage of families who actively save within their
household and in the percentage of those families who use formal financial institutions as a mode of
savings between 2012 and 2016. These trends resulted in a 63.5% increase in the metric score for
“Saving”. Although there was a decrease in the percentage of households whose loan solicitations were
approved, the team believes that this negative trend may be explained, in part, by the fact that more
households were attempting to access credit in 2016 and many of those families who are new to
accessing credit may be under qualified for loans. There was also a very strong positive trend in the
propensity for families soliciting loans to seek those loans from formal financial institutions as opposed
to informal sources between 2012 and 2016. This suggests that consumers of credit may be both better
informed about the advantages of engaging in formal financial services and improving their viability as
solicitors of credit.
Figure 23: Other WPI results
MilID Justice Saving Approval Institution WPI Other
2012 0.168 0.182 0.048 0.194 0.116 0.708
2016 0.154 0.177 0.077 0.179 0.149 0.737
Change -0.014 -0.005 0.030 -0.015 0.033 0.029
% Change -8.24% -2.52% 62.5% -7.66% 27.93% 4.086%