This document discusses a joint intervention in rural Peru combining cash transfers from the JUNTOS program with the productive project Haku Wiñay, aimed at improving the living conditions of extremely poor households. The intervention includes components such as enhancing farming production, promoting healthy housing, supporting rural businesses, and building financial capabilities for about 157,000 rural households. Initial impacts indicate improvements in household income, food security perceptions, and health outcomes, although challenges remain in income diversification and market linkages.

1. Combining social protection with economic
opportunities in rural Peru: the case of the joint
intervention of JUNTOS & Haku Wiñay
Javier Escobal
Carmen Ponce

2. The Intervention
○ Rather than a single Project this is a joint intervention. It combines:
 A cash transfer: Through JUNTOS (the Peruvian CCT program)
 200 soles every two months (about USD 75)
 Haku Wiñay (which is a productive project targeted to the extreme poor in
rural communities. Managed by FONCODES.) Haku Wiñay can be
translated to “We are going to grow “/ “growing together”
 3500 soles per beneficiary (USD 1300) in a 36 month period (not every body
gets this amount)
 Project started in a pilot of 2 districts (about 930 beneficiaries) was expanded to
4 additional districts and then to 70 districts. In the 2013-2016 target population
is about 157,000 rural households in 2,100 rural towns.
○ Both FONCODES and JUNTOS are programs operated under the
umbrella of the Ministry of Development and Social Inclusion.
○ Target population: extreme poor living in rural areas (ultra poor)

3. Haku Wiñay Components
○ Haku Wiñay has four components, aimed at:
1. Improve farming production systems by providing technical
assistance to implement simple, low cost technology innovations.
FONCODES has identified 10 basic technologies that can be
implemented and adapted to the local economic and cultural context
(e.g. irrigation, organic fertilization; guinea pig production, etc.);
2. Develop and maintain healthy housing, such as safe kitchens, water
and solid waste management;
3. Promote inclusive rural businesses by helping farmers organize into
business associations, prepare business plans and pursue grants by
participating in competitions; and
4. Build financial capabilities by helping to develop savings plans,
particularly in households receiving assistance from the conditional
cash transfer program, Juntos.

4. 1. Improved farming production systems:
Sprinkler irrigation system

5. 1. Improved farming production systems:
Outdoor in-field horticulture

6. 1. Improved farming production systems:
Plot with cultivated mixed pastures

7. 1. Improved farming production systems:
Agroforestry

8. 1. Improved farming production systems:
Plot with cultivated mixed pastures

9. 1. Improved farming production systems:
Production of organic fertilizers

10. 1. Improved farming production systems:
Guinea pig breeding (& Chicken breeding)

11. 2. Healthy housing:
Improved cooking stoves

12. 2. Healthy housing:
Secure drinkable water

13. 3. Promotion of inclusive rural businesses
o General Description of the intervention : This is a
competitive Grants for the promotion of rural
business profiles, using CLAR methodology
 CLAR are “local fund allocation committees” that provide a
public and transparent way of allocating funds
 The competition uses non-standard techniques to evaluate
business plans (acting,

14. 4. Building financial capabilities
o Financial literacy and savings promotion

15. Main Outcome Indicators
Haku Wiñay
+
JUNTOS
STRENGTHENING
OF THE FAMILY
PRODUCTION
SYSTEM
FACILITATE
SELF INCOME
GENERATION
- Increase and diversify
production.
- Increase and diversify
consumption
- Decreased per-capita consumption
of firewood.
- Decreased respiratory and
diarrheal illness
- Increase monetary and non-monetary
income
- Increase household expenditure
- Improved management of savings.
- Access to other financial products.

16. The Evaluation setup
o An agreement between FONCODES, the evaluation
office of MIDIS and GRADE was reached. Financed
by Ford Foundation
o Base line data: Quantitative
 A total of 36 community surveys and 459 rural households
were interviewed in a total of 8 districts involved (231
households corresponds to the treatment group and 228 to
the control group (which will also be intervened at the end of
the budget cycle, i.e. in 2016).
 After listing all communities that were part of the
intervention, communities were grouped in pairs that show
similarities in productive, social and economic conditions.
the communities were randomly assigned to treatment and
control groups.

17. The Evaluation setup
o Base line data: Qualitative component
 We randomly sampled 3 pairs of communities, one in each
sub-region (Huancavelica, Cajamarca and Huanuco): one is
a current intervention area and the other is part of the
control group. In each community focus groups with men
and women, and in-depth interviews were conducted with
key stakeholders.
 Haku Wiñay may affect differently men and women, the
study will be exploring empowerment dynamics within
households.
 We are also exploration changes in food security
perceptions

18. The Evaluation setup
o We recognize that the intensity of the treatment is not
random. Some families may not be interested in some
specific part of the treatment
 They may already have an improved stove and do not want the
one Haku Wiñay is offering them
 All people are offered financial education but some may show up
more frequently than others to training events
 One of every ten participants may win a competitive grant
o Through the monitoring system we have constructed a
treatment intensity scale
o The baseline survey was conducted on March 2013. The
project started (with some delay) in August 2013. Second
visit should be done in August 2015.
o In the meantime…..

19. Some initial impacts: The Vinchos-Chuschi
Pilot
o The Baseline survey and simple was not designed by
us. It was done by the implementing agency
(FONCODES)
 After selecting towns in two districts of Ayacucho (no
random selection) all members of these towns were offered
to be part of the Program. A list of 884 beneficiaries was
generated (642 of which were JUNTOS beneficiaries; 73%).
 A random sample of 321 (50%) was selected as a baseline.
 In addition, a sample of 286 controls were selected (in an ad-hoc
manner from neighbors): some of these are close
relatives…some spillover effects may exist.
 The implementing agency conducted a limited survey to
assess income, assets and technological practices at baseline

20. Some initial impacts: The Vinchos - Chuschi
Pilot
o We have revisited the sample of beneficiaries plus a
group of “best” controls (identified) using propensity
score matching
o Sample for revisit:
Treated Control
Sample 321 (100%) 286
Outside common
4 30
support
Final Sample 317 256
Attrited 19 33-25 replacements=14
Sample available 298 178
o We have not found so far any systematic attrition bias

21. Some initial impacts - The Vinchos - Chuschi
Pilot: Income by sources
Baseline Second Year
Outcome Variable Control Treated Diff(BL) Control Treated Diff(SY) DIFF-IN-DIFF
Total Family Income 11,068.4 10,429.9 -638.5 11,537.4 12,305.6 768.2 1,406.7
Std. Error 408.4 408.4 577.6 408.4 408.4 577.6 816.9
t 27.1 25.5 -1.1 28.3 30.1 1.3 1.7
P>t 0.000 0.000 0.269 0.000 0.000 0.184 0.085*

22. Some initial impacts - The Vinchos - Chuschi
Pilot
o The increase in chickens and guinea pigs is larger than
the asset transfer.. but it represent a small part of the
total livestock.. We need to look at the numbers
(breeding, mortality, reposition, consumption) to
simulate medium term dynamics and discuss
sustainability
o Milk: 33 liters per week more than the base line and 18
liters more per week than the change measured in the
control group... (marginally statistically significant)

23. Some initial impacts: The Vinchos - Chuschi
Pilot
o Income (monetary and non-monetary has increased),
however monetary household expenditure has not
change much
o There is a reduction in food expenditures (signif. diff-in-diff)
and part of this savings have allowed to purchase
other non-food items.
o Some improvements in the quality of the food intake:
increase in consumption of animal protein and increase
consumption of fruits, legumes and other vegetables
(signif. diff-in-diff)

24. Perception & Expectations
o Assessment of improvement in household income show
a significant improvement of treated over control group.
(diff-in-diff: 14 percentage points; 65% vs 51%)
o Assessment of improvement in a sense that they have
ability to change their destiny (using a 10 step ladder)
show a significant improvement over the control group.
(diff-in-diff: 0.6; 2.1 steps increase vs. 1.5)
o There is an improvement in their perception about their
ability to cope with vulnerability (but here difference is
not stat. significant w.r.t control group improvement)
o Ability to negotiate, Ability to identify better markets.
Significant improvements… but cannot be attributed to
intervention.

25. Some initial impacts: The Vinchos - Chuschi
Pilot
o 78.7% of treated subjects say that health and nutrition
has improved since baseline. This is 11 percentage
point higher than matched controls and is stat.
signific.
o Significant reduction in the occurrence of respiratory
problems for children under 5 (w.r.t the control
group). No differences in other age groups (5-11, 12-
64 & 65+). (there is a significant reduction of firewood
consumption, compared to the control group)
o No differences in frequency of episodes of diarrhea
(all age groups) (marginally better for 5-11 age group)

26. Some initial impacts: The Vinchos - Chuschi
Pilot: Financial education
o Sizable knowledge improvements on financial issues.
o There is an increase in the level of confidence in the
financial system. (2 to 3.5 in a 10 step ladder) This
change is significantly larger than the improvement
registered in the control group (2.1 to 2.8)

27. Some initial impacts: The Vinchos - Chuschi
Pilot: final remarks
o Although we need to do much more analysis, there is an
improvement in overall income (mostly agriculture income)
that can be attributed to the intervention
o There are also improvements in perceptions, empowerment,
financial literacy
o We need to explore in more detail other areas (health,
nutrition) but some positive results are evident.
o There is no evidence in the whole sample of changes in
income diversification patterns, or improvements in ability
to link to markets that can be attributed to the Haku Wiñay
project… but here we need to explore if there exists impact
heterogeneity.
o We also need to deal for the externalities that appear in the
control group.

28. Thanks!