The objectives of the plan were to give participating households opportunities to escape their condition of extreme poverty, social and economic exclusion in the medium term and create strategies so that households do not return to situations of destitution; guarantee coverage of basic needs and generate the conditions so that they can exercise their social rights.[5]​.

It was stipulated that the plan would be financed by General Revenues with the sum of $1,812,000,000 for 2005, $2,552,000,000 for 2006 and $766,000,000 for 2007.[4]

246,681 households were evaluated (23.42% of households in the country) and 102,353 applications were approved, 9.72% of the households.[7]​ 75% of the beneficiaries were in the interior of the country and 78% of the beneficiaries were within the first income quintile.[2]​.

Contenido

El PANES estuvo integrado por los siguientes programas:.

Citizen Income

The Citizen Income consisted of a fixed monetary transfer to all beneficiary households of the plan, except those who were in Trabajo Uruguay or in the Housing Program for Homeless People, regardless of the composition of the household. The amount of the transfer was $1,360, which represented 56 USD in 2005, readjustable every four months according to the consumer price index (CPI).[4]​ This transfer was subject to health, education, and cooperative conditions.[2]​ The heads of household had to assume responsibility for carrying out medical checkups of the family unit, for children and adolescents to attend schools and high schools, for improving their environment and participating in social activities. training. These counterparts to the exercise of the right took shape in the other components of PANES.[3]​ However, according to the authorities, these counterparts were not controlled due to difficulties in coordination between institutions. The benefit was granted from the registration of the household in PANES until the end of the plan period (2007) or until the income threshold within the household was exceeded.[2]​ This threshold was $1,300 per person.[5]​.

The program worked alongside two pre-existing monetary transfer systems: the family allowance and the old-age pension. With respect to these, it can be considered that the program was well focused on its target population, since the beneficiaries were people from the first and second income quintile. However, according to estimates based on the Continuous Household Survey, the program only covered a little more than half of the indigent population. 14% of said population did not apply to receive this benefit and of those who applied, 30% were not selected.[3]​

According to a World Bank study based on the Expanded Continuous Household Survey, extreme poverty in 2006 was 2.87% and would have been 4.27% if the program did not exist. The percentage of poor would have been 27.84%, against the real 27.4%.[3]​

In total, the program covered 102,353 homes in 404 locations.[6]​.

Building Exit Routes

It consisted of training activities lasting six months. Originally, it was established that it was mandatory for at least one member of each household to carry out the activities of this program.[2]​ However, 16,175 heads of household did so,[7]​ 15.1% of households. The activities were carried out by social organizations such as NGOs, neighborhood commissions and unions.[2]​.

Among its objectives, the stimulation of the development of citizenship, the promotion of self-esteem and the development of skills and attitudes with a view to job insertion were highlighted; fundamentally in writing, language and mathematical logic. Between 14% and 33% of participants reported having perceived improvements in their skills in literacy and mathematical logic, although these improvements were rated as "mild" by the participants themselves.[3]​

According to two surveys conducted among PANES beneficiaries, dividing between those who had participated in Exit Routes and those who had not, it was found that those who participated in Exit Routes have greater knowledge about labor rights. Greater knowledge of civil rights was also detected, but to a lesser extent and of low significance.[2]​.

Work for Uruguay

It was a voluntary transitional employment program. Through a public lottery among people interested in the plan, people were selected to perform jobs offered by public bodies and civil society organizations. For this, MIDES signed an agreement with 22 public organizations and 543 civil society organizations.[7]​ The working day was six hours and the salary was double the Citizen Income. People who held these temporary jobs stopped receiving the Citizen Income.[2]​

The program consisted of work and training activities. Most of the tasks carried out were for the betterment of the community.

The objectives of the program were to promote a proactive attitude to overcome poverty, strengthen the competencies of the participants and the recognition of themselves as subjects of law.

The additional income was used by households to cover current expenses for food and clothing and a smaller proportion was used as an investment in home repair and debt payment. The MIDES-DINEM evaluations of this program indicated that there were few results in terms of job training and employment relationships extended over time. The tasks performed did not contribute to the training because they were routine or extensions of domestic tasks. However, it served to generate a habit of work and teamwork. Work for Uruguay participants, on average, had greater access to social benefits than those who did not participate in the program. Furthermore, this led to greater self-esteem. A greater knowledge of labor law, a greater denaturalization of domestic violence and a greater appreciation of community contributions were recorded in the participants, especially in those crews that carried out tasks highly valued by neighbors.[3]​.

Food Assistance

This plan was intended for households with children and adolescents between 0 and 18 years old or with pregnant women. It was an amount established based on the number of children and adolescents who lived in the home. The objective was to move towards an electronic card payment system that households could use to purchase food and cleaning products. Due to technical difficulties, it began to be implemented in this way in 2006.[2]​.

Habitat Improvement

This plan was aimed at households with a critical housing emergency, whose homes were irregular settlements, and had the purpose of improving housing through the delivery of materials to homes for self-construction and technical support.[2]​ The interventions were focused on the construction of bathrooms, the repair of roofs and other renovations.[8]​ The program reached approximately 5,200 families.[9]​.

Education in Critical Contexts Program

The objective was to support public schools and high schools located in critical contexts, through the improvement of their infrastructure and the delivery of materials. In addition, support was provided through community teachers.[5]​.

Public Health Interventions

Financial transfers were made to the Ministry of Public Health to support benefits such as dental and eye care for some households.[2]​.

Accommodation Program for Homeless People

This program was designed to provide shelter and meet the needs of homeless people.[5]​.

The plan was launched amid great uncertainty, both from opposition legislators and beneficiaries. As for the beneficiaries, they complained about the lack of information and were mainly uninformed about the counterpart system. Likewise, the UDELAR students who carried out the survey in the homes were not trained with sufficient information. In itself, they were only instructed how to fill out a form and transfer it to another department.

The plan was strongly criticized by some sectors of the opposition, who consider that this type of program only manages to establish partisan clienteles and perpetuate a paternalistic state.[4]​

In 2005, the president of the Independent Party "Partido Independiente (Uruguay)"), Pablo Mieres, said that the Emergency Plan was like starting from scratch, and that the information from the CAIF Plan and the Family Allowances could have been used to start from there.[5]

Deputy Álvaro Alonso of the National Party "National Party (Uruguay)") criticized in 2005 the payment method of the Citizen Income Program, understanding that, by granting the same amount to families of different composition, an injustice is incurred, because it is not taken into account that the needs of each family are different.[10]​.

Conditional monetary transfers.

The plan was aimed at people in indigent situations, including people and families who received income below the average value of the basic food basket at values as of March 1, 2005 and who had critical deficiencies in their living conditions.[5]​ The maximum amount of income stipulated was $1,300 per person, without taking into account family allowances and pensions for disability and old age.[2]​

To determine who was included in the plan, a survey of the homes was carried out to see if they met the previously defined objectives. For this, we had the support of UDELAR students and worked in coordination with the BPS.

For the selection, support was requested from the Institute of Economics (IECON) of the Faculty of Economic Sciences and Administration "Faculty of Economic Sciences and Administration (University of the Republic)") of the University of the Republic, which designed a Critical Deficiencies Index (CCI) that gave a score to each home according to its characteristics. Among the criteria evaluated, some of the most important were: existence of children under five years of age, average adult education, and the existence of a health service.

Between 2005 and 2007, almost a quarter of Uruguayans applied for the plan. However, about 10% were beneficiaries.[6]​

The target population was made up of households below the indigence line (4.2% of the population) plus others that were considered poor under another concept of poverty.[5]​

From the results of the 2006 Continuous Household Survey, it is inferred that the PANES reached 53% of the target population, taking into account the two income requirements and the critical deprivation index.[2]​.

The objectives of the plan were to give participating households opportunities to escape their condition of extreme poverty, social and economic exclusion in the medium term and create strategies so that households do not return to situations of destitution; guarantee coverage of basic needs and generate the conditions so that they can exercise their social rights.[5]​.

It was stipulated that the plan would be financed by General Revenues with the sum of $1,812,000,000 for 2005, $2,552,000,000 for 2006 and $766,000,000 for 2007.[4]

246,681 households were evaluated (23.42% of households in the country) and 102,353 applications were approved, 9.72% of the households.[7]​ 75% of the beneficiaries were in the interior of the country and 78% of the beneficiaries were within the first income quintile.[2]​.

Contenido

El PANES estuvo integrado por los siguientes programas:.

Citizen Income

The Citizen Income consisted of a fixed monetary transfer to all beneficiary households of the plan, except those who were in Trabajo Uruguay or in the Housing Program for Homeless People, regardless of the composition of the household. The amount of the transfer was $1,360, which represented 56 USD in 2005, readjustable every four months according to the consumer price index (CPI).[4]​ This transfer was subject to health, education, and cooperative conditions.[2]​ The heads of household had to assume responsibility for carrying out medical checkups of the family unit, for children and adolescents to attend schools and high schools, for improving their environment and participating in social activities. training. These counterparts to the exercise of the right took shape in the other components of PANES.[3]​ However, according to the authorities, these counterparts were not controlled due to difficulties in coordination between institutions. The benefit was granted from the registration of the household in PANES until the end of the plan period (2007) or until the income threshold within the household was exceeded.[2]​ This threshold was $1,300 per person.[5]​.

The program worked alongside two pre-existing monetary transfer systems: the family allowance and the old-age pension. With respect to these, it can be considered that the program was well focused on its target population, since the beneficiaries were people from the first and second income quintile. However, according to estimates based on the Continuous Household Survey, the program only covered a little more than half of the indigent population. 14% of said population did not apply to receive this benefit and of those who applied, 30% were not selected.[3]​

According to a World Bank study based on the Expanded Continuous Household Survey, extreme poverty in 2006 was 2.87% and would have been 4.27% if the program did not exist. The percentage of poor would have been 27.84%, against the real 27.4%.[3]​

In total, the program covered 102,353 homes in 404 locations.[6]​.

Building Exit Routes

It consisted of training activities lasting six months. Originally, it was established that it was mandatory for at least one member of each household to carry out the activities of this program.[2]​ However, 16,175 heads of household did so,[7]​ 15.1% of households. The activities were carried out by social organizations such as NGOs, neighborhood commissions and unions.[2]​.

Among its objectives, the stimulation of the development of citizenship, the promotion of self-esteem and the development of skills and attitudes with a view to job insertion were highlighted; fundamentally in writing, language and mathematical logic. Between 14% and 33% of participants reported having perceived improvements in their skills in literacy and mathematical logic, although these improvements were rated as "mild" by the participants themselves.[3]​

According to two surveys conducted among PANES beneficiaries, dividing between those who had participated in Exit Routes and those who had not, it was found that those who participated in Exit Routes have greater knowledge about labor rights. Greater knowledge of civil rights was also detected, but to a lesser extent and of low significance.[2]​.

Work for Uruguay

It was a voluntary transitional employment program. Through a public lottery among people interested in the plan, people were selected to perform jobs offered by public bodies and civil society organizations. For this, MIDES signed an agreement with 22 public organizations and 543 civil society organizations.[7]​ The working day was six hours and the salary was double the Citizen Income. People who held these temporary jobs stopped receiving the Citizen Income.[2]​

The program consisted of work and training activities. Most of the tasks carried out were for the betterment of the community.

The objectives of the program were to promote a proactive attitude to overcome poverty, strengthen the competencies of the participants and the recognition of themselves as subjects of law.

The additional income was used by households to cover current expenses for food and clothing and a smaller proportion was used as an investment in home repair and debt payment. The MIDES-DINEM evaluations of this program indicated that there were few results in terms of job training and employment relationships extended over time. The tasks performed did not contribute to the training because they were routine or extensions of domestic tasks. However, it served to generate a habit of work and teamwork. Work for Uruguay participants, on average, had greater access to social benefits than those who did not participate in the program. Furthermore, this led to greater self-esteem. A greater knowledge of labor law, a greater denaturalization of domestic violence and a greater appreciation of community contributions were recorded in the participants, especially in those crews that carried out tasks highly valued by neighbors.[3]​.

Food Assistance

This plan was intended for households with children and adolescents between 0 and 18 years old or with pregnant women. It was an amount established based on the number of children and adolescents who lived in the home. The objective was to move towards an electronic card payment system that households could use to purchase food and cleaning products. Due to technical difficulties, it began to be implemented in this way in 2006.[2]​.

Habitat Improvement

This plan was aimed at households with a critical housing emergency, whose homes were irregular settlements, and had the purpose of improving housing through the delivery of materials to homes for self-construction and technical support.[2]​ The interventions were focused on the construction of bathrooms, the repair of roofs and other renovations.[8]​ The program reached approximately 5,200 families.[9]​.

Education in Critical Contexts Program

The objective was to support public schools and high schools located in critical contexts, through the improvement of their infrastructure and the delivery of materials. In addition, support was provided through community teachers.[5]​.

Public Health Interventions

Financial transfers were made to the Ministry of Public Health to support benefits such as dental and eye care for some households.[2]​.

Accommodation Program for Homeless People

This program was designed to provide shelter and meet the needs of homeless people.[5]​.

The plan was launched amid great uncertainty, both from opposition legislators and beneficiaries. As for the beneficiaries, they complained about the lack of information and were mainly uninformed about the counterpart system. Likewise, the UDELAR students who carried out the survey in the homes were not trained with sufficient information. In itself, they were only instructed how to fill out a form and transfer it to another department.

The plan was strongly criticized by some sectors of the opposition, who consider that this type of program only manages to establish partisan clienteles and perpetuate a paternalistic state.[4]​

In 2005, the president of the Independent Party "Partido Independiente (Uruguay)"), Pablo Mieres, said that the Emergency Plan was like starting from scratch, and that the information from the CAIF Plan and the Family Allowances could have been used to start from there.[5]

Deputy Álvaro Alonso of the National Party "National Party (Uruguay)") criticized in 2005 the payment method of the Citizen Income Program, understanding that, by granting the same amount to families of different composition, an injustice is incurred, because it is not taken into account that the needs of each family are different.[10]​.

Conditional monetary transfers.