Collette Roberts-Risden, project director of the PATH welfare programme. - Contributed

Sunday Gleaner writer Avia Ustanny recently spoke to Collette Roberts-Risden, project director, about the impact of the PATH welfare programme.

Avia Ustanny: Is PATH reaching the majority of the poor?

Collette Roberts-Risden: We use a scoring formula based on selective criteria developed by the Planing Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) to identify persons who are poor and who are in need of assistance.

We have taken a lot of subjectivity out of it (the selection process). It is now very objective. We had an evaluation study completed one and one half years ago that showed that 80 per cent of PATH beneficiaries fell in the lowest earning quintile of the Jamaican population. This study was independently done and we feel confident about it.

What of the complaints that some have been excluded because they have a television at home?

cR: There is no one criterion that prevents individuals from benefiting. The Beneficiary Identification System (BIS) uses a number of indicators to identify who is poor. No one indicator will exclude someone.

How many individuals benefit from the PATH programme in the areas of education, health, school feeding and monetary assistance?

cR: In the 2006 to 2007 financial year, we spent close to $1.2 billion on beneficiaries. This is an increase over the $900 million spent in 2005-2006. Seventy per cent of that amount was for children. In the area of health benefits, the 220,000 beneficiaries - including approximately 145,000 children - do not pay health fees. We have not quantified this, but it is a sizeable sum. Students are also benefiting from the Government of Jamaica school-feeding programme, where this is needed.

Is a fact that more people are not served related to budget limitations?

cR: Those left out are not because of budgetary constraints. To date, we have never had a budgetary issue. The BIS is very objective, but no matter what criteria are used, there will always be errors of exclusion and errors of inclusion. In order to deal with the needy who have been excluded, we have parish-based appeals committees. These are broad-based and local (in composition). Those who feel that they have been unfairly excluded can make an appeal. The committee is assisted by a social worker who goes out and collects other qualitative data which are then presented to the appeals committee.

Critics say the documents required on application are a turn-off for the very poor.

cR: The documents required are simple. Everyone should have a valid identification and the child's birth certificate. Children who are disabled also require a medical certificate. If we cannot properly identify the applicants, there will be duplications in the system. The medical certificate for disabled children ensures that they will still get their benefit if they cannot meet the 85 per cent school attendance record for medical reasons.

What happens is that there are some information gaps in the system which we are seeking to address through public information and stakeholder training, including training of guidance counsellors and teachers. We still need to do more.

What is being done about those who fall out of the system because they cannot meet the school attendance targets?

cR: When children cannot be at school for 85 per cent of the time and have a valid excuse, parents need to go to the teacher and explain. We do not want to penalise students in the inner city who are absent from school because of violence or localised disasters.

Are we really weaning the poor from welfare?

cR: It is too short a time to determine that; PATH is just about four years old. In the next financial year, we will be going back to the households to determine whether or not persons still qualify. If, socio-economically, they no longer qualify, they will be removed. It will take (the lifetime of) almost a whole generation to break the cycle of poverty. However, in two years the government will be introducing a new programme - Welfare to Work - which will have the aim of removing people from total dependence on welfare and into productive (situations).

Are you able to measure the impact which PATH had on its clients?

cR: We started out having a non-compliance rate of 30 per cent in late 2002. It is down to 14 per cent. This indicator alone shows more children are attending school, with 86 per cent meeting the programme requirements. We also had an impact evaluation study done by external evaluators that shows that PATH had a positive impact in terms of school attendance and health care; more participants were visiting health centres regularly. Parents also now say that because of the compliance requirements, they are in closer dialogue with schools. They are also now aware of when children do not go to school, even though they have been sent. It has forced them to place closer attention, because they do not get the money if the child stays away from school.

What are some of the changes which are needed?

cR: Where we would like to go is not just to monitor attendance but also engage performance. We could possibly include incentives not only for attendance, but also for performance. However, abilities vary, so we have to think about this carefully. We do not want to penalise late bloomers. But we have been thinking about finding a way to impact on performance in schools and also on completion.

In summary, a number of things have changed under the Social Safety Net reform programme and will continue to change. We are trying to have as best a system as we can within the limits of what we can afford.

Parents now say because of the compliance requirements, they are in closer dialogue with schools. ... It has forced them to place closer attention, because they do not get the money if the child stays away from school.