mmr-usaid

COST-EFFECTIVENESS A NALYSIS FOR THE R EPROS ALUD P ROGRAM (MMR-USAID)

By: Arlette Beltrán B. Hanny Cueva Melania Ramos

Submitted by: LTG Associates, Inc. and TvT Associates, Inc.

Submitted to: The United States Agency for International Development Under Contract No. HRN-I-00-99-00002-00, Task Order Number 812

December 2001

COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS FOR THE REPROSALUD PROGRAM (MMR-USAID) was prepared under the auspices of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of the Monitoring, Evaluation and Design Support (MEDS) project, Contract No. HRN-I-00-99-00002-00, Task Order No. 812. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of LTG Associates, TvT Associates, or USAID. Information about this and other MEDS publications may be obtained from: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Design Support (MEDS) Project 1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 898-0980 Fax: (202) 898-9397 [email protected] www.medsproject.com

ACRONYMS AND FOREIGN TERMS CB C/B CBO IR IT MOF MMR MSH PD ReproSalud RH RS SO STD USAID

Community Banks Cost/Benefit Community Based Organization Indirect Result Information Technology Ministry of Finance Movimiento Mauela Ramos Management Sciences for Health Product Development Reproductive Health Project of the MMR Reproductive Health Reproductive Science Strategic Objective Sexually Transmitted Disease United States Agency for International Development

CONTENTS I. Introduction .....................................................................................................................1 II. Work Methodology ........................................................................................................3 A. Cost-effectiveness or cost-efficiency analysis ...................................................3 Costing .........................................................................................................7 Effectiveness Indicators ...............................................................................7 B. Methodology for calculating the replication costs of the RH macroprocess ...12 III. Results Analysis..... .....................................................................................................15 A. Cost-efficiency analysis: costs per beneficiary................................................15 B. Cost-effectiveness analysis ...............................................................................16 Reproductive Health ..................................................................................16 Community Banks and Product Development...........................................16 C. Replication costs...............................................................................................22 IV. Conclusions ................................................................................................................25 V. Bibliography................................................................................................................27

ANNEXES A. Detalles Metodológicos de la Homogenización de Costos en el Período 1995-1998 ....................................................................................................................31 B. Condiciones Muestrales en la Estimación de los Indicadores de Efectividad .............35 C. Costos Anuales a Nivel Departamental y Nacional (Soles).........................................43 D. Información Estadística Sobre Indicadores de Efectividad .........................................55

TABLES Table 1: Cost per beneficiary of the main activities of the ReproSalud program (soles revalued to January 1995)...................................................................................15 Table 2: RH effectiveness ratios at national level.............................................................17 Table 3: RH effectiveness ratios, Huaraz..........................................................................17 Table 4: RH effectiveness ratios, Ayacucho .....................................................................18 Table 5: RH effectiveness ratios, Huancavelica................................................................18 Table 6: RH effectiveness ratios, Trujillo .........................................................................18 Table 7: RH effectiveness ratios, Tarapoto.......................................................................19 Table 8: RH effectiveness ratios, Pucalla..........................................................................19 Table 9: RH effectiveness ratios, Puno (Puno Aymara) ...................................................19 Table 10: RH effectiveness ratios, Juliaca (Pono Quechua) ..............................................20

Table 11: RH Cost effectiveness by department and at national level ..............................20 Table 12: Cost per community bank ..................................................................................21 Table 13: C/B of CBs.........................................................................................................21 Table 14: Cost per producer group ....................................................................................22 Table 15: C/B for product development ............................................................................22 Table 16: Cost for RH replication, by department and at national level ...........................23

ii

I.

INTRODUCTION

The following pages provide a cost analysis of the ReproSalud program during its first phase (1995-2000). The analysis covers three basic aspects: §

Costing by department of the three activities carried out in Phase I: Reproductive health (RH), community banks (CB) and product development (PD).

§

An estimate of effectiveness and efficiency indicators – depending on the information available – for the mentioned activities and their comparison with the costs calculated previously.

§

An estimate of the cost for extending and/or replicating the RH activity.

This report is divided into three parts: the first part describes the working methodology for the three aspects mentioned above and the second gives the main results obtained on cost-effectiveness, cost-efficiency and replication costs by department and at national level. The third part provides the main conclusions drawn by this analysis. Methodology annexes are provided at the conclusion of the document.

1

COST -EFFECTIVENESS A NALYSIS FOR THE REPROSALUD PROGRAM

2

II.

WORK METHODOLOGY

A. COST-EFFECTIVENESS OR COST-EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS Costing Given the status of the information available and the requirements for processing such information, two different periods have been identified. Between 1995 and 1998, only some ten to thirteen very general cost items had been defined, with no differentiation by either macro processes or geographic area. The main items were technical assistance, overheads, furniture and equipment; donations and loans; research, training and information. It was therefore necessary to re-classify these cost items in order to standardize them, where possible, with the cost centers used in the year 2000 (the last year covered by the evaluation), using the strategic plan for the year 2001. 1 It was also possible to identify the information pursuant to the different areas in which the program is active (Ayacucho, Huancavelica, Ancash, Puno Quechua (Juliaca), Puno Aymara (Puno), La Libertad) or has been active in recent years, even if no longer active there (Lima, Ucayali and San Martín). 2 Starting in 1999 the information was classified according to a system of cost centers, and classification by department was also possible. The cost centers for 2000 were: reproductive health, microcredits, product development and advocacy, which includes all activities relating to these four areas of the project; administration, covering all matters relating to administration of the various resources of the project; monitoring and evaluation, including evaluation of all the processes of the project, both qualitative and quantitative, as well as monitoring of all statistics relating to health services; technical management, relating to project management both at Head Office and in the regions; and general costs, which are miscellaneous costs not specifically related to any of the cost centers. When the information for the whole evaluation period (1995-2000) had been standardized, the cost centers not directly related to a project activity (administration, monitoring and evaluation, technical management and general costs) were distributed amongst those directly related to project activities, i.e., reproductive health, microcredits, product development and advocacy. This distribution was carried out in two stages: first, head office costs were allocated to the different departments (for all macroprocesses), while in the second stage total costs by department (own costs and those allocated from head office) were distributed amongst the mentioned activities. 1

See Annex A for greater details on cost standardization. The aim of this cost analysis is to relate such costs to project effectiveness indicators, which will be developed using the base line and the mid-term evaluation. However, and given that such data are only representative by department (relatively few cases per district having been considered), it will not be necessary to separate costs by district. 2

3


During the first stage, a distinction was made between the macroprocesses with information by department and those that related only to the head office (primarily monitoring and evaluation). The distribution of head office costs to the departments were made in accordance with the ratio of the department cost to the total national cost for the relevant macroprocess, distinguishing between current costs and investment costs. Where each department had the same components for investment costs and current costs, the cost of each of such components as a percentage of the total for all of the departments was calculated. This percentage was subsequently used to distribute the total for Lima Head Office under each heading by department. For example, where the following information is available: Lima Head Office Initial Total Current Costs 4000 Payroll 3000 Office supplies 1000

Total Departments Initial Total Current Costs 8000 Payroll 6000 Office supplies 2000

The distribution for department X, as per the figures in the first column of the following table, is given in the last column:

Current Costs Payroll

Initial Total 1200 800

Office supplies

400

Percentage Used

Distribution

13.3percent (800/6000) 20percent (400/2000)

400 (13.33percent*3000) 200 (20.00percent*1000)

Where similar information for cost components of the Lima Head Office and of the various departments was not available, aggregate information for current costs and investment costs were used, estimating each department as a percentage of the national total. The cost for the Lima Head Office was then distributed to the departments using the appropriate percentage. This procedure is shown below: Lima Head Office Initial Total Current Costs 4000 Payroll 3000 Office Supplies 1000

4

II. W ORK M ETHODOLOGY

Total Departments Initial Total Current Costs 8000 Payroll 6000 Office supplies 2000

Current Costs Payroll Office supplies

Initial Total 1200 -

Department X: Percentage Used 15 percent (1200/8000) 15 percent (1200/8000)

Distribution 450 (15.00 percent*3000) 150 (15.00 percent*1000)

Regarding monitoring and evaluation, and years where certain departments had no costs but there were costs at the Lima Head Office, a ratio of the number of beneficiaries per department was used. The total number of beneficiaries of the program was used for total costs, and the number of beneficiaries of specific activities for the macroprocesses relating to such activities. 3 For example: Lima Head Office Initial Total Current Costs 4000 Payroll 3000 Office supplies 1000

Beneficiaries Macroprocess “Y” Beneficiaries DEPT . X 20 …. Total Beneficiaries 100

Current Costs Payroll Office supplies

Department X: Initial Total Percentage Used 1200 20 percent (20/100) 20 percent (20/100)

Distribution 600 (20 percent*3000) 200 (20 percent*1000)

In the second stage, once all of the information had been standardized by department, global cost centers were allocated to specific activities as follows: administration, technical management and general costs, pursuant to the resources allocated to the relevant activity as a proportion of the total resources allocated to the project in the department. This distribution system was based on the assumption that greater total costs for each activity in the department will result in greater administrative costs. 3

It should be pointed out that in the year 1995 some macroprocesses did not have information by departments, nor were there as yet any beneficiaries. It was therefore decided to apply the same distribution percentages used in the year 1996 to the year 1995.

5


In the case of the monitoring and evaluation cost center, distribution was made on the basis of the number of (women) beneficiaries of winning and associated CBOs as a percentage of total beneficiaries of the department for each activity, on the assumption that department needs increase as the number of beneficiaries to be reached increases. As an example of this second stage, where the following information is available: Activity RH MC PD AD Total

Percentage cost 50 percent 20 percent 20 percent 10 percent 100 percent

Percentage beneficiaries 60 percent 15 percent 20 percent 5 percent 100 percent

Allocation of the following general macroprocesses to the activities shown can be done:

Administration Costs

Monitoring and Evaluation

Reproductive Health Department X Total Allocated (Total Administration Costs Dept. X) * 50 percent Microcredits Department X Total Allocated (Total Monitoring and Evaluation Dept. X) * 15 percent

The way in which investment costs have been considered should be pointed out here. A useful life of ten years (the estimated period of the program, following the extension in 2000) was considered, such that only the relevant investment costs should be allocated to the results obtained until the time that the information was collected for the mid-term evaluation in 2000. Furthermore, it was assumed that research studies relating to the implementation of the project could be used for similar programs which might be carried out in the future, and therefore should not be allocated entirely to the program. Thus, they were considered to have an indefinite useful life and as such only a proportion of the costs involved will be allocated to this program. Fianlly, the future value of the total cost flow for each activity per department will be obtained using the social revaluation index of 14 percent per year, in soles, as proposed by the Investment Office of the Ministry of Finance (MOF) and the Economy for Peru. This value will be divided among the total number of beneficiaries in the five years of Phase I of the program. Cost per capita will then be compared with the global effectiveness indicator, to be developed in the following paragraph, both at national and departmental level. 4 4

It should be pointed out that this analysis does not include the funds which USAID set aside for various consultancies such as MSH and which were not managed by ReproSalud. Furthermore, there were two special cases where costs were not considered in this analysis. The first is an attempt to set up a Community Bank in Ayacucho in 1997, with a capital of 6000 soles; however, it was decided to close down the bank in that same year, and therefore no further investments were made. The second case refers

6


Effectiveness indicators One of the main constraints for identifying effectiveness indicators for the program is that it has multiple objectives. In addition to four activities, Advocacy will not be considered in this study given that it will be developed primarily in Phase II of the program. A selection of bibliographic materials on this subject has been reviewed (Section V), but this provides very few alternatives. Among them is an analysis of the change in life expectancy of the (women) beneficiaries as a result of program activities. Given the difficulties involved, particularly when there are changes not only in life expectancy but also in quality of life, it was decided to adapt the methodology proposed by Cohen (1988) to convert the multiple objectives of a project into measurable indicators. The most difficult case here is the macroprocess of RH, where up to eight results are expected, each with its corresponding indicators: §

Women make greater use of reproductive health services;

§

Women have more equitable gender relationships with their partners and families;

§

Women strengthen their capacity to bring about changes in their gender relationships;

§

Increase in positive attitudes and practices of men in their relationships with women and families;

§

Women and men have a greater knowledge of gender equity", "women have a greater capacity to access RH services;

§

Women improve their capacity as end consumers of formal health services; and

§

Increase in the positive appreciation of women's health within the home and within the community.

Given that a separate impact evaluation is also being carried out at this time to consider all these results and their respective indicators, it is proposed to group the former for this cost-effectiveness analysis in order to make it less complex. Thus, the following results matrix has been used:

to the start of the Product Development program in Huancavelica in 1999; in that year an investment of 1,208.20 soles was made, but the project was subsequently abandoned.

7


Nbr.

Results grouping

Indicators

Description of combined indicator "Integral" indicator, which gives a weighting of 50 percent to each of the two following combined indicators:

a) Women receive prenatal and birth care from tra ined personnel. (indicators 1 and 2)

SO: “women make greater use of reproductive health services”

I

b) Women in a relationship who use contraceptive methods when they really need them (excluding those who do not use contraceptive methods for reasons relating to values 02 to 08, 20 and 21 in question 214); new indicator: based on questions 211 and 215.

IR 1, IR 1.1 and IR 1.3 (a combination of the three for women): “women have more equitable gender relationships with their partners and families", "women strengthen their capacity to bring about changes in their gender relationships”; “women and men have greater knowledge of gender equity”

II

Women who take key family decisions with their partners (indicators 7, 9 and 11), who have good communication on sexual issues with their partner (indicator 13) and who believe that daughters and sons should be educated to the same level (indicator 21).

a) One ranging from one (percent of women with children under the age of three receiving one of the health services in a) of the preceding column) to two (percent of women with children under the age of three receiving both of the services in a) of the preceding column. b) One ranging from one (percent of women in a relationship who need to use contraceptive methods and replied 'no' to question 211 but 'yes' to 215) to two (percent of women in a relationship who need to use contraceptive methods and replied 'yes' to question 211).

Combined indicator ranging from one (percent of women in a relationship who fulfill only one of these assertions) to five (percent of women in a relationship who meet all five)5

(Continued...)

5

Initially, a combined indicator ranging from one to seven was proposed, and included two additional indicators: (i) women who believe that their work outside or within the home is as important as the work done by their husband (a combination of indicators 19 and 20); and (ii) women who have frequently talked with their partner about Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) in the last 12 months (indicator 13.1). However, these indicators were considered for developing an alternative indicator, given that the number of void replies to the questions that made them up resulted in the number of cases dropping significantly.

8


(...Continued) Nbr.

Results grouping

Indicators

Description of combined indicator

Men who believe that women should not be physically assaulted (indicator 17), who believe that they cannot demand sexual relations if the woman is unwilling (indicator 18); and who believe that daughters and sons should be educated to the same level (indicator 21.1)

Combined indicator ranging from 1 (percent of men in relationships who fulfill only one of these assertions) to three (percent of men in relationships who meet all three). 6

III

IR 1.2 and IR 1.3: (a combination of the two for men): “increase in positive attitudes and practices of men in their relationship with women and with their families", "women and men increase their knowledge on gender equity"

Women who do not forego access to health services through lack of income (new indicator: question 502a, reply 'no'), women who look after their health for a feeling of well-being (indicator 32) and women who have invested in health in the last 12 months.

Combined indicator: ranging from one (percent of women who fulfill only one of these assertions) to three (percent of women who fulfill all three).

IV

IR 2, IR 2.1, IR 2.2: (a combination of the three): "women have a greater capacity to access RH services", "women improve their capacity as end consumers of formal health services", "increase in the positive appreciation of women's health within the home and within the community”.

In this way, we can calculate four indicators for the base line and then for the mid-term evaluation. 7 They are equally weighted to develop a global indicator (on the assumption that the four results groups are of equal importance in the RH activity). The change in each global indicator from the base line up to the mid-term evaluation for the program beneficiaries and the control group is then obtained. Finally, the differential increase (in percent) between the two groups is calculated to give the improvement due to the RH activity.

6

Initially, a combined indicator ranging from one to five was proposed and included two additional indicators: (i) men who believe that both should look after the children when they are ill (indicator 18.1); and (ii) men who believe that their work out of or in the home is as important or less important than that of their wives (a combination of indicators 19.1 and 20.1). However, these indicators were considered for developing a separate alternative indicator, given that the number of void replies to the questions that made them up resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases. 7 This analysis has been carried out with the two groups of CBOs included in the base line and in the midterm evaluation: winning and associated CBOs and control or comparison CBOs. However, not all of the former have been included in the analysis, but only those to which a control CBO was allocated, so that results are not biased (see Annex B for a detailed account of the problems relating to the sample encountered in the data for the base line and the mid-term evaluation surveys).

9


A calculation follows to explain this process. Assuming that the following changes are obtained in the (women) beneficiaries and the control groups with regard to the expected results of the program for the last group of indicators (IV): BASE LINE Winning and associated Control CBOs

MID-TERM EVAL. Winning and associated Control CBOs

Program impact (In percent points)

IV 0 1 2 3 Average “participation”

“Impacts of results group IV”

70 percent 71 percent 20 percent 26 percent 10 percent 3 percent 0 percent 0 percent 0.4 0.32

50 percent 60 percent 30 percent 31 percent 19 percent 9 percent 1 percent 0 percent 0.71 0.49 77.5 percent 53.13 percent

Prior to the program, 70 percent of women from winning and associated CBOs did not access health services due to lack of income, they did not look after their health for a feeling of well-being, but for other reasons, and had not made any investment in health care. This percentage was 71 percent in the control group. Furthermore, 10 percent of the women in the first group of CBOs fulfilled at least two of these assertions: they either looked after themselves for a feeling of well-being and spent money on health; or they looked after themselves for a feeling of well-being and had no problems of income for accessing health services; or, spent money on health and had no problems of income for accessing health services. These percentages give an average of 0.4 for winning and associated CBOs and 0.32 for control CBOs. The changes after program implementation can be observed in the second part of the table for the two groups of CBOs. For beneficiaries, improvement is 77.5 percent, whereas improvement in control CBOs was 53.13 percent (probably due to activities out with the program). Thus, it can be concluded that the impact of the program for this group of RH results is 24.37 percent points of additional improvement for winning and associated CBOs versus control CBOs. With a similar calculation for the other results groups, and weighting each one in an equal proportion (25 percent), the following results are obtained:

10

24.37


BASE LINE Winning and associated Control CBOs I

II III IV Average "participation"

Benefits of the RH activity

0.2 2.1 1.00 0.4 0.925

0.2 2.2 1.06 0.32 0.945

MID-TERM EVAL. Winning and associated Control CBOs 0.5 0.4 2.8 2.5 1.14 1.12 0.71 0.49 1.2875 1.1275 39.00 percent 19.00 percent

Impact of the program (In percentage points)

20.00 percent

On average, this gives an improvement in the RH activity through program impact of 20 additional percentage points. 8 Regarding Microcredits and Product Development (PD) activities, there it not enough information available for carrying out an impact evaluation which would consider the income generated by women taking part in these activities. 9 For this reason it was decided to use indicators of efficiency rather than of effectiveness. Thus, in the case of Microcredits, the cost per bank in each department and at national level will be used, as well as a cost-benefit indicator (C/B) 10 calculated using as proxy profit for the beneficiaries the total money handed to them, or total deposits made, with all the limitations this implies. In the case of Product Development, the cost by producer group will be analyzed, as well as the cost per beneficiary as above; furthermore, an attempt will be made to calculate the relative profitability of this activity by department, through a calculation of the C/B, using as income proxy the total requests for products received in the period. 11

8

It should be pointed out that this methodology does not prevent modification of the separate indicators used for each results group, provided that they have a similar comparison base (in particular, the denominator of the indicators to be combined must be the same). 9 From the survey used in the base line and the mid-term evaluation it would be possible, however, to carry out an econometric analysis on the link between spending on health by women and their participation in the ReproSalud community bank. In this way, it would be possible to establish whether there is a positive link between these two variables, and the significance of the effect of the latter on the former. However, this analysis does not fall within the scope of the present study. 10 For the project to be effective, i.e. for the actual benefits to be greater than the costs, the cost-benefit must be greater than one. 11 This last information has a significant limitation, as from November 1999 it includes the commission charged by RS to the producers for fund administration costs, as well as for costs of raw materials, and for this reason it does not represent the income that ultimately reaches the producers, not even in gross figures.

11


B. METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING THE REPLICATION COSTS OF THE RH M ACROPROCESS This section outlines the methodology to be used for replicating the RH activity, assuming that this will be done in an organization which already has the necessary institutional infrastructure in place at the national level and does not require heavy funding from a source such as USAID, with the various overheads which this involves. The items to be removed from the various cost centers in order to calculate the real cost of replication are set forth below: RH §

All costs relating to design of training materials (under 1210507 or 12190)

§

Costs for research (12108)

Monitoring and evaluation §

Pilot testing of instruments (3140101)

§

Base line for participation in advocacy (31407)

It was also considered necessary to adjust the payrolls for the first years on the assumption that these were due for developing the management and implementation capacity of the program, which aspect would not be necessary if it is to be replicated in an organization with the relevant institutional infrastructure. Thus, payroll costs in 1995 were eliminated and only 50percent of the costs for 1996 were considered. In addition, the costs for the administration and financial system used by ReproSalud were eliminated; the system was bought from the company OFISIS and all the related expenses can be allocated to Intangible Accounts (34) in the budget, or under the specific heading of payments to OFISIS. Regarding general costs, all costs relating to the setting up of regional offices and an Information Technology (IT) network at national level and the building of RS offices at the Manuela site, among others, have been eliminated. As a result of specific conditions imposed by USAID, the overheads involved relate to the policy for purchase of equipment and vehicles, as well as payment to employees. The quality requirements of the organization meant that well-known and therefore more expensive international brands had to be bought, to the detriment of others that were of good quality but lacked the necessary reputation. This was especially true for the purchase of IT equipment and vehicles, as well as fuel, spare parts and maintenance for the latter.

12


In the case of computer equipment, according to estimates from the IT department of the organization, these overheads represent 90 percent. 12 For vehicles, and pursuant to a study carried out by Manuela Ramos in December 1999, 13 purchase overheads represented 18 percent, whereas overheads for maintenance, spares and fuel reached 209.6 percent. §

With regard to employees, the salary levels fixed by the program were significantly higher than those existing in Manuela, and this eventually resulted in a salary review (upwards) for all employees of the organization in order to maintain a coherent and uniform salary policy. However, it has been assumed that even if the ReproSalud salaries are relatively high in comparison with the average Peruvian wage, those in Manuela in 1995 were excessively low, and therefore this review was necessary and would correspond to the salary levels of any organization with the capacity to take on a program of the scope of ReproSalud. As a result no adjustment has been made for this.

§

On the basis of the overheads calculated, the corresponding headings will be adjusted to determine the real value that these would have if the program were to be replicated in an organization unaffected by the conditions imposed by USAID.

12

With the exception of purchases made in 1997, which were obtained at a good price. "Financial study of the vehicles used by the ReproSalud project of the Movimiento Manuela Ramos ". (Estudio económico de las camionetas que utiliza el proyecto Reprosalud del Movimiento Manuela Ramos). December 1999. 13

13


14

III.

RESULTS ANALYSIS

A. COST-EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS: COSTS PER BENEFICIARY The costs per beneficiary obtained by applying the methodology described in part 2 are shown in Table 1. At national level, they were 105.75 soles 14 for RH, 463.44 soles for CB and 804.88 soles for PD. This last activity seems to be the most expensive per beneficiary, but it should also be said that it has only recently been consolidated: it started only in 1997 and as of December 2000 there were still relative ly few producer groups carrying out this activity (31 out of the 37 with which the program was working). 15 Table 1: Cost per beneficiary for the main activities of the ReproSalud program (Soles at January 1995 value) REPRODUCTIVE Cost per HEALTH Total REGIO Beneficiar Benef N y Ayacuc 2,116,278 iciarie 1823 116.0 ho Huar .46 2,061,320 0 1535 9 134.2 Huancavel az .08 2,071,072 5 2282 490.7 ica .14 9 2 Trujill 1,498,411 1640 91.3 o .20 7382 3 Lima 667,861. 174.5 Este 46 6 687.5 Pun 1,783,724 2036 o Juliac .94 1,735,201 7 1844 8 94.0 a Tarapo .71 1,042,694 2 1243 9 83.8 to .15 2816 7 Pucall 1,410,905 172.7 Tota pa .52 813605 4 14,387,469 105.7 l .66 6 5 Total Cost

Total Cost

MICROCREDITS OSTotal Cost per

1,568,045 .41 1,581,409 .95 927,620. 01 1,874,846 .23 5,951,921 .60

PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT Cost per Total

Total Beneficia Cost 62,327. ries 47 82,966. 51 316 494.9 48,978. 8 6 56 302 522.9 102,789. 4 5 88 59,783. 253 365.3 142,917. 88 9 5 37 411 455.9 82,162. 2 1284 5 41 463.4 581,926. 3 4 08

Benef iciarie

Benef 17 iciarie 8 10 1 40 13 4 12 761 52 69 3

Beneficiary

350.1 5 821.4 5 1,224. 46 767.0 9 470.7 2,342. 3 91 1,580. 05 839.7 1

Relating to RH per department, it can be seen that the highest costs per capita correspond to Lima East, 174.56 soles, Pucallpa, 172.74 soles and Huaraz, 134.24 soles. In the case of Lima, this is explained by the small number of beneficiaries as of 2000, which is due to the fact that it was decided to stop working in this department at that time. Pucallpa has also had relatively few beneficiaries (8,168 up to December 2000) despite having costs, which are comparable to those of Trujillo in the year 1999, Trujillo having reached double the number of beneficiaries in the five years than Pucallpa; this can be explained by the high costs of the region. The case is similar for Huaraz, though to a lesser degree than in Pucallpa, for though it reaches a slightly lower number of beneficiaries than Trujillo, it has greater current costs for project implementation, payroll, etc; furthermore, refurbishment of the office in Huaraz and the equipment bought for it has amounted to more than double the cost in Trujillo (see Annex C for detailed annual costs per department). 14

As all costs have been converted to current value at the beginning of 1995, it should be pointed out that these are soles at that date’s value. This will be the case throughout this report when figures in soles are mentioned. 15 ReproSalud. Annual Report 2000. December 2000.

15


The departments with lowest costs were Puno Aymara and Tarapoto, 87.58 and 83.87 soles respectively. Puno is the second department, after Huancavelica, as regards number of beneficiaries reached (20,367 up to December 2000), despite which it has had implementation costs for its subprojects which are lower, for all years, than those of Ayacucho, for example, with 18,230 beneficiaries in the five year period, and the costs for offices are at a similar level to those of Ayacucho and Trujillo. Tarapoto, in addition to low costs, has also few beneficiaries when compared to other departments (12,433 up to December 2000). Regarding CB, this activity is being carried out in only four departments, all of which have relatively similar costs per beneficiary, with Tarapoto showing the lowest cost (365.35 soles) and Puno Aymara the highest (522.95 soles). Tarapoto has lower revalued costs than any other department, but it also reaches fewer beneficiaries for this activity. In addition, the CB activity has only been consolidated in 1998, a year later than in the other departments. It should be noted that according to information received from Liliana Ramírez, the high costs in Puno Aymara and in Trujillo are due to the fact that work in these regions is carried out in remote areas to which access is difficult. Finally, the PD activity is being carried out in the departments of Ayacucho, Huaraz, Puno Aymara and Quechua, Tarapoto and Pucallpa. The two Puno areas are the most active, given the presence of a strong client base, which explains also the low cost per beneficiary in these areas (767.09 soles for Puno Aymara and 470.73 for Quechua). The areas with highest costs, Tarapoto and Pucallpa, are those in which the activity is less established, and where no new producer groups have been found for 2000 (nor for 1999 in the case of Pucallpa).

B. COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS Reproductive health In order to carry out the cost-effectiveness analysis, as has already been described in the section on methodology, a global effectiveness indicator was developed, as seen in Table 2 national level results. This shows that the global indicator on a national level increased by 14.04 percent for winning and associated CBOs (W+A) and by 2.83 percent for control CBOs (C). The increase in this indicator was 11.22 percentage points greater for the former than for the latter. It should be noted that the winning and associated CBOs showed greater improvement than control CBOs for all the separate indicators, such improvements being more significant in separate indicators II and IV and less significant as regards the strategic objective, and particularly regarding the use of family planning methods (Ib). This can be explained by the fact that government policy on birth control on a national level is widespread.

16

III. RESULTS A NALYSIS

Table 2: RH effectiveness ratios at national level

Ia (SO) Ib (SO) I (SO) a/ II (IR 1., IR 1.1, IR 1.3) III (IR 1.2, IR 1.3) IV (IR 2., IR 2.1, IR 2.2) Global Indicator b/

MID-TERM BASE LINE EVAL. Cont. W + A Cont. W + A 1.04 1.04 1.30 1.43 1.88 1.86 1.91 1.92 1.46 1.45 1.61 1.67 1.50 1.57 1.63 1.97 2.09 2.06 2.08 2.20 1.60 1.54 1.51 1.71 1.66 1.66 1.71 1.89

Improvement percent Cont.c/ W+A c/ Difference d/ 25.41 percent 37.75 percent 12.34 percent 1.85 percent 3.21 percent 1.37 percent 10.23 percent 15.58 percent 5.35 percent 8.84 percent 25.34 percent 16.50 percent -0.35 percent 6.77 percent 7.12 percent -5.46 percent 10.80 percent 16.26 percent 2.83 percent 14.04 percent 11.22 percent

a/ I (SO) = [ Ia (SO) + Ib (SO) ] / 2 b/ Global Indicator = [ I + II + III + IV ] / 4 c/ Improvement percent = [ (BASE LINE) Indicator / (MID-TERM EVAL.) Indicator ] – 1, for each CBO group. d/ Difference = Improvement (W + A) – Improvement (Cont.).

Due to problems in the sample, which as mentioned before will be explained in detail in Annex B, the results per department are not necessarily representative, but give an indication of the impact achieved by the project per department. 16 As seen in the following tables, improvement in the global indicator was greater for the W+A in all departments, the most effective being Huancavelica, Puno Quechua and Trujillo. The least effective was the Ayacucho area. In all cases, it should be pointed out that in general the most significant results were obtained in separate indicators II and IV. 17 Table 3: RH effectiveness ratios, Huaraz

Ia (SO) Ib (SO) I (SO) a/ II (IR 1., IR 1.1, IR 1.3) III (IR 1.2, IR 1.3) IV (IR 2., IR 2.1, IR 2.2) Global Indicator b/

BASE LINE MID-TERM EVAL. Cont. W + A Cont. W+A 0.83 1.31 1.21 1.37 1.80 1.78 1.74 1.93 1.32 1.54 1.48 1.65 1.06 1.23 1.61 1.79 1.84 1.97 1.89 2.24 1.57 1.54 1.35 1.62 1.45 1.57 1.58 1.82

Improvement percent Cont.c/ W+A c/ Difference d/ 45.50 percent 4.73 percent -40.77 percent -3.27 percent 8.80 percent 12.07 percent 12.18 percent 7.08 percent -5.10 percent 51.68 percent 45.29 percent -6.39 percent 2.52 percent 13.28 percent 10.76 percent -14.16 percent 5.59 percent 19.75 percent 9.20 percent 16.16 percent 6.95 percent

a/ I (SO) = [ Ia (SO) + Ib (SO) ] / 2 b/ Global Indicator = [ I + II + III + IV ] / 4 c/ Improvement percent = [(BASE LINE) Indicator / (MID-TERM EVAL.) Indicator] – 1, for each CBO group. d/ Difference = Improvement (W + A) – Improvement (Cont.).

16

The Lima area has not been considered since there were no control CBOs and very few winning and associated CBOs, whereby the sample was not significant. 17 The results obtained with the alternative indicators suggested in the methodology can be seen in Annex D.

17


Table 4: RH effectiveness ratios, Ayacucho BASE LINE MID-TERM EVAL. Improvement percent Cont. W + A Cont. W+A Cont.c/ W+A c/ Difference d/ Ia (SO) 1.46 1.42 1.64 1.75 12.39 percent 23.26 percent 10.87 percent Ib (SO) 1.87 1.89 1.93 1.90 2.86 percent 0.34 percent -2.52 percent I (SO) a/ 1.67 1.66 1.78 1.83 7.03 percent 10.18 percent 3.15 percent II (IR 1., IR 1.1, IR 1.3) 1.67 1.61 2.17 2.32 29.52 percent 43.62 percent 14.10 percent III (IR 1.2, IR 1.3) 2.04 2.17 2.23 2.13 9.58 percent -2.22 percent -11.80 percent IV (IR 2., IR 2.1, IR 2.2) 1.65 1.68 1.68 1.95 1.56 percent 16.43 percent 14.87 percent Global Indicator b/ 1.76 1.78 1.96 2.06 11.84 percent 15.44 percent 3.60 percent a/ I (SO) = [ Ia (SO) + Ib (SO) ] / 2 b/ Global Indicator = [ I + II + III + IV ] / 4 c/ Improvement percent = [ (BASE LINE) Indicator / (MID-TERM EVAL.) Indicator ] – 1, for each CBO group. d/ Difference = Improvement (W + A) – Improvement (Cont.).

Table 5: RH effectiveness ratios, Huancavelica BASE LINE MID-TERM EVAL. Cont. W + A Cont. W+A Ia (SO) 0.99 0.83 1.35 1.39 Ib (SO) 1.85 1.88 1.89 1.80 I (SO) a/ 1.42 1.36 1.62 1.59 II (IR 1., IR 1.1, IR 1.3) 1.47 1.43 1.64 2.54 III (IR 1.2, IR 1.3) 2.14 1.93 1.96 2.20 IV (IR 2., IR 2.1, IR 2.2) 1.74 1.57 1.27 1.75 Global Indicator b/ 1.69 1.57 1.62 2.02

Improvement percent Cont.c/ W+A c/ Difference d/ 35.97 percent 66.94 percent 30.97 percent 2.50 percent -4.42 percent -6.92 percent 14.20 percent 17.47 percent 3.27 percent 11.39 percent 77.72 percent 66.33 percent -8.20 percent 14.01 percent 22.20 percent -27.39 percent 11.12 percent 38.51 percent -4.19 percent 28.49 percent 32.69 percent


Table 6: RH effectiveness ratios, Trujillo BASE LINE MID-TERM EVAL. Improvement percent Cont. W + A Cont. W+A Cont.c/ W+A c/ Difference d/ Ia (SO) 0.68 0.88 1.11 1.46 64.84 percent 65.55 percent 0.71percent Ib (SO) 1.86 1.87 1.91 1.94 2.68 percent 3.47 percent 0.79 percent I (SO) a/ 1.27 1.38 1.51 1.70 19.21 percent 23.34 percent 4.12 percent II (IR 1., IR 1.1, IR 1.3) 1.39 1.55 1.54 1.99 10.94 percent 27.95 percent 17.00 percent III (IR 1.2, IR 1.3) 2.22 2.29 2.00 2.29 -9.72 percent -0.37 percent 9.36 percent IV (IR 2., IR 2.1, IR 2.2) 1.80 1.79 1.50 1.82-16.48 percent 1.90 percent 18.37 percent Global Indicator b/ 1.67 1.75 1.64 1.95 -1.74 percent 11.14 percent 12.88 percent a/ I (SO) = [ Ia (SO) + Ib (SO) ] / 2 b/ Global Indicator = [ I + II + III + IV ] / 4 c/ Improvement percent = [ (BASE LINE) Indicator / (MID-TERM EVAL.) Indicator ] – 1, for each CBO group. d/ Difference = Improvement (W + A) – Improvement (Cont.).

18


Table 7: RH effectiveness ratios, Tarapoto BASE LINE MID-TERM EVAL. Improvement percent Cont. W + A Cont. W+A Cont.c/ W+A c/ Difference d/ Ia (SO) 1.38 1.18 1.68 1.76 21.70 percent 49.08 percent 27.39 percent Ib (SO) 1.98 1.96 1.97 1.97 -0.08 percent 0.23 percent 0.30 percent I (SO) a/ 1.68 1.57 1.83 1.87 8.87 percent 18.58 percent 9.71 percent II (IR 1., IR 1.1, IR 1.3) 1.30 1.39 1.48 1.61 14.13 percent 16.08 percent 1.95 percent III (IR 1.2, IR 1.3) 2.01 1.93 2.14 2.18 6.53 percent 12.91 percent 6.38 percent IV (IR 2., IR 2.1, IR 2.2) 1.55 1.56 1.86 1.90 20.58 percent 21.92 percent 1.34 percent Global Indicator b/ 1.63 1.61 1.83 1.89 11.96 percent 17.15 percent 5.1 9 percent a/ I (SO) = [ Ia (SO) + Ib (SO) ] / 2 b/ Global Indicator = [ I + II + III + IV ] / 4 c/ Improvement percent = [ (BASE LINE) Indicator / (MID-TERM EVAL.) Indicator ] – 1, for each CBO group. d/ Difference = Improvement (W + A) – Improvement (Cont.).

Table 8: RH effectiveness ratios, Pucallpa BASE LINE MID-TERM EVAL. Improvement percent Cont. W + A Cont. W+A Cont.c/ W+A c/ Difference d/ Ia (SO) 1.08 0.96 1.16 1.39 7.11 percent 43.72 percent 36.61 percent Ib (SO) 1.94 1.93 1.99 1.96 2.49 percent 1.79 percent -0.69 percent I (SO) a/ 1.51 1.45 1.57 1.68 4.14 percent 15.76 percent 11.62 percent II (IR 1., IR 1.1, IR 1.3) 1.59 1.85 1.32 1.41-16.91 percent -23.79 percent -6.89 percent III (IR 1.2, IR 1.3) 2.20 2.23 2.09 2.20 -4.80 percent -1.37 percent 3.43 percent IV (IR 2., IR 2.1, IR 2.2) 1.79 1.60 1.73 1.87 -3.38 percent 16.64 percent 20.01 percent Global Indicator b/ 1.77 1.78 1.68 1.79 -5.25 percent 0.35 percent 5.60 percent a/ I (SO) = [ Ia (SO) + Ib (SO) ] / 2 b/ Global Indicator = [ I + II + III + IV ] / 4 c/ Improvement percent = [ (BASE LINE) Indicator / (MID-TERM EVAL.) Indicator ] – 1, for each CBO group. d/ Difference = Improvement (W + A) – Improvement (Cont.).

Table 9: RH effectiveness ratios, Puno (Puno Aymara) BASE LINE MID-TERM EVAL. Cont. W + A Cont. W+A Ia (SO) 1.10 0.91 1.29 1.22 Ib (SO) 1.87 1.77 1.95 1.92 I (SO) a/ 1.49 1.34 1.62 1.57 II (IR 1., IR 1.1, IR 1.3) 1.78 1.75 1.80 2.13 III (IR 1.2, IR 1.3) 2.11 1.99 2.26 2.12 IV (IR 2., IR 2.1, IR 2.2) 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.28 Global Indicator b/ 1.67 1.60 1.76 1.78

Improvement percent Cont.c/ W+A c/ Difference d/ 18.02 percent 34.53 percent 16.50 percent 4.07 percent 8.33 percent 4.25 percent 9.22 percent 17.19 percent 7.97 percent 0.93 percent 21.46 percent 20.52 percent 7.26 percent 6.72 percent -0.53 percent 4.53 percent -1.85 percent -6.38 percent 5.48 percent 11.21 percent 5.73 percent


19


Table 10: RH effectiveness ratios, Juliaca (Puno Quechua) BASE LINE MID-TERM EVAL. Cont. W + A Cont. W+A Ia (SO) 1.00 0.86 1.25 1.41 Ib (SO) 1.82 1.77 1.94 1.87 I (SO) a/ 1.41 1.31 1.60 1.64 II (IR 1., IR 1.1, IR 1.3) 1.68 1.79 1.73 2.41 III (IR 1.2, IR 1.3) 2.21 2.20 2.17 2.51 IV (IR 2., IR 2.1, IR 2.2) 1.07 1.39 1.56 1.78 Global Indicator b/ 1.59 1.67 1.76 2.08

Improvement percent Cont.c/ W+A c/ Difference d/ 25.00 percent 64.94 percent 39.94 percent 6.54 percent 5.82 percent -0.72 percent 13.08 percent 25.14 percent 12.06 percent 2.67 percent 34.71 percent 32.04 percent -2.05 percent 14.31 percent 16.36 percent 45.93 percent 27.70 percent -18.23 percent 10.57 percent 24.67 percent 14.10 percent


It is worthwhile to compare effectiveness with costs per beneficiary for each department, bearing in mind what was previously said in relation to the representative nature of the regional samp les. As can be seen in Table 11, Huancavelica is the most cost-effective area, followed by Puno Quechua and Trujillo. Opposed to this, the areas with the greatest cost for achieving the reported results in reproductive health are those of Ayacucho and Pucallpa, which are also areas with a relatively high cost per beneficiary. There seems to be a link between costs, efficiency and effectiveness. The areas with a lower cost per beneficiary are generally those of greater effectiveness. Table 11: RH Cost-effectiveness by department and at national level Department Ayacucho Huaraz (Ancash) Huancavelica Trujillo (La Libertad) Lima east Puno (Puno Aymara) Juliaca (Puno Quechua) Tarapoto (San Martín) Pucallpa (Ucayali) National

Effectiveness ratio 3.60 6.95 32.69 12.88 5.73 14.10 5.19 5.60 11.22

Cost x benefit. 116.09 134.24 90.72 91.33 174.56 87.58 94.09 83.87 172.74 105.75

Cost-effectiveness 32.21 19.30 2.78 7.09 15.30 6.67 16.17 30.86 9.43

Community Banks and Product Development In referenece to microcredit activities, some estimates regarding efficiency and social profitability of community banks are shown in Tables 12 and 13. On average, at a national level, each of the 370 banks that were running as of December 2000 cost 16,086.27 soles at 1995 value. Tarapoto is the department with the lowest costs, Puno Aymara and Trujillo with the highest. These findings were explained when analyzing the costs per beneficiary for this activity. It should be noted that, according to information provided by Liliana Ramírez, Tarapoto is one of the areas where the banks are working best, given that target deposits have been surpassed in recent years and the possibility of promoting the enterprise development by women clients of these banks is being

20


investigated in order that they may use the loans for profitable activities to guarantee increased income in the future. Table 12: Cost per community bank Region La Libertad (Trujillo) Ucayali (Pucallpa) Puno (Puno Aymara) San Martín (Tarapoto) National

VAC Nbr. banks* Cost x bank 1,568,045.41 92 17,043.97 1,874,846.23 112 16,739.70 1,581,409.95 86 18,388.49 927,620.01 80 11,595.25 5,951,921.60 370 16,086.27

* Total banks in 2000, excluding those that closed.

Table 13 attempts to estimate the social profitability of the CB, although this has many limitations, since estimates are based on the assumption that the profits used in the calculation derive only from the money available to the beneficiaries and not from other potential impacts of this money. 18 However, it does give an indication of the relative profits generated by this activity in each region. Although all C/B, both per department and at national level, are less than one given the underestimation of profits explained above, Tarapoto emerges as the department with the greatest profits as compared with the total costs for establishing the banks, while Pucallpa is the least profitable. Table 13: C/B for CB Region La Libertad (Trujillo)

Ucayali (Pucallpa) Puno (Puno Aymara) San Martín (Tarapoto) National

VAC (1) 1,568,045.41 1,874,846.23 1,581,409.95 927,620.01 5,951,921.60

VAB (2) 1,376,025.89 1,530,910.59 1,334,295.11 786,707.94 5,027,939.54

C/B (2/1) 0.878 0.817 0.844 0.848 0.845

For the PD activity, the cost per producer group has been calculated, and found to be 14,193.30 soles at the national level. The departments with the highest costs per producer group are Trujillo and Tarapoto, although it should be remembered that this activity is no longer being carried out in Trujillo. Of note for their low costs are Ayacucho and Puno Quechua. However, it is interesting to analyze the volume of orders served in these regions in the five years under evaluation and how this relates to the costs incurred. This can be seen in Table 15, which gives the corresponding C/B ratios. Again these values are significantly below one, partly due to the fact that this activity is still in the process of consolidation, Pucallpa and Puno Aymara should be noted, there having been a significant volume of orders as compared to the costs incurred. Huaraz and Tarapoto, on the other hand, are the least effective areas. Tarapoto has had relatively high costs with very few purchase orders when compared to other areas.

18

Annual profits for PD and CB activities are shown in Annex D.

21


Table 14: Cost per producer group Region Ayacucho Ancash (Huaraz - Chavin) La Libertad (Trujillo) Puno (Puno Aymara) Juliaca (Puno Quechua) San Martín (Tarapoto) Ucayali (Pucallpa) National

VAC Nbr. groups* 62,327.47 10 82,966.51 7 48,978.56 1 102,789.88 6 59,783.21 7 142,917.37 4 82,162.41 6 581,925.41 41.00

Cost x group 6,232.75 11,852.36 48,978.56 17,131.65 8,540.46 35,729.34 13,693.74 14,193.30

Table 15: C/B for product development Region Ayacucho Ancash (Huaraz) La Libertad (Trujillo) Puno (Puno Aymara) Juliaca (Puno Quechua) San Martín (Tarapoto) Ucayali (Pucallpa) National**

VAC (1) 62,327.47 82,966.51 48,978.56 102,789.88 59,783.21 142,917.37 82,162.41 581,925.41

VAB* (2) 10,643.19 6,479.13 0.00 34,389.22 9,440.15 7,791.14 33,254.75 129,804.98

C/B (2/1) 0.171 0.078 0.000 0.335 0.158 0.055 0.405 0.223

* Annual information was in dollars and was converted using the average annual exchange rate. ** National VAB includes totals served by the "Head Office" region.

C. REPLICATION COSTS The results of the study carried out to determine the cost of replicating the RH activity are shown in Table 16. This shows that such cost is only 92 percent of the real cost at the national level. It can be seen that there are no significant differences in the regions, with the exception of Lima East, which was subsequently excluded from this activity. Of the other regions, the cost for replication is lowest in Pucallpa, where it is close to 90 percent, probably due to payroll- related costs, which are relatively higher than in some of the other regions.

22


Table 16: Cost for replication of RH, at department and national level

REGION Ayacucho Huaraz Huancavelica Trujillo Lima East Puno Juliaca Tarapoto Pucallpa Total

Total Cost (Replication) 1,997,357.35 1,900,801.11 1,928,150.31 1,374,997.41 587,571.34 1,653,211.87 1,632,095.76 946,700.02 1,258,840.74 13,279,725.91

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Cost per Cost per Replication/ Total women Beneficiary Beneficiary Real beneficiaries (Replication) (Real) Ratio 18243 109.49 116.09 94.31 percent 15347 123.85 134.24 92.26 percent 22836 84.44 90.72 93.07 percent 16382 83.93 91.33 91.90 percent 3918 149.98 174.56 85.92 percent 20382 81.11 87.58 92.61 percent 18449 88.46 94.09 94.02 percent 12417 76.24 83.87 90.90 percent 8164 154.20 172.74 89.27 percent 136137 97.55 105.75 92.24 percent

23


24

IV. CONCLUSIONS The preceding pages provide a cost-effectiveness analysis of the three activities carried out in the first phase of the ReproSalud program: Reproductive Health (RH), Community Banks (CB) and Product Development (PD). In all three cases costs have been investigated at both regional and national level, as well as per men/women beneficiaries reached. A measure of the effectiveness of each activity as a comparison of the previously analyzed costs has been described. Lastly, the cost for replicating the activity at a national level and extending activities in the areas where the program is active was estimated. The main results obtained are given below: §

The costs per beneficiary reach 105.75 soles for RH, 463.44 soles for CB and 804.88 soles for PD, i.e. the last two activities are the most expensive as regards cost per capita; it should however be borne in mind that both are in the process of consolidation and that their capacity to reach a larger number of beneficiaries has been on the increase, particularly in the case of CB (see the table on beneficiary trend for this activity in Annex C).

§

Regarding RH, although no cost standards per user (of health services and/or programs similar to that under evaluation) are available for comparison purposes, the information provided by the Health Ministry (2000) regarding the cost per capita of mother-and-child insurance can be used as a guide. On average, for a nine- month pregnancy this amounts to 165.26 soles, or US$ 47.22. For comparison purposes with the figure given for cost per beneficiary, this has been converted to dollars using the exchange rate at the beginning of 1995 (2.18 soles), which means that, in the five years of this first phase, the RH cost per capita reached US$ 48.51. As a result it seems that the program is appropriate in terms of costs.

§

The RH results by department show Pucallpa and Huaraz as those with the highest costs, and Puno Aymara and Tarapoto with the lowest. These differences can be explained in general terms by the varying costs of payroll, implementation of subprojects and refurbishment of regional offices in relation to the number of (women) beneficiaries reached by each region. If effectiveness is analyzed it can be seen that there is a link between the least costly and the most effective regions, and this is especially true for Huancavelica and Puno Quechua.

25


26

§

In realtation to CB, the differences in costs can be explained primarily by the degree of accessibility of the areas where work is carried out in the different regions, the least accessible being Puno Aymara and Trujillo. Of note is Tarapoto, which has the lowest costs (per beneficiary and bank) and is the most effective (this being measured by the cost/benefit ratio).

§

For the PD activity, the most important factor seems to be the consolidation of producer groups and the availability of clients to guarantee demand for and sale of the products. The departments with the highest costs per beneficiary and producer group are Tarapoto and Trujillo, whilst the two Puno areas have relatively low costs and a good volume of orders.

§

The costs involved in replicating the RH program in other areas of the country, and in increasing activities in areas where it is already present, came very close to the real costs of the program despite the various adjustments made to eliminate the costs involved in the institutional development of Manuela Ramos for strengthening its capacity to implement the project as well as those relating to conditional requirements of USAID. On a national level, the costs of replication were 92 percent of the real cost.

V.

BIBLIOGRAPHY §

BELTRÁN, Arlette and Hanny Cueva. Private evaluation of projects (Evaluación privada de proyectos). Research Center of the Universidad del Pacífico. 1st Edition, July 1999.

§

BELTRÁN, Arlette and Hanny Cueva. Manual for identification, development and evaluation of Projects for the promotion of women, children and youths (Manual de Identificación, formulación y evaluación de Proyectos de promoción de la mujer, el niño y el adolescente). Lima, December 1999.

§

BELTRÁN, Arlette and Hanny Cueva. Manual for identification, development and evaluation of Health Projects (Manual de Identificación, formulación y evaluación de Proyectos de salud). Lima, February 2000.

§

COHEN, Ernesto and Rolando Franco. Evaluation of social projects (Evaluación de proyectos sociales). ILPES/ONU, CIDES/OEA, Grupo Editor Latinoamericano, Buenos Aires, 1988.

§

DRUMMOND, Michael, Greg Stoddart and George Torrance. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford University Press, 1987.

§

DRUMMOND, Michael. Principles of economic appraisal in health care. Oxford University Press, 1980.

§

FONTAINE, Ernesto. Social evaluation of projects (Evaluación social de proyectos). Universidad Católica de Chile, 1983.

§

HOLLISTER, Robinson and Jennifer Hill. Problems in the Evaluation of Community-Wide Initiatives, in New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives, Vol. 1, The Aspen Institute, Washington, 1995.

§

MANUELA RAMOS. ReproSalud Extension Document (Documento de Extensión ReproSalud). Lima, September 1999.

§

MANUELA RAMOS. Annual Report.. ReproSalud, various years.

§

MINSA, Calculation of per capita costs in the mother-and-child health insurance (Determinación de los costos per- cápita del seguro materno infantil). Information and Research Unit. Mimeo, August 2000.

27


28

ANNEXES

A: Detalles Metodológicos de la Homogenización de Costos en el Período 1995-1998 ....................................................................................................................31 B: Condiciones Muestrales en la Estimación de los Indicadores de Efectividad .............35 C: Costos Anuales a Nivel Departamental y Nacional (Soles).........................................43 D: Información Estadística Sobre Indicadores de Efectividad .........................................55

ANNEX A DETALLES METODOLÓGICOS DE LA HOMOGENIZACIÓN DE COSTOS EN EL PERÍODO 1995-1998


ANEXO A DETALLES METODOLÓGICOS DE LA HOMOGENIZACIÓN DE COSTOS EN EL PERÍODO 1995-1998 Recojo de Información Para realizar el análisis de los costos del proyecto Reprosalud se utilizó directamente la información contenida en la base de datos de Manuela Ramos. 19 Era necesario poder distinguir los costos por departamento, por macroproceso y por proceso, según el plan estratégico existente en el 2001. Sin embargo, la base de datos de Manuela sólo presentaba dicha clasificación a partir del año 1999, por lo que fue necesario identificar los registros de toda la base de datos desde el año 1995 hasta el 1998 para clasificarlos según el Plan Estratégico mencionado. Para tal fin, se utilizó la siguiente metodología: Año 1995 Etapa 1: Identificación del Área Dado que las actividades de Reprosalud se iniciaron a finales de 1995, este año no presentaba mayores gastos, los cuales estaban referidos mayormente a planillas. Por ello, en primer lugar se depuró la planilla por nombre, identificándose el área y el macroproceso al cual pertenecía cada una de las personas dentro de la relación. Para ello se utilizaron las planillas de 1999, entregadas al Ministerio de Trabajo. Se sumaron dos conceptos para hallar el monto asignado a cada persona por planilla: el total de remuneraciones y el total de aportaciones. Seguidamente, se verificaron los comprobantes, uno por uno, para identificar desde cuál centro de costos se había realizado determinado pago. Etapa 2: Identificación del Macroproceso y Proceso Luego de haber identificado el área, se asignaron los Macroprocesos y Procesos según el Plan Estratégico del año 2001, comparando la descripción de cada uno de los gastos con aquélla presente en dicho Plan. Años 1996 a 1998 Etapa 1: Identificación del Área Para estos años, algunos de los registros presentaron código de área, por lo que el primer paso fue depurar la información de acuerdo con dichos códigos, según los criterios del

19

Sólo se utilizaron las cuentas referidas a salida de caja, dado que la base de datos presentaba información contable.

32

A NNEXES

año 2001. Luego, al igual que en el caso anterior, se depuró la planilla por nombre, identificándose el área a la cual pertenecía cada trabajador. Para poder identificar los registros faltantes, se consideró la naturaleza del gasto realizado para asignarlo a una determinada área. Por ejemplo, las licencias de software fueron asignadas a informática; los muebles no identificables a servicios generales; y la apertura de asientos a finanzas. Por otro lado, se buscaba en la descripción del gasto evidencia que permitiese relacionarlo con alguna línea de acción. Así, los gastos en materiales para charlas de salud reproductiva y talleres, se cargaban a Salud Reproductiva. Si eran gastos de promoción del programa (avisos radiales, encartes, etc.) se cargaban a Advocacy. Etapa 2: Identificación del Macroproceso y Proceso Nuevamente, se utilizó la descripción de cada actividad para asignar los Macroprocesos y Procesos según el Plan Estratégico del año 2001. Año 1999 Para este año no fue necesario realizar las dos etapas mencionadas anteriormente ya que la base de datos presentaba una clasificación muy similar a la utilizada en el año 2001. Cabe mencionar que los códigos utilizados en este año fueron distintos a los del año 2001, mas si eran comparables. El único rubro que necesitaba identificarse fue el de planillas, ya que se presentaba de manera agregada por departamento. Por ello, fue necesario desagregar la información de planillas para poder identificar el macroproceso y proceso en el cual trabajaba cada persona. Se siguieron los mismos pasos que para el caso de planillas en los años anteriores. Año 2000 Dado que el Plan Estratégico de este año fue el mismo que para el año 2001 y que la planilla se presentaba desagregada, no fue necesario hacer ninguna modificación.

33


34

ANNEX B CONDICIONES MUESTRALES EN LA ESTIMACIÓN DE LOS INDICADORES DE EFECTIVIDAD


ANEXO B CONDICIONES MUESTRALES EN LA ESTIMACIÓN DE LOS INDICADORES DE EFECTIVIDAD Problemas encontrados en la información de base y decisiones al respecto La estimación de indicadores utilizando la información correspondiente a la línea de base presentó tres grandes problemas: §

Diferencias significativas por grupos de OCB en la línea de base, a nivel nacional y departamental;

§

Reducido número de casos con información en indicadores específicos; y

§

Muestra pequeña a nivel departamental.

A continuación explicaremos cada uno de ellos, utilizando algunos ejemplos, y detallando las decisiones tomadas al respecto. Diferencias significativas por grupos de OCB Los grupos cuyos indicadores serían evaluados son: (i) OCB ganadoras y asociadas; y, (ii) OCB comparación. Se asignó un valor de “1” a las primeras y “0” a las segundas. Con el fin de evaluar si los indicadores de ambos grupos eran similares en la línea de base, se asignó un valor de “1” a aquellos casos que sí cumplían con las condiciones del indicador, y un valor de “0” a aquellos casos que no cumplían con dichas cond iciones. Por ejemplo, en el caso del indicador 1, 20 se asignó un valor de 1 a todas aquellas mujeres que tuvieron control prenatal en el último embarazo con personal de salud. Luego, se estimó la correlación existente entre ambas variables (la correspondiente al indicador y el grupo de OCB). A continuación se muestra el cuadro de resultados para el indicador 1. Relación entre Indicador 1 y tipo de OCB

Pearson’s R

Valor

Desv. est. error

Valor T aprox.

Significancia aprox.

-.141

.023

-6.161

.000

Este cuadro, en la primera columna, estima la correlación existente entre ambas variables. Dado que su valor es negativo, indica que las OCB de comparación presentan un mayor 20

36

La numeración de los indicadores es tomada del Marco de Resultados e Indicadores.

A NNEXES

porcentaje en el indicador 1. La última columna de este cuadro, indica la probabilidad de que ambas variables sean independientes (no existe relación), por lo que un valor de 0.000 indica que la probabilidad de que dicha relación exista es 100%. Así pues, se puede concluir que existen diferencias significativas entre ambos grupos de OCB’s con respecto a este indicador en el momento en que fue tomada la línea de base. Cabe resaltar que, en adelante, únicamente se hará referencia a la existencia o no existencia de diferencias significativas (considerando que existen cuando el valor de la última columna sea menor a 0.1), por lo que el cuadro anterior no volverá a ser presentado. El procedimiento anterior se llevó a cabo para todos los indicadores empleados para elaborar los indicadores parciales compuestos detallados en la metodología: 1, 2, 7, 9, 11, 13, 13.1, 17, 18, 18.1, 19, 19.1, 20, 20.1, 21, 21.1, 32 y 33. Se encontró que existían diferencias significativas entre ambos grupos de OCB’s en los siguientes indicadores: 1, 9, 13, 17, 18, 18.1, 32 y 33. Esto no es de sorprender si se considera cómo fueron seleccionadas las OCB de comparación: se identificó a una OCB similar a una OCB ganadora específica (que en algunos casos tenía OCB asociada); no obstante, este procedimiento no se hizo para todas las OCB’s ganadoras. Así pues, se decidió reducir la muestra y trabajar únicamente con aquellas OCB ganadoras y asociadas a las que se asignó una OCB de comparación. Aún después de llevar a cabo esta reducción de la muestra, cinco indicadores mostraban todavía diferencias significativas (aunque menores que si la muestra no se hubiera reducido): 9, 13, 18, 32 y 33. Finalmente, es importante señalar que las pruebas anteriores se realizaron también a nivel departamental (con la muestra reducida), y se encontró que en muchos casos existían diferencias significativas. El siguiente cuadro muestra los indicadores y departamentos en los que existen diferencias significativas. Dpto. Ancash Ayacucho Huancavelica La Libertad Juliaca Puno San Martín Ucayali

1 2 X X

7

X X X X X X

9 11 X X X X X X X X X X

Existe diferencia significativa en el indicador... 13 13.1 17 18 18.1 19 19.1 20 20.1 21 X X X X X X

X

X

X

NA NA X

X

X

X X X

21.1 32 X X X

33

X X

X X

X X

X X

Esto último es importante porque muestra que la información no es representativa a nivel departamental; así, aún cuando se trabajó con esta información, y se elaboraron los indicadores compuestos, debe considerarse que los resultados no son estadísticamente sólidos.

37


Reducido número de casos con información Además del problema antes señalado, y considerando que la muestra fue reducida, encontramos problemas asociados con reducidos números de casos con información al incluir algunos indicadores. Si se analiza la muestra a nivel nacional, por indicadores, el caso del indicador 13.1 parece ser el más grave, como se muestra en los siguientes cuadros. No. Indicador casos Ia 1 1558 Ia 2 1818

Indicador II 7 II 9 II 11 II 13 II 13.1 II 21 II 19 II 20

No. casos 3217 3253 2961 3252 1364 2959 2626 2864

Indicador III 17 III 18 III 21.1 III 18.1 III 19.1 III 20.1

No. casos 2501 2499 2094 1835 1934 2242

No. Indicador casos IV 32 4079 IV 33 4652

Sin embargo, si analizamos el número de casos con los que fue posible construir los indicadores compuestos parciales, al incluir todos los indicadores, nos encontramos con tamaños de muestra relativamente reducidos para II y III, como se puede apreciar a continuación. Indicador compuesto parcial Ia Ib II III IV

No. casos 1557 2242 1212 1565 4070

En estos casos, el problema consistió en que las preguntas relevantes para estimar el indicador no existieron en la versión original de la enc uesta, sino que fueron siendo agregadas en el proceso de incorporar nuevas OCB’s a la muestra y al programa. Por esta razón, todas aquellos hogares que fueron entrevistados antes de la inclusión de las preguntas, no tienen información para ellas. Analizando los indicadores que reducían el tamaño de muestra, se llegó a la conclusión que, si eliminábamos los indicadores 13.1, 19 y 20 del indicador compuesto parcial II, y los indicadores 18.1, 19.1 y 20.1 del indicador compuesto parcial III, el tamaño de muestra mejoraba considerablemente, como se puede apreciar a continuación. 21

21

Cabe mencionar que en el caso del Indicador compuesto parial I no había much margen de maniobra para eliminar indicadores específicos a fin de mejorar el tamaño muestral.

38

A NNEXES

Indicador compuesto parcial Ia Ib II III IV

No. casos 1557 2242 2923 2073 4070

Así pues, como se especifica en la metodología, los indicadores globales se elaboraron excluyendo los indicadores que reducían el tamaño de muestra para los indicadores compuestos parciales II y III; sin embargo, en el anexo B, se incluyen indicadores globales “alternativos”, utilizando como indicadores compuestos parciales “alternativos” los correspondientes a la muestra reducida. Muestra pequeña a nivel departamental Además del problema de la existencia de diferencias significativas entre las OCB’s ganadoras y las de comparación para la línea de base, a nivel departamental, las muestras departamentales son muy pequeñas (lo que podría explicar en parte ese primer problema). Esto se agrava aún más considerando el problema de las preguntas incluidas en la línea de base antes explicado. Aún cuando no se pudo hacer nada al respecto, es importante considerar esta característica de la información puesto que, como se mencionó anteriormente, aunque los indicadores compuestos han sido trabajados a nivel departamental, su representatividad es muy limitada. En el siguiente cuadro se muestran el número de casos existentes por departamento, en cada uno de los indicadores. Indicador Nacional Ancash Ayacucho Huancavelica La Libertad

Ia Ia II II II II II II II II III III III III III III IV IV

1 2 7 9 11 13 13.1 21 19 20 17 18 21.1 18.1 19.1 20.1 32 33

1558 1818 3217 3253 2961 3252 1364 2959 2626 2864 2501 2499 2094 1835 1934 2242 4079 4652

270 270 522 527 473 527 250 473 492 527 472 472 379 460 443 475 829 836

158 229 350 352 332 353 103 332 230 251 219 218 192 135 149 164 393 532

323 371 499 505 472 505 130 470 396 408 354 351 310 224 270 289 598 735

153 153 233 234 218 233 86 218 221 234 159 161 134 100 126 161 346 348

Puno

209 277 563 573 495 572 170 494 472 493 470 471 359 314 374 405 672 806

San Martín Ucayali

84 92 261 268 235 269 141 236 207 242 241 241 195 153 187 224 311 347

311 345 647 651 603 650 450 603 472 566 485 483 434 398 300 421 723 839

Juliaca

50 81 142 143 133 143 34 133 136 143 101 102 91 51 85 103 207 209

39


Acerca de los indicadores de efectividad utilizados Es preciso aclarar dos detalles con respecto a la información (de línea de base y de evaluación intermedia) con la que se elaboraron los indicadores compuestos parciales y globales, tanto a nivel nacional como departamental, con el fin de aclarar las limitaciones estadísticas de los resultados encontrados: §

Tamaño de muestra

§

Existencia de diferencias significativas

Tamaño de muestra Los siguientes cuadros presentan el número de casos considerados para cada uno de los indicadores compuestos parciales, así como para el indicador global, a nivel nacional y departamental, tanto para la información de la línea de base como para la de la evaluación intermedia. (Número de casos) Ia Ancash Ayacucho Huancavelica La Libertad Puno San Martín Ucayali Juliaca Nacional

Base 270 158 323 153 209 84 310 50 1557

Ib E. Int. 194 137 219 90 169 70 240 61 1180

Base 376 255 296 145 392 223 461 94 2242

II E. Int. 361 206 260 146 314 206 399 81 1973

Base 469 328 464 217 487 228 598 132 2923

E. Int. 411 254 351 173 358 217 454 107 2325

Base 375 191 308 133 356 193 428 89 2073

III E. Int. 349 209 288 140 306 199 369 77 1937

Base 828 393 594 346 672 311 720 206 4070

IV E. Int. 815 414 582 292 629 341 685 175 3933

Existencia de diferencias significativas Los siguientes cuadros presentan la probabilidad de que existan diferencias significativas entre los dos grupos de OCB comparados (ganadoras y asociadas vs. comparación) para cada uno de los indicadores compuestos parciales, así como para el indicador global, a nivel nacional y departamental, tanto para la información de la línea de base como para la de la evaluación intermedia. En el caso de la línea de base, se han resaltado aquellas probabilidades que indican la existencia de diferencias significativas; en el caso de la evaluación intermedia, se han resaltado aquellas que indican la no existencia de diferencias significativas (idealmente, la información de la línea de base no debería presentar diferencias significativas; asimismo, si la información de línea de base no presenta diferencias significativas, se esperaría que la de la evaluación intermedia sí, para concluir que el proyecto ha tenido algún tipo de impacto).

40

A NNEXES

(Probabilidad de que existan diferencias significativas por tipo de OCB) Ia Ancash Ayacucho Huancavelica La Libertad Puno San Martín Ucayali Juliaca Nacional

Base 0.000 0.741 0.029 0.068 0.024 0.204 0.213 0.483 0.946

Ib E. Int. 0.103 0.206 0.592 0.019 0.416 0.528 0.015 0.179 0.001

Base 0.724 0.734 0.537 0.902 0.056 0.715 0.756 0.653 0.259

II E. Int. 0.000 0.615 0.146 0.690 0.402 0.844 0.274 0.386 0.888

Base 0.071 0.636 0.653 0.275 0.793 0.488 0.004 0.616 0.091

E. Int. 0.137 0.261 0.000 0.014 0.007 0.401 0.374 0.003 0.000

Base 0.120 0.251 0.016 0.533 0.171 0.451 0.683 0.922 0.484

III E. Int. 0.000 0.286 0.006 0.026 0.101 0.729 0.174 0.037 0.000

Base 0.506 0.731 0.011 0.900 0.692 0.894 0.002 0.005 0.083

IV E. Int. 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.354 0.667 0.022 0.080 0.000

41


42

ANNEX C COSTOS ANUALES A NIVEL DEPARTAMENTAL Y NACIONAL (SOLES)


ANEXO C COSTOS ANUALES A NIVEL DEPARTAMENTAL Y NACIONAL (SOLES) Total Nacional Salud Reproductiva 1995 Inversión Investigación Equipo Vehículos Acondicionamiento Local Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales Gastos Corrientes Planilla Diagnostico Situacional Selección OCB´s Autodiagnosticos Elaboración Subproyectos Ejecución de Subproyectos Evaluación de Suproyectos Mobiliario y Equipo Vehiculos Materiales y Articulos Gasto s Administrativos Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técni ca Gastos generales Fort. Institucional

44

33,917.75 9,696.63 17,652.61 2,871.21 614.74 3,082.56 -

1996

1997

1998

126,607.77 8,857.77 103,292.16 13,857.84 600.00 -

21,953.81 59.72 20,904.44 989.65

416,003.94 397,754.54 5,338.94 3,084.34 9,826.12

1,524,984.11 450,018.50 72,406.97 191,396.98 5,885.41 43,911.63 13,365.37 102,878.87 291,133.30 12,605.77 74,218.14 78,248.77 188,914.40 -

2,261,967.66 868,371.51 15,505.93 1,390.00 362,262.64 59,510.13 29,387.85 21,533.08 131,667.37 17,488.39 146,030.30 253,320.06 289,721.85 65,778.54

4,132,609.32 1,028,179.41 15,770.00 12,471.82 156,694.45 17,869.44 1,438,110.43 7,484.41 162,634.40 104,968.54 207,903.56 207,291.21 27,800.76 209,354.00 130,867.36 297,295.68 107,913.85

1999 90,897.48 90,897.48 7,591,373.42 1,832,869.14 14,625.06 58,446.05 140,214.70 112,592.53 4,319,913.23 41,314.00 30,013.34 (1,157.35) 1,994.80 9,829.72 137,395.74 79,316.51 423,410.71 390,595.24

2000 8,925.05 8,925.05 10,663,501.63 3,556,774.28 5,211.88 764.00 24,774.80 5,518,732.74 5,153.20 50,534.47 495,887.36 69,728.42 312,692.45 78,429.99 544,818.04

A NNEXES

Microcréditos 1995 Inversión Formación

-

Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales

29,690.20 24,686.15 4,761.45 242.60 -

1997

1998

1999

2000

58,481.71 58,421.28

281,765.63 280,926.70

1,244,961.35 1,207,697.07

1,853,608.57 1,853,608.57

11.74 48.69

838.93

37,264.28

288,135.71 222,680.53 2,217.80 968.65 1,641.23 8,146.61 24,080.49 6.10 7,838.68 1,472.47 19,083.14

325,851.1 8 221,404.43 13,909.30 2,027.03 1,934.11 678.99 317.01 1,613.47 97.19 26,217.49 9,871.00 47,781.17

976,014.65 256,021.63 1,962.71 519,329.60 7,332.60 5,760.77 409.87 48,294.21 136,903.26

1,026.98 1,026.98

-

Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales Gastos Corrientes Planilla Talleres Materiales y Equipo Gastos Administrativos Seguimiento Supervisión Promoción Mobiliario y Equipo

1996

171,652.89 171,376.14 236.95 39.80 -

6,289,368.15 629,032.28 26,369.80 46,615.21 48,255.74 5,505,368.50 11,498.73 10,307.38 11,533.71 386.80 -

Desarrollo de Productos

Inversión Equipo Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales Gastos Corrientes Planilla Talleres Identificación de Productoras y Productos Producción y Comercialización Mobiliario Y Equipo Vehículos Materiales y artículos Gastos Administrativos Viajes Internacionales Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales

1995

1996

-

-

-

-

1997 122,882.17 26,688.03 19,474.76 10,849.90 1,835.98 13,139.69 5,768.42 36,252.65 8,872.73

1998

1999

55.45 9.56 45.89

1,178.46 1,178.46

168,355.23 24,220.00 2,099.47 83,865.12 38,931.80 3,337.34 1,807.98 3,467.71 5,354.20 128.88 1,261.27 710.67 2,197.54 973.24

126,465.10 68,767.70 11,392.98 31,780.17 614.91 218.09 157.01 131.19 249.41 1,417.95 1,072.45 5,877.60 4,785.64

2000 731,331.48 324,748.38 29,454.12 21,669.96 269,938.49 12,671.54 6,906.34 13,635.27 20,239.22 24,591.15 770.94 6,706.08

45


AYACUCHO Salud Reproductiva 1995 Inversión Investigación Equipo Vehículos Acondicionamiento Local Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales Gastos Corrientes Planilla Diagnostico Situacional Selección OCB Autodiagnosticos Elaboración Subproyectos Ejecución de Subproyectos Evaluación de Suproyectos Mobiliario y Equipo Vehiculos Materiales y Articulos Gastos Administrativos Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales

-

1996

1997

14,442.68 501.77 12,352.56 1,588.35

-

1998 -

-

1999

2000

-

48,845.48 42,649.33 5,338.94 -

18,226.42 -

-

857.21

18,226.42

4,148.57 235.56 693.50 112.80 24.15

194,947.92 63,955.84 2,470.68 39,646.16 623.62 3,993.82 1,660.71 17,051.71 25,646.16

398,454.17 109,679.85 1,750.92 156.96 32,434.59 3,534.10 3,318.46 2,431.50 14,901.47

500,726.19 124,881.31 1,610.60 52,840.99 1,096.83 99,190.91 954.05 6,772.59 8,378.18 60,250.07 25,371.42

1,092,345.12 242,160.05 5,040.90 6,929.80 24,212.59 16,061.01 591,197.67 5,585.60 4,098.17 (158.03) 272. 38

3,082.56 -

1,792.79 38,106.43 -

22,954.77 144,656.37 48,657.61 13,977.56

33,208.44 9,665.12 54,299.92 22,205.77

20,356.90 103,467.56 73,120.52

1,712,930.91 569,989.83 727.50 764.00 1,515.60 1,056,994.91 1,057.10 30,651.27 6,684.78 44,545.92 -

Desarrollo de Productos 1995

1996

Inversión Eq uipo Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales Gastos Corrientes Planilla Talleres Identificación de Productoras y Productos Producción y Comercialización Mobiliario Y Equipo Vehículos Materiales y artículos Gastos Administrativos Viajes Internacionales Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales

46

-

-

1997

1998

1999

2000

-

0.14 -

63.53 -

-

-

0.14

63.53

-

430.08 51.64 1.28 207.84 92 .08 2.92 40.36 0.85 13.48

5,977.72 3,218.29 167.72 1,855.19 28.78 10.21 4.91 6.14

129,360.95 57,797.69 5,197.72 3,824.06 47,481.94 2,236.13 1,166.69 2,406.19 3,287.43 4,339.56

-

5.46 1.59 8.93 3.65

70.96 360.65 254.87

1,623.53

-

A NNEXES

HUARAZ Salud Reproductiva 1995 Inversión Investigación Equipo Vehículos Acondicionamiento Local Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales Gastos Corrientes Planilla Diagnostico Situacional Selección OCB Autodiagnosticos Elaboración Subproyectos Ejecución de Subproyectos Evaluación de Suproyectos Mobiliario y Equipo Vehiculos Materiales y Articulos Gastos Administrativos Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales

-

1996 36,577.50 5,750.78 26,804.07 4,022.65

3,004.20 663.86 1,954.40 317.88 68.06 -

1997

1998 -

-

1999

2000

-

76,156.49 72,198.42 -

17,063.5 9 -

-

-

3,084.34 873.73

17,063.59

-

266,342.35 64,823.71 56,895.04 390.71 12,379.25 16,595.92 64,933.87

357,923.06 139,666.41 2,658.87 238.35 63,479.74 18,058.74 5,039.27 3,692.38 22,599.82

645,605.84 166,141.09 2,550.99 22,249.05 313.37 261,703.34 55.94 9,284.24 7,400.48 26,820.40 32,606.30

12,638.38 37,685.47 -

42,134.05 678.77 44,673.34 15,003.30

30,572.85 16,666.78 51,447.45 17,793.58

921,158.78 261,660.80 2,626.00 8,547.80 29,902.61 20,675.30 419,284.91 6,748.50 3,637.00 (140.25) 24 1.73 24,182.23 62,657.64 81,134.51

1,469,282.67 516,974.46 3,821.10 624,741.63 267.00 16,109.29 73,868.88 5,834.01 44,258.96 183,407.33

Desarrollo de Productos 1995

1996

Inversión Equipo Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales Gastos Corrientes Planilla Talleres Identificación de Productoras y Productos Producción y Comercialización Mobiliario Y Equipo Vehículos Materiales y artículos Gastos Administrativos Viajes Interna cionales Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales

-

-

1997

1998

1999

-

12.27 -

345.92 -

-

9.56 2.71

345.92

-

12,763.08 1,560.49 38. 78 6,314.84 3,832.32 88.12 134.76 25.56 407.17 94.76 51.66 159.46 55.15

30,334.91 16,379.44 4,040.93 6,254.66 146.46 51.95 25.01 31.25 490.23 1,270.21 1,644.77

2000 130,530.23 57,932.75 5,219.99 3,840.45 47,503.02 2,245.71 1,466.69 2,416.50 3,301.51 4,358.16 2,245.45

47


HUANCAVELICA Salud Reproductiva 1995 Inversión Investigación Equipo Vehículos Acondicionamiento Local Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales Gastos Corrientes Planilla Diagnostico Situacional Selección OCB´s Autodiagnosticos Elaboración Subproyectos Ejecución de Subproyectos Evaluación de Suproyectos Mobiliario y Equipo Vehiculos Materiales y Articulos Gastos Administrativos Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales

48

2,035.10 449.71 1,323.95 215.34 46.11 -

1996

1997

6,978.17 242.44 5,968.30 767.43

1998

1999

2000

21,141.33 -

73,728.29 68,989.91 -

-

-

20,904.44 236.89

4,738.37

-

-

146,906.23 43,088.93 1,689.99 21,680.13 383.83 11,082.30 25,265.66

178,279.26 80,062.41 1,487.75 133.37 35,299.86 7,448.63 2,819.69 2,066.04 13,608.30

584,865.54 150,181.24 2,291.56 846.40 13,229.64 314.38 197,284.33 113,329.35 9,150.45 10,099.44 22,253.81

21,857.69 21,857.69 -

17,795.05 17,558.15 -

36,350.69 18,066.80 11,045.11 422.34

-

1,176,956.44 240,447.71 1,539.40 20,713.05 33,500.10 29,841.30 789,791.58 7,931.15 5,055.23 (194.94) 335.99 23,997.93 23,997.93 -

1,789,034.36 562,952.27 950.00 4,719.20 1,049,800.62 1,058.50 5,969.30 102,041.51 6,810.65 54,732.32 -

A NNEXES

TRUJILLO Salud Reproductiva 1995 Inversión Investigación Equipo Vehículos Acondicionamiento Local Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales Gastos Corrientes Planilla Diagnostico Situacional Selección OCB´s Autodiagnosticos Elaboración Subproyectos Ejecución de Subproyectos Evaluación de Suproyectos Mobiliario y Equipo Vehiculos Materiales y Articulos Gastos Administrativos Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales

1996

-

1997

13,252.62 460.42 11,334.72 1,457.47

1999

2000

307.41 -

69,727.49 69,181.46 -

12,616.07 -

-

59.72 247.69

546.03

12,616.07

-

158,523.71 42,577.69 1,750.60 22,405.12 8,011.97 7,595.15 25,835.59

245,808.91 100,054.22 1,858.97 166.64 43,136.75 11,064.20 3,523.25 2,581.56 16,202.81

392,872.76 99,627.97 1,571.41 519.88 19,578.01 2,401.50 149,884.79 2,543.54 9,518.03 8,646.36 26,660.83

12,642.09 37,705.50 -

17,263.37 37,372.16 12,584.98

18,494.95 6,579.63 27,604.57 19,241.29

-

-

3,004.20 663.86 1,954.40 317.88 68.06

1998

-

728,174.34 191,990.69 1,486.90 5,390.80 16,098.00 9,492.70 426,166.93 4,461.10 3,034.33 (117.01) 201.67 11,974.26 23,313.70 34,680.25

1,182,735.35 494,492.71 1,599.48 4,052.70 560,307.20 352.00 2,654.51 25,483.60 9,059.24 31,086.60 53,647.32

Microcréditos 1995 Inversión Formación de Bancos Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales Gastos Corrientes Planilla Talleres Materiales y Articulos Gastos Admini strativos Seguimiento Supervisión Promoción Mobiliaria y Equipo Vehículos Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales

1996

11,876.08 9,874.46 1,904.58 97.04 -

1997

410.79 410.79 68,685.04 68,550.46 94.78 39.80 -

1998

1999

2000

22,834.83 22,774.40

127,254.32 126,940.11

434,721.26 422,369.79

378,846.22 378,846.22

11.74 48.69

314.21

12,351.47

92,798.80 67,890.41 676.16 295.32 500.38 2,483.72 7,732.89 6.10 -

71,934.33 27,497.86 1,087.86 480.29 1,255.47 38.38 39.37 51.35 97.19 -

117,912.54 14,596.31 111.90 28,618.01 4,283.47 1,392.26 409.87 -

1,863,219.65 170,246.83 7,228.40 9,430.63 7,655.40 1,517,397.37 6,527.76 9,967.38 11,533.71 386.80

3,393.54 7,346.41 2,473.89

10,642.90 3,786.24 15,885.02 11,072.38

11,723.12 22,824.73 33,952.88

122,845.36

-

49


Desarrollo de Productos Inversión Equipo Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales Gastos Corrientes Planilla Talleres Identificación de Productoras y Productos Producción y Comercialización Mobiliario y Equipo Vehículos Materiales y Equipos Gastos Administrativos Viajes Internacionales Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

-

-

-

17.35 -

-

-

-

17.35

-

-

-

82,705.49 13,818.96 251.49 41,279.03 18,041.92 571.43 873.86 2,943.87 2,640.30

-

-

-

587.51 209.01 876.89 611.22

2000

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

LIMA ESTE Salud Reproductiva 1995 Inversión Investigación Equipo Vehículos Acondicionamiento Local Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales Gastos Corrientes Planilla Diagnostico Situacional Selección OCB´s Autodiagnosticos Elaboración Subproyectos Ejecución de Subproyectos Evaluación de Suproyectos Mobiliario y Equipo Vehiculos Materiales y Articulos Gastos Administrativos Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales

50

1996

1997

-

-

-

-

3,700.48 3,700.48 -

79,737.17 60,211.08 1,420.40 7,537.50 875.24 2,937.88 6,755.06 -

1998 -

1999

15,051.08 15,051.08 -

137,411.04 91,766.46 1,418.82 127.19 24,178.71 2,863.79 2,689.05 1,970.32 11,289.66

301,082.04 96,035.17 1,224.27 791.84 4,374.24 865.75 103,319.69 1,253.78 4,099.32 12,869.25 8,224.89 86.35

1,107.04

34,387.53 1,092.67 17,712.10 14,745.18

2000

7,639.63 -

-

7,639.63

-

549,709.49 130,794.67 1,678.36 2,770.00 2,126.52 5,671.15 322,022.52 3,724.05 2,133.13 (82.26) 141.78 18,696.10 60,033.47

74,334.67 245.00 51,715.41 150.00 13,464.58 1,740.27 7,019.41 -

A NNEXES

PUNO AYMARA Salud Reproductiva 1995 Inversión Investigación Equipo Vehículos Acondicionamiento Local Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales Gastos Corrientes Planilla Diagnostico Situacional Selección OCB´s Autodiagnosticos Elaboración Subproyectos Ejecución de Subproyectos Evaluación de Suproyectos Mobiliario y Equipo Vehiculos Materiales y Articulos Gastos Administrativos Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales

1996

-

1997

14,805.83 514.39 12,663.16 1,628.29

-

-

-

2,422.74 535.37 1,576.13 256.3 6 54.89

1998

2000

-

45,563.90 44,700.53 -

9,946.98 -

-

-

863.37

9,946.98

-

175,615.65 53,408.70 2,049.33 24,482.43 7,961.51 1,444.58 8,722.08 27,193.41

286,084.39 131,521.39 2,109.62 189.11 40,333.94 4,258.11 3,998.29 2,929.63 17,327.39

384,250.36 118,387.88 1,505.84 1,450.07 16,140.60 1,785.67 114,834.28 452.89 7,286.70 8,216.71 10,356.70 23,263.79

12,645.10 37,708.50 -

21,766.71 49,531.03 12,119.18

21,031.38 6,535.60 41,641.46 11,360.79

-

1999

773,360.69 232,719.47 1,110.00 5,616.20 13,941.02 8,369.40 430,140.42 3,616.20 3,279.03 (126.44) 217.94 12,917.08 34,90 4.47 26,655.91

1,713,544.37 565,174.55 1,380.40 5,306.00 919,792.60 408.20 8,996.75 78,149.56 11,219.72 49,452.62 73,663.97

Microcréditos 1995 Inversión Formación Bancos Comunales Gastos Admin istrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales Gastos Corrientes Planilla Talleres Materiales y Equipos Gastos Administrativos Seguimiento Supervisión Promoción Mobiliaria y Equipo Vehículos Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales

1996

6,927.71 5,760.10 1,111.01 56.61 -

-

1997

239.63 239.63 40,043.05 39,987.77 55.29 -

-

1998

6,931.34 6,931.34

1999

2000

66,318.01 66,035.64

275,664.79 265,834.40

282.36

9,830.39

69,376.04 56,122.74 558.96 244.13 413.64 2,053.21 5,802.11

115,738.25 82,416.96 5,239.39 144.91 115.02 118.01 1,353.91

396,094.96 104,691.25 802.58 212,633.94 2,568.75 1,793.95

1,857,159.46 163,898.42 7,338.51 7,291.42 6,615.07 1,552,942.39 -

1,091.05 2,482.73 607.47

6,878.28 2,137.46 13,618.78 3,715.53

12,765.68 34,495.35 26,343.47

119,073.64

-

417,158.37 417,158.37 -

51


Desarrollo de Productos Inversión Equipo Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales Gastos Corrientes Planilla Talleres Identificación de Productoras y Productos Producción y Comercialización Mobiliario y Equipo Vehículos Materiales y articulos Gastos Administrativos Viajes Internacionales Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

-

-

-

16.06 -

179.29 -

-

-

-

16.06

179.29

-

-

-

45,532.46 5,540.58 137.70 22,990.68 11,173.75 1,922.88 478.48 344.24 1,445.68

22,929.15 13,129.71 2,953.69 5,299.22 117.40 41.64 20.05 25.05

140,082.49 62,680.04 5,668.81 4,170.66 52,141.59 2,438.80 1,272.44 2,624.28 3,585.38 4,732.88

-

-

-

391.15 121.55 774.47 211.29

232.82 629.12 480.45

767.62

-

PUCALLPA Salud Reproductiva 1995 Inversión Investigación Equipo Vehículos Acondicionamiento Local Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales Gastos Corrientes Planilla Diagnostico Situacional Selección OCB´s Autodiagnosticos Elaboración Subproyectos Ejecución de Subproyectos Evaluación de Suproyectos Mobiliario y Equipo Vehiculos Materiales y Articulos Gastos Administrativos Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales

52

5,233.12 1,156.40 3,404.43 553.73 118.56 -

1996

1997

10,494.76 364.61 8,975.98 1,154.17 259,605.43 64,299.92 3,058.56 30,295.94 5,105.89 6,416.60 21,472.85 59,958.82 12,605.77 56,391.08 -

1998 -

1999

2000

-

21,253.41 20,613.90 -

8,017.19 -

-

-

639.51

8,017.19

-

325,073.74 106,762.86 2,259.74 202.57 74,801.12 8,323.96 4,282.80 3,138.09 17,317.87 17,488.39 5,503.02 67,620.13 17,373.19

572,692.49 110,388.14 2,005. 83 4,375.57 8,788.42 5,385.42 191,438.11 734.03 6,013.44 24,131.94 65,046.75 35,328.30 27,800.76 5,265.76 65,226.99 20,763.04

748,037.16 206,774.33 645.00 4,456.20 7,433.28 6,091.35 395,766.03 1,953.00 2,914.08 (112.37) 193.68 9,829.72 42,267.45 69,825.40

515,229.50 200,950.06 182,766.36 546.00 66,319.47 16,059.83 23,591.28 24,996.50

A NNEXES

Microcréditos 1995 Inversión Formación Bancos Comunales

-

-

1999

2000

68,560.16 68,391.47

242,117.27 232,535.28

168.69

9,581.99

101,982.70 72,416.43 721.24 315.01 533.73 2,649.30 7,831.60

128,250.52 94,365.23 4,812.95 1,329.83 431.70 135.12 176.23

562,976.56 136,734.07 1,048.23 278,077.65 480.39 2,574.57

1,989,317.82 172,681.06 7,737.74 18,642.40 17,842.36 1,621,439.40 340.00

3,354.09 1,472.47 9,254.01 3,434.82

6,053.06 2,747.51 12,721.96 5,476.93

13,955.01 46,652.60 83,454.04

150,634.86

-

62,924.80 62,837.92 86.88 -

-

1998

28,715.54 28,715.54

-

10,886.41 9,051.59 1,745.87 88.95 -

Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales

1997

376.56 376.56

-

Gastos Administra tivos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales Gastos Corrientes Planilla Talleres Materiales y Equipos Gastos Administrativos Seguimiento Supervisión Promoción Mobiliaria y Equipo Vehículos

1996

-

630,826.67 630,826.67 -


Inversión Equipo Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales Gastos Corrientes Planilla Talleres Identificación de Productoras y Productos Producción y Comercialización Mobiliarios y Equipos Vehículos Materiales y articulos Gastos Administrativos Viajes Internacionales Gastos Administrativos Evaluación y Monitoreo Gestión Técnica Gastos generales

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

-

-

-

2.96 -

203.42 -

-

-

-

2.96

203.42

-

-

-

14,684.03 1,778.17 992.59 7,156.15 3,170.45 388.08 153.56 29.12 463.97 128.88 24.41 302. 38 96.25

30,099.53 16,425.84 805.08 9,519.67 146.88 52.09 25.08 31.34 249.41 1,072.45 1,771.68

2000 127,168.32 56,838.92 5,143.19 3,783.95 46,685.25 2,212.67 1,154.45 2,380.95 3,903.97 4,294.04 770.94

53


BENEFICIARIAS TOTALES Salud Reproductiva 1995 - 1996 1997

1998

1999

2000

REGION

TOTAL

TOTAL

TOTAL

TOTAL

TOTAL

TOTAL

AYACUCHO HUARAZ HUANCAVELICA TRUJILLO LIMA ESTE PUNO JULIACA TARAPOTO PUCALLPA TOTAL

11 31 21 31 8 25 45 62 54 288

106 293 350 456 121 426 465 108 457 2782

812 1385 1324 741 307 712 711 1196 568 7756

3657 3043 6313 3636 2758 4040 3920 7316 3735 38418

13644 10604 14822 11542 632 15164 13300 3751 3354 86813

18230 15356 22830 16406 3826 20367 18441 12433 8168 136057

Microcréditos

REGION AYACUCHO TRUJILLO PUNO TARAPOTO PUCALLPA TOTAL

1995 - 1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

TOTAL

TOTAL

TOTAL

TOTAL

TOTAL

TOTAL

0 0 0 0 0

72 42 66 180

225 186 87 240 738

1032 932 701 1015 3680

1839 1864 1751 2791 8245

3168 3024 2539 4112 12843

1995 - 1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

TOTAL

TOTAL

TOTAL

TOTAL

TOTAL

TOTAL

17

55 35 30

40 55

66 11

50 40 15

52 41

200

170

178 101 30 40 134 127 61 52 723


REGION AYACUCHO HUARAZ HUANCAVELICA TRUJILLO PUNO JULIACA TARAPOTO PUCALLPA TOTAL

54

0

40 32 21 31 29 170

25 15 23 183

ANNEX D INFORMACIÓN ESTADÍSTICA SOBRE INDICADORES DE EFECTIVIDAD


ANEXO D INFORMACIÓN ESTADÍSTICA SOBRE INDICADORES DE EFECTIVIDAD Indicadores parciales compuestos para la elaboración de Índices de Efectividad Indicador parcial compuesto Ia Indicador parcial compuesto Ia: nacional Puntaje 0 1 2 Indicador Ia a/ Mejora

BASE Comp. 27.06 41.96 30.98 1.04 -

G+A 26.26 43.81 29.92 1.04 -

EVAL Comp. 9.98 49.71 40.31 1.30 25.41%.b/

G+A 7.13 42.94 49.92 1.43 37.75%.b/

48.57% 12.34%.c/

a/ Indicador = Suma [ Puntaje “i” x % asociado a Puntaje “i” ], para cada grupo OCB. b/ Mejora % = [ Indicador (L. BASE) / Indicador (E. INTERMEDIA) ] – 1, para cada grupo OCB. c/ Diferencia = Mejora (G + A) – Mejora (Comp.).

Indicador parcial compuesto Ia: Ancash Puntaje 0 1 2 Indicador Ia Mejora

BASE Comp. 47.50 21.67 30.83 0.83

G+A 22.00 25.33 52.67 1.31

EVAL Comp. 11.25 56.25 32.50 1.21 45.50%

G+A 10.53 42.11 47.37 1.37 4.73%

-89.61% -40.77%

G+A 1.37 21.92 76.71 1.75 23.26%

87.75% 10.87%

Indicador parcial compuesto Ia: Ayacucho Puntaje 0 1 2 Indicador Ia Mejora

56

BASE Comp. 11.49 31.03 57.47 1.46

G+A 12.68 32.39 54.93 1.42

EVAL Comp. 4.69 26.56 68.75 1.64 12.39%

A NNEXES

Indicador parcial compuesto Ia: Huancavelica Puntaje 0 1 2 Indicador Ia Mejora

BASE Comp. 20.45 59.85 19.70 0.99

G+A 30.89 54.97 14.14 0.83

EVAL Comp. 3.61 57.83 38.55 1.35 35.97%

G+A 2.21 56.62 41.18 1.39 66.94%

86.10% 30.97%

G+A 16.22 21.62 62.16 1.46 65.55%

1.10% 0.71%

Indicador parcial compuesto Ia: La Libertad Puntaje 0 1 2 Indicador Ia Mejora

BASE Comp. 44.16 44.16 11.69 0.68

G+A 31.58 48.68 19.74 0.88

EVAL Comp. 13.21 62.26 24.53 1.11 64.84%

Indicador parcial compuesto Ia: Puno (Puno Aymara) Puntaje 0 1 2 Indicador Ia Mejora

BASE Comp. 15.79 58.77 25.44 1.10

G+A 21.05 67.37 11.58 0.91

EVAL Comp. 4.41 61.76 33.82 1.29 18.02%

G+A 10.89 56.44 32.67 1.22 34.53%

91.57% 16.50%

G+A 2.38 19.05 78.57 1.76 49.08%

126.23% 27.39%

Indicador parcial compuesto Ia: San Martín Puntaje 0 1 2 Indicador Ia Mejora

BASE Comp. 10.34 41.38 48.28 1.38

G+A 14.55 52.73 32.73 1.18

EVAL Comp. 7.14 17.86 75.00 1.68 21.70%

57


Indicador parcial compuesto Ia: San Martín Puntaje 0 1 2 Indicador Ia Mejora

BASE Comp. 31.18 29.41 39.41 1.08

G+A 35.00 33.57 31.43 0.96

EVAL Comp. 22.12 39.82 38.05 1.16 7.11%

G+A 10.24 40.94 48.82 1.39 43.72%

514.97% 36.61%

Indicador parcial compuesto Ia: Juliaca (Puno Quechua) Puntaje 0 1 2 Indicador Ia Mejora

BASE Comp. 13.89 72.22 13.89 1.00

G+A 42.86 28.57 28.57 0.86

EVAL Comp.

G+A

75.00 25.00 1.25 25.00%

58.62 41.38 1.41 64.94%

159.77% 39.94%

G+A 3.39 1.48 95.13 1.92 3.21%

74.09% 1.37%

G+A 2.52 1.68 95.80 1.93 8.80%

-369.66% 12.07%

Indicador parcial compuesto Ib Indicador parcial compuesto Ib: nacional Puntaje 0 1 2 Indicador Ib Mejora

BASE Comp. 5.12 1.74 93.14 1.88 -

G+A 5.30 3.64 91.07 1.86 -

EVAL Comp. 3.40 1.70 94.90 1.91 1.85%

Indicador parcial compuesto Ib: Ancash Puntaje 0 1 2 Indicador Ib Mejora

58

BASE Comp. 8.63 2.88 88.49 1.80

G+A 8.86 4.64 86.50 1.78

EVAL Comp. 12.20 1.63 86.18 1.74 -3.27%

A NNEXES

Indicador parcial compuesto Ib: Ayacucho Puntaje 0 1 2 Indicador Ib Mejora

BASE Comp. 4.59 3.67 91.74 1.87

G+A 4.11 2.74 93.15 1.89

EVAL Comp. 1.25 5.00 93.75 1.93 2.86%

G+A 4.76 0.79 94.44 1.90 0.34%

-88.12% -2.52%

G+A 8.78 2.70 88.51 1.80 -4.42%

-277.09% -6.92%

Indicador parcial compuesto Ib: Huancavelica Puntaje 0 1 2 Indicador Ib Mejora

BASE Comp. 7.30 0.73 91.97 1.85

G+A 3.14 5.66 91.19 1.88

EVAL Comp. 4.46 1.79 93.75 1.89 2.50%

Indicador parcial compuesto Ib: La Libertad Puntaje 0 1 2 Indicador Ib Mejora

BASE Comp. 6.06 1.52 92.42 1.86

G+A 5.06 2.53 92.41 1.87

EVAL Comp. 3.70 1.23 95.06 1.91 2.68%

G+A 3.08 96.92 1.94 3.47%

29.55% 0.79%

Indicador parcial compuesto Ib: Puno (Puno Aymara) Puntaje 0 1 2 Indicador Ib Mejora

BASE Comp. 4.71 3.14 92.15 1.87

G+A 8.96 4.98 86.07 1.77

EVAL Comp. 2.11 0.70 97.18 1.95 4.07%

G+A 2.91 2.33 94.77 1.92 8.33%

104.37% 4.25%

59


Indicador parcial compuesto Ib: San Martín Puntaje 0 1 2 Indicador Ib Mejora

BASE Comp. 1.19 98.81 1.98

G+A 1.44 0.72 97.84 1.96

EVAL Comp. 2.53 97.47 1.97 -0.08%

G+A 1.57 98.43 1.97 0.23%

-398.81% 0.30%

G+A 1.32 0.88 97.81 1.96 1.79%

-27.90% -0.69%

Indicador parcial compuesto Ib: Ucayali Puntaje 0 1 2 Indicador Ib Mejora

BASE Comp. 2.76 0.46 96.77 1.94

G+A 2.46 2.05 95.49 1.93

EVAL Comp. 0.58 99.42 1.99 2.49%

Indicador parcial compuesto Ib: Juliaca (Puno Quechua) Puntaje 0 1 2 Indicador Ib Mejora

BASE Comp. 8.82 91.18 1.82

G+A 8.33 6.67 85.00 1.77

EVAL Comp. 5.71 94.29 1.94 6.54%

G+A 4.35 4.35 91.30 1.87 5.82%

-10.99% -0.72%

G+A 12.01 25.53 28.47 22.89 9.82 1.28 1.97 25.34%

186.59% 16.50%

Indicador parcial compuesto II Indicador parcial compuesto II: nacional Puntaje 0 1 2 3 4 5 Indicador II Mejora 60

BASE Comp. 19.12 32.46 30.57 14.93 2.84 0.08 1.50 -

G+A 18.41 32.23 28.73 15.45 4.95 0.24 1.57 -

EVAL Comp. 16.88 31.67 28.77 16.98 5.19 0.50 1.63 8.84%

A NNEXES

Indicador parcial compuesto II: Ancash Puntaje 0 1 2 3 4 5 Indicador II Mejora

BASE Comp. 31.22 38.62 23.28 6.35 0.53

G+A 25.71 40.71 21.43 8.93 3.21

1.06

1.23

EVAL Comp. 18.45 33.93 20.24 22.62 4.76 1.61 51.68%

G+A 13.99 30.86 27.57 18.11 8.64 0.82 1.79 45.29%

-12.37% -6.39%

G+A 3.45 22.07 26.90 35.17 11.72 0.69 2.32 43.62%

47.77% 14.10%

Indicador parcial compuesto II: Ayacucho Puntaje 0 1 2 3 4 5 Indicador II Mejora

BASE Comp. 17.91 20.90 39.55 19.40 2.24

G+A 19.07 27.84 30.41 18.04 4.64

1.67

1.61

EVAL Comp. 4.59 23.85 33.03 27.52 11.01 2.17 29.52%

Indicador parcial compuesto II: Huancavelica Puntaje 0 1 2 3 4 5 Indicador II Mejora

BASE Comp. 19.46 31.89 33.51 12.43 2.70 1.47

G+A 19.00 36.56 30.82 10.39 2.87 0.36 1.43

EVAL Comp. 18.12 28.99 31.88 13.77 6.52 0.72 1.64 11.39%

G+A 5.16 16.90 23.94 30.99 19.25 3.76 2.54 77.72%

582.56% 66.33%

61


Indicador parcial compuesto II: La Libertad Puntaje 0 1 2 3 4 5 Indicador II Mejora

BASE Comp. 28.07 24.56 29.82 15.79 1.75

G+A 21.36 29.13 26.21 19.42 3.88

1.39

1.55

EVAL Comp. 21.51 32.26 24.73 15.05 5.38 1.08 1.54 10.94%

G+A 11.25 21.25 36.25 21.25 8.75 1.25 1.99 27.95%

155.37% 17.00%

Indicador parcial compuesto II: Puno (Puno Aymara) Puntaje 0 1 2 3 4 5 Indicador II Mejora

BASE Comp. 13.70 28.31 30.14 22.37 5.02 0.46 1.78

G+A 14.18 29.10 32.09 17.16 6.72 0.75 1.75

EVAL Comp. 13.92 28.48 29.75 20.25 6.96 0.63 1.80 0.93%

G+A 6.00 25.50 31.00 26.00 10.00 1.50 2.13 21.46%

2195.27% 20.52%

Indicador parcial compuesto II: San Martín Puntaje 0 1 2 3 4 5 Indicador II Mejora

62

BASE Comp. 17.24 47.13 25.29 9.20 1.15

G+A 21.99 31.91 31.91 13.48 0.71

1.30

1.39

EVAL Comp. 14.12 42.35 28.24 12.94 1.18 1.18 1.48 14.13%

G+A 20.45 26.52 31.82 15.15 4.55 1.52 1.61 16.08%

13.84% 1.95%

A NNEXES

Indicador parcial compuesto II: Ucayali Ucayali Puntaje 0 1 2 3 4 5 Indicador II Mejora

BASE Comp. 12.46 38.43 30.25 15.30 3.56 1.59

G+A 13.56 26.50 30.28 21.14 8.20 0.32 1.85

EVAL Comp. 22.28 35.64 31.19 9.41 1.49

G+A 22.62 34.13 26.19 13.89 3.17

1.32 -16.91%

1.41 -23.79%

40.73% -6.89%

Indicador parcial compuesto II: Juliaca (Puno Quechua) Puno Qu Puntaje 0 1 2 3 4 5 Indicador II Mejora

BASE Comp. 19.30 21.05 36.84 17.54 5.26

G+A 12.00 36.00 22.67 20.00 9.33

1.68

1.79

EVAL Comp. 18.75 22.92 35.42 14.58 6.25 2.08 1.73 2.67%

G+A 6.78 10.17 35.59 30.51 16.95 2.41 34.71%

1200.27% 32.04%

Indicador parcial compuesto III Indicador parcial compuesto III: Nacional Puntaje 0 1 2 3 Indicador III Mejora

BASE Comp. 2.18 19.43 46.09 32.30 2.09 -

G+A 2.16 21.78 43.89 32.17 2.06 -

EVAL Comp. 1.22 19.68 49.21 29.89 2.08 -0.35%

G+A 1.26 14.63 46.95 37.16 2.20 6.77%

-2035.34% 7.12%

63


Indicador parcial compuesto III: Ancash Puntaje 0 1 2 3 Indicador III Mejora

BASE Comp. 3.47 30.56 44.44 21.53 1.84

G+A 2.60 26.41 41.99 29.00 1.97

EVAL Comp. 1.33 28.67 50.00 20.00 1.89 2.52%

G+A 1.01 13.07 47.24 38.69 2.24 13.28%

426.83% 10.76%

Indicador parcial compuesto III: Ayacucho Puntaje 0 1 2 3 Indicador III Mejora

BASE Comp. 4.88 17.07 47.56 30.49 2.04

G+A 3.67 14.68 42.20 39.45 2.17

EVAL Comp. 12.20 52.44 35.37 2.23 9.58%

G+A 0.79 18.11 48.82 32.28 2.13 -2.22%

-123.20% -11.80%

Indicador parcial compuesto III: Huancavelica Puntaje 0 1 2 3 Indicador III Mejora

BASE omp.. 20.33 45.53 34.15 2.14

G+A 0.54 29.73 45.95 23.78 1.93

EVAL Comp.

G+A

31.48 40.74 27.78 1.96 -8.20%

13.89 52.22 33.89 2.20 14.01%

-270.88% 22.20%

Indicador parcial compuesto III: La Libertad Puntaje 0 1 2 3 Indicador III Mejora

64

BASE omp.. 12.31 53.85 33.85 2.22

G+A 2.94 11.76 38.24 47.06 2.29

EVAL Comp. 5.19 15.58 53.25 25.97 2.00 -9.72%

G+A 12.70 46.03 41.27 2.29 -0.37%

-96.23% 9.36%

A NNEXES

Indicador parcial compuesto III: Puno (Puno Aymara) Puntaje 0 1 2 3 Indicador III Mejora

BASE Comp. 4.55 16.23 42.86 36.36 2.11

EVAL Comp. 0.78 9.30 52.71 37.21 2.26 7.26%

G+A 3.96 26.24 37.13 32.67 1.99

G+A 3.95 16.95 42.37 36.72 2.12 6.72%

-7.35% -0.53%

Indicador parcial compuesto III: San Martín Puntaje 0 1 2 3 Indicador III Mejora

BASE Comp. 1.32 23.68 47.37 27.63 2.01

G+A 1.71 23.93 53.85 20.51 1.93

EVAL Comp. 1.20 16.87 48.19 33.73 2.14 6.53%

G+A 0.86 16.38 46.55 36.21 2.18 12.91%

97.79% 6.38%

EVAL Comp. 1.22 18.29 50.61 29.88 2.09 -4.80%

G+A 0.98 15.61 46.34 37.07 2.20 -1.37%

-71.53% 3.43%

Indicador parcial compuesto III: Ucayali Puntaje 0 1 2 3 Indicador III Mejora

BASE Comp. 0.52 16.58 45.60 37.31 2.20

G+A 0.85 14.47 45.96 38.72 2.23

Indicador parcial compuesto III: Juliaca (Puno Quechua) Puntaje 0 1 2 3 Indicador III Mejora

BASE Comp. 3.03 9.09 51.52 36.36 2.21

G+A 1.79 12.50 50.00 35.71 2.20

EVAL Comp. 23.33 36.67 40.00 2.17 -2.05%

G+A 2.13 42.55 55.32 2.51 14.31%

-796.20% 16.36%

65


Indicador parcial compuesto IV Indicador parcial compuesto IV: Nacional Puntaje 0 1 2 3 Indicador IV Mejora

BASE Comp. 9.36 34.40 43.44 12.80 1.60 -

G+A 10.59 36.56 40.85 12.00 1.54 -

EVAL Comp. 10.94 37.96 40.29 10.81 1.51 -5.46%

G+A 7.43 30.91 44.96 16.70 1.71 10.80%

-297.89% 16.26%

Indicador parcial compuesto IV: Ancash Puntaje 0 1 2 3 Indicador IV Mejora

BASE Comp. 7.97 36.54 45.51 9.97 1.57

G+A 11.20 36.62 39.66 12.52 1.54

EVAL Comp. 13.10 46.21 33.10 7.59 1.35 -14.16%

G+A 8.19 36.57 40.19 15.05 1.62 5.59%

-139.49% 19.75%

Indicador parcial compuesto IV: Ayacucho Puntaje 0 1 2 3 Indicador IV Mejora

66

BASE Comp. 8.63 34.52 40.10 16.75 1.65

G+A 8.16 28.57 50.51 12.76 1.68

EVAL Comp. 6.62 32.45 47.68 13.25 1.68 1.56%

G+A 5.32 20.53 47.53 26.62 1.95 16.43%

952.66% 14.87%

A NNEXES

Indicador parcial compuesto IV: Huancavelica Puntaje 0 1 2 3 Indicador IV Mejora

BASE Comp. 7.35 26.52 50.48 15.65 1.74

G+A 8.19 39.86 38.43 13.52 1.57

EVAL Comp. 20.00 40.00 33.33 6.67 1.27 -27.39%

G+A 6.72 29.41 46.22 17.65 1.75 11.12%

-140.61% 38.51%

G+A 5.44 26.53 48.30 19.73 1.82 1.90%

-111.53% 18.37%

Indicador parcial compuesto IV: La Libertad Puntaje 0 1 2 3 Indicador IV Mejora

BASE omp.. 5.00 25.56 53.89 15.56 1.80

G+A 6.02 30.72 41.57 21.69 1.79

EVAL Comp. 8.28 41.38 42.07 8.28 1.50 -16.48%

Indicador parcial compuesto IV: Puno (Puno Aymara) Puntaje 0 1 2 3 Indicador IV Mejora

BASE Comp. 15.68 46.45 31.66 6.21 1.28

G+A 17.07 38.62 40.72 3.59 1.31

EVAL Comp. 10.65 49.81 34.22 5.32 1.34 4.53%

G+A 16.67 43.17 35.25 4.92 1.28 -1.85%

-140.87% -6.38%

Indicador parcial compuesto IV: San Martín Puntaje 0 1 2 3 Indicador IV Mejora

BASE Comp. 8.51 40.43 39.01 12.06 1.55

G+A 10.59 35.88 40.59 12.94 1.56

EVAL Comp. 7.14 21.43 49.29 22.14 1.86 20.58%

G+A 1.00 27.36 52.24 19.40 1.90 21.92%

6.51% 1.34%

67


Indicador parcial compuesto IV: Ucayali Puntaje 0 1 2 3 Indicador IV Mejora

BASE Comp. 5.73 27.34 48.96 17.97 1.79

G+A 8.04 36.61 42.26 13.10 1.60

EVAL Comp. 7.87 28.20 46.89 17.05 1.73 -3.38%

G+A 3.68 25.00 51.84 19.47 1.87 16.64%

-592.54% 20.01%

Indicador parcial compuesto IV: Juliaca (Puno Quechua) Puntaje 0 1 2 3 Indicador IV Mejora

BASE Comp. 24.18 47.25 26.37 2.20 1.07

G+A 13.04 45.22 31.30 10.43 1.39

EVAL Comp. 9.72 33.33 48.61 8.33 1.56 45.93%

G+A 7.77 25.24 48.54 18.45 1.78 27.70%

-39.69% -18.23%

Indicadores parciales compuestos e Índice de efectividad alternativos Indicador parcial compuesto II alternativo Indicador parcial compuesto II ALTERNATIVO: Nacional BASE Comp. 1.36 15.76 29.85 31.21 16.82 4.85 0.15

Puntaje 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indicador II alt. 2.62 Mejora -

68

G+A 0.54 16.67 28.44 28.26 17.75 6.88 1.27 0.18 2.73 -

EVAL Comp. 0.37 14.85 30.57 28.84 16.83 7.67 0.74 0.12 2.74 4.59%

G+A 0.43 11.50 23.85 25.72 22.66 12.27 3.15 0.43 3.10 13.78%

200.36% 9.19%

A NNEXES

Indicador parcial compuesto II ALTERNATIVO: Ancash BASE Comp. 3.39 30.51 30.51 25.42 8.47 1.69

Puntaje 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indicador II alt. 2.10 Mejora

G+A 1.25 20.00 39.38 21.88 11.88 4.38 1.25 2.41

EVAL Comp. 0.88 18.58 31.86 19.47 19.47 8.85 0.88 2.68 27.58%

G+A 13.36 29.03 24.88 19.82 10.60 2.30 2.92 21.11%

-23.49% -6.48%

Indicador parcial compuesto II ALTERNATIVO: Ayacucho Puntaje 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indicador II alt. Mejora

BASE Comp. 2.08 16.67 18.75 39.58 18.75 4.17 2.69

G+A 20.93 18.60 20.93 27.91 11.63 2.91

EVAL Comp. 1.28 2.56 21.79 33.33 24.36 16.67 3.27 21.65%

G+A 4.88 19.51 21.95 38.21 12.20 3.25 3.43 18.02%

-16.74% -3.62%

Indicador parcial compuesto II ALTERNATIVO: Huancavelica Puntaje 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indicador II alt. Mejora

BASE Comp.

EVAL Comp.

G+A

15.66 25.30 32.53 20.48 6.02

6.06 36.36 39.39 12.12 6.06

15.60 27.52 32.11 15.60 7.34 1.83

2.76

2.76

2.77 0.42%

G+A 3.17 17.99 20.63 26.46 24.87 5.82 1.06 3.74 35.46%

8330.01% 35.04%

69


Indicador parcial compuesto II ALTERNATIVO: La Libertad Puntaje 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indicador II alt. Mejora

BASE Comp. 5.45 27.27 27.27 23.64 14.55 1.82

G+A 4.55 22.73 31.82 31.82 9.09

2.20

2.18

EVAL Comp. 1.32 19.74 31.58 26.32 14.47 5.26 1.32 2.54 15.43%

G+A 10.61 19.70 28.79 22.73 13.64 4.55 3.23 47.92%

210.53% 32.49%

Indicador parcial compuesto II ALTERNATIVO: Puno (Puno Aymara) Puntaje 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indicador II alt. Mejora

BASE Comp.

G+A

EVAL Comp.

9.17 28.44 34.86 21.10 5.50 0.92

12.50 32.50 35.00 10.00 7.50 2.50

13.82 27.64 30.08 18.70 8.94 0.81

2.88

2.75

2.84 -1.50%

G+A 7.88 23.03 32.12 23.03 11.52 1.82 0.61 3.15 14.60%

-1070.57% 16.10%

Indicador parcial compuesto II ALTERNATIVO: San Martín Puntaje 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indicador II alt. Mejora

70

BASE Comp. 1.41 11.27 45.07 23.94 16.90 1.41 2.48

G+A

EVAL Comp.

23.91 23.91 26.09 23.91 2.17

10.13 37.97 26.58 18.99 5.06

2.57

1.27 2.76 11.32%

G+A 2.54 17.80 21.19 30.51 19.49 5.08 1.69 1.69 2.77 8.03%

-29.07% -3.29%

A NNEXES

Indicador parcial compuesto II ALTERNATIVO: Ucayali BASE Comp. 0.47 13.49 31.63 31.16 15.81 7.44

Puntaje 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indicador II alt. Mejora

G+A 13.64 20.20 31.82 22.22 9.60 2.02 0.51 3.02

2.71

EVAL Comp. 18.32 34.55 30.89 12.04 4.19 2.49 -7.94%

G+A 0.83 20.83 32.08 23.75 14.17 6.67 1.67 2.56 -15.15%

90.96% -7.22%

Indicador parcial compuesto II ALTERNATIVO: Juliaca (Puno Quechua) BASE Comp. 5.00 15.00 15.00 50.00 15.00

Puntaje 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indicador II alt. Mejora

2.55

EVAL Comp.

G+A

10.00 30.00 30.00 20.00 10.00

12.82 25.64 33.33 15.38 10.26 2.56

5.36 10.71 30.36 28.57 16.07 8.93

2.90

2.92 14.63%

3.66 26.23%

G+A

79.29% 11.60%

Indicador parcial compuesto III alternativo Indicador parcial compuesto III ALTERNATIVO: Nacional I3 1 2 3 4 5 Indicador III alt. Mejora

BASE Comp. 1.50 11.11 26.39 40.86 20.14 3.67 -

G+A 2.28 10.41 31.10 35.09 21.11 3.62 -

EVAL Comp. 1.10 9.04 24.66 43.47 21.73 3.76 2.37%

G+A 0.81 6.06 20.61 45.75 26.76 3.92 8.07%

241.03% 5.71%

71


Indicador parcial compuesto III ALTERNATIVO: Ancash BASE Puntaje Comp. 1 3.50 2 23.08 3 32.17 4 30.77 5 10.49 Indicador III alt. 3.22 Mejora

EVAL Comp. 0.67 12.67 29.33 41.33 16.00 3.59 11.71%

G+A 3.06 10.92 32.31 34.50 19.21 3.56

G+A 5.05 19.70 43.43 31.82 4.02 12.96%

10.72% 1.25%

Indicador parcial compuesto III ALTERNATIVO: Ayacucho Puntaje 1 2 3 4 5 Indicador III alt. Mejora

BASE Comp. 1.22 12.20 21.95 41.46 23.17 3.73

G+A 7.69 33.33 30.77 28.21 3.72

EVAL Comp.

G+A

3.66 13.41 53.66 29.27 4.09 9.48%

7.09 20.47 44.09 28.35 3.94 5.89%

-37.83% -3.59%

Indicador parcial compuesto III ALTERNATIVO: Huancavelica Puntaje 1 2 3 4 5 Indicador III alt. Mejora

72

BASE Comp. 12.30 25.41 44.26 18.03 3.68

G+A 1.30 15.58 42.86 28.57 11.69 3.34

EVAL Comp. 0.93 11.11 32.41 37.04 18.52 3.61 -1.88%

G+A 0.56 6.11 22.22 48.33 22.78 3.87 15.85%

-942.74% 17.73%

A NNEXES

Indicador parcial compuesto III ALTERNATIVO: La Libertad Puntaje 1 2 3 4 5 Indicador III alt. Mejora

BASE Comp. 1.54 7.69 23.08 41.54 26.15 3.83

G+A 15.79 52.63 31.58 4.16

EVAL Comp. 3.90 11.69 24.68 44.16 15.58 3.56 -7.11%

G+A 8.06 14.52 59.68 17.74 3.87 -6.90%

-2.93% 0.21%

Indicador parcial compuesto III ALTERNATIVO: Puno (Puno Aymara) Puntaje 1 2 3 4 5 Indicador III alt. Mejora

BASE Comp. 1.99 8.61 27.81 39.74 21.85 3.71

G+A 4.12 17.53 28.87 29.90 19.59 3.43

EVAL Comp. 0.78 6.98 19.38 46.51 26.36 3.91 5.35%

G+A 2.26 6.78 23.73 37.85 29.38 3.85 12.24%

128.79% 6.89%

Indicador parcial compuesto III ALTERNATIVO: San Martín Puntaje 1 2 3 4 5 Indicador III alt. Mejora

BASE Comp. 9.21 27.63 48.68 14.47 3.68

G+A 2.04 10.20 38.78 38.78 10.20 3.45

EVAL Comp. 1.22 9.76 23.17 40.24 25.61 3.79 2.94%

G+A 1.75 8.77 14.91 45.61 28.95 3.91 13.43%

356.24% 10.49%

73


Indicador parcial compuesto III ALTERNATIVO: Ucayali Puntaje 1 2 3 4 5 Indicador III alt. Mejora

BASE Comp. 1.04 5.73 25.00 43.23 25.00 3.85

G+A 7.82 26.82 37.99 27.37 3.85

EVAL Comp. 1.24 6.21 27.95 45.34 19.25 3.75 -2.66%

G+A 0.99 4.46 26.24 47.03 21.29 3.83 -0.45%

-82.94% 2.21%

Indicador parcial compuesto III ALTERNATIVO: Juliaca (Puno Quechua) Puntaje 1 2 3 4 5 Indicador III alt. Mejora

BASE Comp. 3.03 6.06 21.21 42.42 27.27 3.85

G+A

58.33 41.67 4.42

EVAL Comp.

G+A

13.33 13.33 33.33 40.00 4.00 3.94%

2.17 4.35 56.52 36.96 4.28 -3.04%

-177.10% -6.97%

Índice de efectividad alternativo Índice de efectividad ALTERNATIVO: Nacional

Ia (OE) Ib (OE) I (OE) a/ II ALT. (RI 1., RI 1.1, RI 1.3) III ALT. (RI 1.2, RI 1.3) IV (RI 2., RI 2.1, RI 2.2) Indicador Global ALT. b/

L. BASE Comp. 1.04 1.88 1.46

G+A 1.04 1.86 1.45

E. INTERMEDIA Comp. G + A 1.30 1.43 1.91 1.92 1.61 1.67

Mejora % Comp.c/ G+A c/ 25.41% 37.75% 1.85% 3.21% 10.23% 15.58%

Diferencia d/ 12.34% 1.37% 5.35%

2.62 3.67 1.60 2.34

2.73 3.62 1.54 2.33

2.74 3.76 1.51 2.40

4.59% 2.37% -5.46% 2.88%

9.19% 5.71% 16.26% 8.47%

3.10 3.92 1.71 2.60

13.78% 8.07% 10.80% 11.35%

a/ I (OE) = [ Ia (OE) + Ib (OE) ] / 2 b/ Indicador Global = [ I + II + III + IV ] / 4 c/ Mejora % = [ Indicador (L. BASE) / Indicador (E. INTERMEDIA) ] – 1, para cada grupo OCB. d/ Diferencia = Mejora (G + A) – Mejora (Comp.).

74

A NNEXES

Índice de efectividad ALTERNATIVO: Ancash

Ia (OE) Ib (OE) I (OE) II ALT. (RI 1., RI 1.1, RI 1.3) III ALT. (RI 1.2, RI 1.3) IV (RI 2., RI 2.1, RI 2.2) Indicador Global ALT.

BASE Comp. 0.83 1.80 1.32 2.10 3.22 1.57 2.05

EVAL G + A Comp. 1.31 1.21 1.78 1.74 1.54 1.48 2.41 2.68 3.56 3.59 1.54 1.35 2.26 2.28

Mejora G + A Comp. 1.37 45.50% 1.93 -3.27% 1.65 12.18% 2.92 27.58% 4.02 11.71% 1.62 -14.16% 2.55 10.88%

G+A 4.73% 8.80% 7.08% 21.11% 12.96% 5.59% 12.88%

Diferencia -40.77% 12.07% -5.10% -6.48% 1.25% 19.75% 2.00%

Mejora G + A Comp. 1.75 12.39% 1.90 2.86% 1.83 7.03% 3.43 21.65% 3.94 9.48% 1.95 1.56% 2.79 11.08%

G+A 23.26% 0.34% 10.18% 18.02% 5.89% 16.43% 11.92%

Diferencia 10.87% -2.52% 3.15% -3.62% -3.59% 14.87% 0.85%

G+A 66.94% -4.42% 17.47% 35.46% 15.85% 11.12% 21.26%

Diferencia 30.97% -6.92% 3.27% 35.04% 17.73% 38.51% 24.74%

Índice de efectividad ALTERNATIVO: Ayacucho


BASE Comp. 1.46 1.87 1.67 2.69 3.73 1.65 2.43

EVAL G + A Comp. 1.42 1.64 1.89 1.93 1.66 1.78 2.91 3.27 3.72 4.09 1.68 1.68 2.49 2.70

Índice de efectividad ALTERNATIVO: Huancavelica


BASE Comp. 0.99 1.85 1.42 2.76 3.68 1.74 2.40

EVAL G + A Comp. 0.83 1.35 1.88 1.89 1.36 1.62 2.76 2.77 3.34 3.61 1.57 1.27 2.26 2.32

Mejora G + A Comp. 1.39 35.97% 1.80 2.50% 1.59 14.20% 3.74 0.42% 3.87 -1.88% 1.75 -27.39% 2.74 -3.48%

75


Índice de efectividad ALTERNATIVO: La Libertad


BASE Comp. 0.68 1.86 1.27 2.20 3.83 1.80 2.28

EVAL G + A Comp. 0.88 1.11 1.87 1.91 1.38 1.51 2.18 2.54 4.16 3.56 1.79 1.50 2.38 2.28

Mejora G + A Comp. 1.46 64.84% 1.94 2.68% 1.70 19.21% 3.23 15.43% 3.87 -7.11% 1.82 -16.48% 2.66 0.16%

G+A 65.55% 3.47% 23.34% 47.92% -6.90% 1.90% 11.72%

Diferencia 0.71% 0.79% 4.12% 32.49% 0.21% 18.37% 11.56%

Mejora G + A Comp. 1.22 18.02% 1.92 4.07% 1.57 9.22% 3.15 -1.50% 3.85 5.35% 1.28 4.53% 2.46 3.74%

G+A 34.53% 8.33% 17.19% 14.60% 12.24% -1.85% 11.64%

Diferencia 16.50% 4.25% 7.97% 16.10% 6.89% -6.38% 7.89%

Mejora G + A Comp. 1.76 21.70% 1.97 -0.08% 1.87 8.87% 2.77 11.32% 3.91 2.94% 1.90 20.58% 2.61 9.12%

G+A 49.08% 0.23% 18.58% 8.03% 13.43% 21.92% 14.25%

Diferencia 27.39% 0.30% 9.71% -3.29% 10.49% 1.34% 5.13%

Índice de efectividad ALTERNATIVO: Puno (Puno Aymara)


BASE Comp. 1.10 1.87 1.49 2.88 3.71 1.28 2.34

EVAL G + A Comp. 0.91 1.29 1.77 1.95 1.34 1.62 2.75 2.84 3.43 3.91 1.31 1.34 2.21 2.43

Índice de efectividad ALTERNATIVO: San Martín


76

BASE Comp. 1.38 1.98 1.68 2.48 3.68 1.55 2.35

EVAL G + A Comp. 1.18 1.68 1.96 1.97 1.57 1.83 2.57 2.76 3.45 3.79 1.56 1.86 2.29 2.56

A NNEXES

Índice de efectividad ALTERNATIVO: Ucayali


BASE Comp. 1.08 1.94 1.51 2.71 3.85 1.79 2.47

EVAL G + A Comp. 0.96 1.16 1.93 1.99 1.45 1.57 3.02 2.49 3.85 3.75 1.60 1.73 2.48 2.39

Mejora G + A Comp. 1.39 7.11% 1.96 2.49% 1.68 4.14% 2.56 -7.94% 3.83 -2.66% 1.87 -3.38% 2.49 -3.20%

G+A 43.72% 1.79% 15.76% -15.15% -0.45% 16.64% 0.20%

Diferencia 36.61% -0.69% 11.62% -7.22% 2.21% 20.01% 3.40%

G+A 64.94% 5.82% 25.14% 26.23% -3.04% 27.70% 13.39%

Diferencia 39.94% -0.72% 12.06% 11.60% -6.97% -18.23% -0.12%

Índice de efectividad ALTERNATIVO: Juliaca (Puno Quechua)


BASE Comp. 1.00 1.82 1.41 2.55 3.85 1.07 2.22

EVAL G + A Comp. 0.86 1.25 1.77 1.94 1.31 1.60 2.90 2.92 4.42 4.00 1.39 1.56 2.50 2.52

Mejora G + A Comp. 1.41 25.00% 1.87 6.54% 1.64 13.08% 3.66 14.63% 4.28 3.94% 1.78 45.93% 2.84 13.51%

Colocaciones de Bancos Comunales Colocaciones en soles de bancos comunales Región 1997 La Libertad (Trujillo) 21,300.00 Ucayali (Pucallpa) 17,400.00 Puno (Puno Aymara) 8,400.00 San Martín (Tarapoto) 0.00 Nacional 47,100.00

1998 126,810.00 119,080.00 67,800.00

1999 834,000.00 847,940.00 772,310.00

2000 1,873,220.00 2,213,120.00 1,947,750.00

VAB (14%) a/ 1,376,025.89 1,530,910.59 1,334,295.11

25,500.00 339,190.00

410,090.00 1,226,160.00 786,707.94 2,864,340.00 7,260,250.00 5,027,939.54

a/ Llevado a inicios del año 1995.

77


Montos atendidos de Desarrollo de Productos Monto atendido en dólares REGION Ayacucho Ancash (Huaraz) La Libertad (Trujillo) Puno (Puno Aymara) Juliaca (Puno Quechua) San Martín (Tarapoto) Ucayali (Pucallpa) Nacional (sin sede) Sede b/ Nacional (con sede) Tipo de cambio

1998 a/ 0.00 0.00 0.00 700.00 0.00 1,972.00 1,680.50 4,352.50 0.00 4,352.50 2.93

1999 0.00 1,162.00 0.00 6,565.00 2,729.45 546.36 2,699.45 13,702.26 1,010.50 14,712.76 3.38

2000 7,973.21 3,529.08 0.00 17,368.43 3,960.40 2,650.97 19,651.03 55,133.12 19,679.59 74,812.71 3.49

Acumulado 7,973.21 4,691.08 0.00 24,633.43 6,689.85 5,169.33 24,030.98 73,187.88 20,690.09 93,877.97

a/ Los montos acumulados (no actualizados) y correspondientes al año 2000 fueron obtenidos del Informe Anual 2000, ReproSalud. Los montos correspondientes al año 1999 fueron obtenidos del Informe Anual 1999, ReproSalud. Los montos correspondientes al año 1998 fueron obtenidos deduciendo de los montos acumulados los montos correspondientes a los años 1999 y 2000. b/ En el caso de “Sede”, se utilizó la información del Informe Anual 2000, ReproSalud, para los montos acumulados y del año 2000. En el año 1999 se utilizó la diferencia entre el acumulado y el correspondiente al año 2000, porque la cifra que aparece en el Informe Anual 1999, ReproSalud, era superior a dicha diferencia.

78