Country Report
Mexico
STUDY ON POVERTY AND
DISPARITIES IN CHILDHOOD
The cover design of this report was inspired by the
Global Study on Child Poverty and Disparities, a
multi-country initiative to leverage evidence, analysis,
policy and partnerships in support of child rights.
The overlapping, multi-coloured frames symbolize
the national, regional and global contributions to the
Global Study, which form the basis for exchanging
experiences and sharing knowledge on child poverty.
The design encapsulates three central tenets of the
Global Study: ownership, multidimensionality and
interconnectedness.
Ownership: Although children’s rights are universal,
every country participating in the study has its own
history, culture and sense of responsibility for its
citizens. The analyses aim to stimulate discussion and
provide evidence on how best to realize child rights in
each country.
Multidimensionality: No single measure can fully
reflect the poverty that children experience.
A multidimensional approach is therefore imperative
to effectively understand and measure children’s
wellbeing and the various forms of poverty that they
experience.
Interconnectedness: Today’s world is increasingly
interconnected through economic, social,
technological, environmental, epidemiological, cultural
and knowledge exchanges. These exchanges have
important implications for child poverty – and can also
help provide avenues for its reduction.
Acknowledgement
The present Country Report is an input for the elaboration of a Global Study on Poverty and Disparities in
Childhood performed by UNICEF in 40 countries of located in 7 regions (Central and East Europe and the
Commonwealth of Independent States; east Asia and the Pacific; east and south Africa; Latin America and the
Caribbean, Middle East and North Africa, South Asia and West and Central Africa.)
The purpose of the global study is to place boys and girls at the center of public policies, and to influence the
assignment of resources and the design and execution of economic and social policy, as well as anti-poverty
programs.
The team commissioned for the elaboration of the Global Study at UNICEF headquarters will use the information contained in the reports of each country and the statistical and policies tables to perform a comparative
analysis and generate recommendations oriented towards development strategies, social and sectorial protection in order to respond in a more integral and effective manner to the problems derived from poverty and
disparity that obstruct the complete fulfillment of the rights of boys, girls and youth. The team will analyze and
pinpoint good practices and successful experiences in matter of multidimensional measurement of poverty
and programs and policies aimed at the overcoming of poverty and disparity in Mexico.
We are grateful for the collaboration of the Social Development Department, of the National System for
Integral Family Development, the Health Department, the National Commission for Evaluation of Social Development Policies and the National Coordination of the Opportunities Human Development Program for the
fulfillment of this Project.
Table of contents
Executive Summary........................................................................................................ 1
Section One: Children and Development ..................................................................... 5
1.1 Children, poverty and disparities............................................................................................................................. 5
¿What does this survey on children in Mexico show?................................................................................................ 6
1.2 Political, economic and institutional context.........................................................................................................10
1.3 Macroeconomic strategies and resources allocation ......................................................................................... 15
Chapter’s Conclusions . ................................................................................................................................................19
Section Two: Poverty and Childhood .......................................................................... 21
2.1 Income poverty and deprivations that affect children......................................................................................... 21
2.2 Child survival and equity ...................................................................................................................................... 34
2.3 Causal analysis: which factors explain the levels and trends of poverty?......................................................... 36
Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Section Three: The Pillars of Childhood Wellbeing...................................................... 42
3.1 Nutrition ................................................................................................................................................................. 42
3.2 Health....................................................................................................................................................................... 49
3.3 Child Protection...................................................................................................................................................... 56
3.4 Education .............................................................................................................................................................. 68
3.5 Social Protection..................................................................................................................................................... 77
Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................... 81
Section Four: Addressing Child Poverty and Disparities a Strategy for Results ..... 82
4.1 What must be done? . ............................................................................................................................................ 82
4.2 How to make this happen ..................................................................................................................................... 84
Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................... 84
Acronyms List................................................................................................................ 86
References...................................................................................................................... 88
Annex 1. Policy and Statistics Tables........................................................................................................................... 91
Appendix 2. National Mexican Family Life Survey . ............................................................................................... 178
Appendix 3. Construction of variables of deprivation through ENIGH and ENNViH............................................ 180
Table of figures
Section One: Children and Development ..................................................................... 5
Table 1.1.3 Estimated numbers of children affected by deprivations targeted by the MDG's . ............................... 9
Table 1.2.1 Population and economic growth since 1990..........................................................................................11
Table 1.2.2 Fertility.........................................................................................................................................................11
Table 1.3.4: Financing from abroad............................................................................................................................. 13
Table 1.2.4: Income inequality .................................................................................................................................... 13
Table 1.2.5: Introducing sub-national dimensions of development...........................................................................14
Table 2. Public spending and development supports . ............................................................................................. 15
Table 3. Data related to childhood regarding Household Income –Key Budget Allocation ................................... 16
Table 4. Data related to childhood regarding Nutrition –Key Budget Allocations .................................................. 17
Table 5. Data related to childhood regarding Health –Key Budget Allocations....................................................... 18
Table 6. Data related to childhood regarding Infancy Protection – Key Budget Allocations.................................. 18
Table 7. Data related to childhood regarding Children Education – Key Budget Allocations..................................19
Section Two: Poverty and Childhood .......................................................................... 21
Table 2.1.1 Trends in income/consumption poverty since 1990................................................................................ 22
Table 2.1.2 Correlates of income/consumption poverty among households with children................................... 23
Table Households with children younger than 17 years old..................................................................................... 25
Table All households.................................................................................................................................................... 25
Table 2.1.4 Child poverty as multiple deprivations ................................................................................................... 26
Table 2.1.5 Change in the incidence/prevalence of severe deprivations over the last decade among children .. 27
Table 2.1.6 Correlates of severe child deprivations.................................................................................................... 28
Table 2.1.8 Prevalence of seven severe deprivations by region and residence....................................................... 30
Table 2.1.9 Correlation between different indicators for child poverty/disparity..................................................... 31
Table 2.1.10 Combined child poverty incidence......................................................................................................... 32
Table 2.1.11 Children in public care or adopted.......................................................................................................... 34
Table 2.2.1 Change in U5MR by wealth quintile and gender.................................................................................... 34
Table 2.2.2 Under 5 and infant mortality rates and their correlates........................................................................ 35
Table 2.2.3: Relationship between U5MR and income/consumption poverty at sub-national level . .................. 35
Table 2.1.3 Odds ratios for the probability of income/consumption
poverty by individual, household and geographic dimensions .............................................................................. 37
Table 2.1.7 Odd ratios for the probability that children will or will not experience deprivations.......................... 39
Section Three: The Pillars of Childhood Wellbeing...................................................... 42
Table A Individuals under 15 years old by expense per capita group in 2002........................................................ 44
Table B Health indicators for children age five or less, by region............................................................................ 44
Table 3.1.1 Child nutrition outcome and its correlates ............................................................................................. 45
Table C Health indicators for children between 5 and 11 years old.......................................................................... 46
Table 3.1.2 Child nutrition: supply side and uptake variables by region . ............................................................... 47
Table 3.2.1 Young child health outcomes, related care and correlates..................................................................... 51
Table 3.2.2 Adolescent health outcomes, care and correlates.................................................................................. 53
Table 3.2.3 Child and youth health: supply side and uptake variables by region 1990-2006................................. 54
Table 3.3.1 Birth registration and its correlates.......................................................................................................... 59
Table 3.3.2 Orphanhood, child vulnerability and their correlates............................................................................. 60
Table 3.3.3.A Child labor and its correlates................................................................................................................ 62
Table 3.3.3 Child labor and its correlates . ................................................................................................................. 64
Table 3.3.4 Early marriage and its correlates.............................................................................................................. 65
Table 3.3.5 Child protection: supply side and uptake variables by region 1990-2006............................................ 66
Table 3.4.1 School attendance and correlates............................................................................................................ 71
Table C Individuals between 6 and 14 years old by age groups and expenditures per capita.............................. 73
Table D Information about the school where children between 6 and 14 years old assist to................................ 73
Table 3.4.2 Child education: supply side and uptake variables by region 1990-2006..............................................74
Table 3.5.1 Access to social protection and its correlates by individual, households and geographic dimensions .78
Table 3.5.2 Social Protection: supply side and uptake variables by region 1990-2006........................................... 80
Annex 1. Policy and Statistics Tables........................................................................... 91
Table 1............................................................................................................................................................................ 91
Table 2. Public Spending and Development Supports ............................................................................................. 95
Table 3. Household Income –Key and Relevant Budget Allocation ......................................................................... 96
Table 4. Childhood Results in Nutrition –Key Budget Allocations............................................................................ 97
Table 5. Childhood Results in Health – Key Budget Allocations............................................................................... 98
Table 6. Childhood Results in Infancy Protection – Key Budget Allocations............................................................ 98
Table 7. Childhood Results in Education – Key Budget Allocations.......................................................................... 99
Table 1.1.3 Estimated numbers of children affected by deprivations targeted by the MDG's . ........................... 100
Table 1.1.4 Females by age in household surveys ...................................................................................................101
Table 1.1.5 Males in the survey...................................................................................................................................102
Table 1.2.4: Income inequality ...................................................................................................................................105
Table 1.2.5: Introducing sub-national dimensions of development.........................................................................105
Table 1.3.3 Total and private social expenditures .....................................................................................................106
Table 1.3.4: Financing from abroad (million pesos of 2002)...................................................................................107
Table 2.1.1 Trends in income/consumption poverty since 1990...............................................................................107
Table 2.1.2 Correlates of income/consumption poverty among ............................................................................108
Table 2.1.3 Odds ratios for the probability of income/consumption
poverty by individual, household and geographic dimensions ............................................................................. 110
Table 2.1.4 Child poverty as multiple deprivations .................................................................................................. 112
Table 2.1.5 Change in the incidence/prevalence of severe deprivations over the last decade among children .113
Table 2.1.6 Percentages of severe child deprivations .............................................................................................. 113
Table 2.1.7 Odds ratios for the probability that children will or will not experience deprivations....................... 115
Table 2.1.8 Percentage of prevalence of seven severe deprivations by region and residence............................. 117
Table 2.1.9 Correlation between different indicators for child poverty/disparity.................................................... 118
Table 2.1.10 Combined child poverty incidence........................................................................................................ 119
Table 2.1.11 Children in public care or adopted........................................................................................................ 121
Table 2.2.1 Change in U5MR by wealth quintile and gender.................................................................................. 121
Table 2.2.2 Under 5 and infant mortality rates and their correlates...................................................................... 122
Table 2.2.3: Relationship between U5MR and income/consumption poverty at sub-national level . ................ 123
Table 3.1.1 Child nutrition outcome and its correlates ........................................................................................... 124
Table B Health indicators for children age five or less, by region.......................................................................... 126
Table C Health indicators for children between 5 and 11 years old in 2006.......................................................... 126
Table 3.1.2 Child nutrition: supply side and uptake variables by region . ............................................................. 126
Table 3.2.1 Young child health outcomes, related care and correlates . ................................................................ 127
Table 3.2.2 Adolescent health outcomes, care and correlates................................................................................ 129
Alternative of Table 3.2.2 Adolescent health outcomes, care and correlates......................................................... 130
Table 3.2.3 Child and youth health: supply side and uptake variables by region 1990-2006............................... 130
Table 3.3.1 Birth registration and its correlates (individual, HH and geog. Dimensions)..................................... 131
Table 3.3.2 Orphanhood, child vulnerability and their correlates . ........................................................................ 133
Table 3.3.3 Child labor and its correlates . ............................................................................................................... 135
Table 3.3.4 Early marriage and its correlates............................................................................................................ 137
Table 3.3.5 Child protection: supply side and uptake variables by region ........................................................... 139
Alternative of Table 3.3.5 Child protection: Number of shelters for
children and teenager migrants unaccompanied (2007)......................................................................................... 139
Table 3.4.1 School attendance and correlates (by individual, households and geographic dimensions)............140
Table D Individuals between 6 and 14 years old by age groups and expenses per capita...................................142
Table E Information about the school were children between 6 and 14 years old assist to..................................143
Table 3.4.2 Child education: supply side and uptake variables by region 1990-2006............................................143
Table 3.5.1 Access to social protection and its correlates by individual, households and geographic dimensions .144
Table 3.5.2 Social Protection: supply side and uptake variables by region 1990-2006..........................................146
Table 3.5.3 Correlation between child outcomes and indicators of child poverty..................................................147
National inventory of programs ................................................................................................................................148
1. Oportunidades..........................................................................................................................................................148
2. Nursery and children houses program................................................................................................................. 150
3. Program for the Development of Marginalized Zones........................................................................................ 152
4. Food Assistance Program, DICONSA.................................................................................................................... 154
5. Social - Milk Supply Program, LICONSA.............................................................................................................. 155
6. Compensatory Actions to Fight the Lag in Initial and Basic Education............................................................. 158
7. Quality Schools Program (PEC).............................................................................................................................. 161
8. Scholarship Program for young mothers and young pregnant women............................................................ 163
9. Support program for Preschool and Primary Education for boys and girls
form families of migrant agricultural workers (PRONIM)....................................................................................... 165
10. Popular Insurance................................................................................................................................................. 167
11. Medical Insurance for a new generation............................................................................................................. 169
12. Urban marginal child work.................................................................................................................................. 171
13. School Breakfast Program.................................................................................................................................... 173
14. National Net of Childhood Rights Diffusion........................................................................................................174
15. Program for Girls, Boys and Adolescents in Frontier Zones..............................................................................176
STUDY ON
POVERTY AND
DISPARITIES IN
CHILDHOOD:
THE CASE OF
MEXICO
Executive Summary
Overview/ Executive Summary
in 2005; in other words, they lived in homes where
income was insufficient to purchase the basic food
basket. (Chart 2.1.1 ENIGH). According to international standards, 8% of the children in the country
(3.3 millions) were in families who had less than
one dollar per capita expenditure in 2005 (chart 2.1.1
ENIGH).
Mexico is considered by the World Bank (WB) to be
a middle-high income country (World Bank, 2008);
with a relatively high Gross National Income (GNI)
of $12,580 dollars in 2007 (World Bank 2009) and a
GDP per capita of $14,400 USD in 2008 (The world
Factbook, CIA). However- and despite the progress
achieved in social development in the nineties- Mexico still has high levels of poverty and inequality that
directly affect children (for example 2006 Gini index
in Mexico was 49.6, CONEVAL - National Commission for Evaluation 2008).
According to the analysis of deprivations,1 we have
found that close to 9% of children lived with at least
two less severe deprivations in 2005 (chart 2.1.5,
ENIGH). In that year, 24% of children experienced
severe deprivations of housing (children who live in
homes with 5 or more people per room or with dirt
floors); 5% had no access to any kind of sanitation
services and 7% experienced severe deprivations
of information (children between 3 and 17 years
old without access to Television, Internet or who
do not read). By gender, however, few significant
differences can be seen between deprivations of
boys and girls. For example, analysis of the ENIGH
demonstrates that in 2005, 24.3% of the boys and
24.5% of the girls experienced a severe housing
deprivation; 6.3% of the boys and 6.9% of the girls
had deprivations on information; 12.4% of boys
and 13.9% of girls had deprivations in the area of
education. About 9.0% of the boys experienced at
In this Report we study different aspects of child
poverty, inequality and wellbeing in Mexico, using
the Mexican Family Life Survey (ENNViH in Spanish) as well as other Mexican surveys including
the National Survey of Household Incomes and
Expenditures (ENIGH). This Report consists of Policy
Tables and Statistical Tables. The first one comprises
the main documents, programs, laws and strategies that are currently in place that relate to child
poverty, while the second one comprises detailed
statistical al analysis on childhood, poverty, disparities; deprivations and wellbeing of the children.
In the Report we demonstrate a number of areas in
which Mexican boys and girls suffer disadvantages.
Regarding poverty measures based on monetary
income, about 25% of Mexican children (10 million
approximately) lived in conditions of food poverty
1 The deprivations analysis consists of a series of indicators regarding housing, sanitation, water,
information, education, health and nutrition that enables analyzing poverty incidence from a different
perspective than poverty measured by the income/expenditures of the households. Each deprivation
can arise in a severe or less severe way. For example, a severe deprivation in matter of housing refers
to a household with five or more habitants per room or with dirt floors and a less severe deprivation
refers to a household with four or more habitants per room, with dirt floor or a ceiling with an inappropriate material (for example, laminated roof).
1
least two severe deprivations in 2005, versus 9.7%
of girls.
declined from 33.7 in 1995 to 18.4 in 2007 and the
mortality rate of children under one year old decreased from 27.7 in 1995 to 16.8 in 2005 (CONAPO
– National Population Council); the proportion of
boys and girls over one year old vaccinated against
measles increased from 90% in 1995 to 96.4% in
2006 and the coverage of full scheme vaccination in
one year old children increased from 87.9% to 95.2%
(MDO's, 2006). While in 1992 14% of the children
under 5 were underweight, in 2006 only 5% were
underweight. Similarly, while in 1992 almost 23%
of the children under five were stunted, only 12.5%
were stunted in 2006 (CONEVAL 2006). Only 1.6% of
the children were underweight for their size in 2006
(ENSANUT).
Over time there has been large reductions in the
percentage of children experiencing severe deprivations overall in sanitation, water and information. While 23% of the children had a severe
deprivation insanitation in 1994, this percentage
had fallen to 5% in 2005 (ENIGH); the percentage
of children with water deprivations fell from 18% to
2% during the same years and children with information deprivations fell from 15% to 7% during the
same period.
There are great differences in disparities between
urban and rural areas; children in rural areas face
more disadvantages than those in urban areas and
indigenous children are generally the most vulnerable group of children in Mexico (for example, 33% of
indigenous children under 5 years old were stunted
in 2006, in comparison to the 12% of all the children
with this age, CONEVAL 2008). This is an important
result due to the fact that Mexico has one of the
largest ethnical diversity in the world (with approximately 68 indigenous languages, INALI, 2005) and
in general indigenous population, both adults and
children, live in very precarious conditions, have
low schooling levels,, high rate of grade failure and
school desertion and generally have access to lower
quality health and education services than the nonindigenous population.
Additionally, government social expenditures
have consistently increased. While in the seventies government social expenditure represented
close to 4.5% of the GDP, in 2005 it represented
11% (Scott, 2008). The Federal Government has
made some recent notable efforts –which include
the Opportunities Program- to improve the targeting of government expenditures to poorer groups.
Nevertheless, there are still notorious inequalities in
certain aspects of government expenditures’, such
as subsidies to certain goods and services, such as
gasoline.
Even though there adequate data sources to learn
about the situation of childhood in areas such as
socio-economic variables and health., there are
important shortcomings in the availability and quality of the available information in areas such as child
protection. In spite of the fact that there has been
progress in some information areas, for instance
through data presented by indicator CONEVAL),
adequate information is lacking on child shelters,
children employed as day farmers, adoptions, child
violence, as well as unregistered boys and girls,
among others. In general, these children are among
the most vulnerable and are more prone to living in
poverty and exclusion conditions, so that this lack
of information represents an obstacle to fulfilling
and respecting their rights and helping to overcome
their poverty situation.
With respect to education, there are still an important number of children between 5 and 17 years of
age who do not attend school (ENOE 2007 (National
Survey of Occupation and Employment) (about 1.6
million boys and 1.4 million girls), and who do not
finish basic education on time 2 (about 62% of girls
and boys completed basic education on time). (ENNViH 2002 – Mexican Family Life Survey). In spite
of the fact that elementary and junior high school
are mandatory, 40% of youth fifteen years old and
above cannot read and write, 9.5% of the population aged 5 to 17 years does not attend school (2005
CONTEO survey), and close to 12.5% of the children
and youth work, which corresponds to approximately 3.6 million children (INEGI, 2008 – National
Institute for Statistics and Geography).
In summary, this Report shows that Mexico has
made important progress in the reduction of poverty
and the improvement of child wellbeing in several
dimensions. However, the Report also demonstrates
that there is still a long way to go and that a high
proportion of children in Mexico still live in unacceptable conditions.
In spite of the existing disparities, it is important to
emphasize that some social indicators indicator for
boys and girls have progressed.
The mortality rate of children under five years old
2
among all groups of income, including the poorest.
In spite of the fact that there is still a considerable
proportion of boys and girls with stunting, wasting
and underweight (Chart 1.1.3, ENNViH), overweight
and obesity are rapidly growing among children.
For example, in the group aged 5 to 11 years old,
the combined prevalence of overweight and obesity
increased 33% between 1999 and 2006 (ENSANUT,
2006). Parker, Rubalcava and Teruel, 2007 report that
in 2005 close to 16% of the individuals under fifteen
were overweight and almost 12% were obese. It is
very probable that the high rates of obesity will lead
to an increase on chronic diseases among children –
such as high blood pressure and diabetes-, which is
likely to affect their life expectancy. This is currently
one of the most important public health topics that
affect childhood in Mexico and that require the
implementation of immediate policies to reduce and
prevent child obesity, in addition to addressing the
consequences of the current obesity epidemic.
We now turn to some conclusions and recommendations generated from the findings of this report.
1. There are a number of groups that suffer substantially higher deprivations and disadvantages in
Mexico. In spite of being a country with a relatively
high per capita level of income, high inequalities in
a number areas have led to important population
groups that live in a high level of social exclusion
and deprivation, as has been broadly documented
in this report. In particular, lower income groups, the
indigenous and those who live in rural areas suffer
more deprivations than other groups. These differences and inequalities make it clear that the government’s policies must continue to focus on correcting
these inequalities. Historically, in the areas of education and health, the government’s expenditures
shows evidence of being regressive, which can be
seen, for example, in the fact that poorer children
have access to worse education and health services
than those children in families with a higher income.
A basic principle of public expenditures is that it
should be progressive rather than regressive. Health
and education services offered to poor boys and
girls must have the same quality than those offered
to boys and girls of medium and high levels, which
implies that the budget in matter of education and
health destined to poor children should be larger
than the budget assigned to higher income children
in order to reverse historical inequalities. In this
regard, a main recommendation of this report is that
the government should guarantee similar education,
nutrition and health services across Mexico, and
particularly that a significant effort should be made
to improve the quality of the services in indigenous
and rural areas. This may require a larger allocation
of expenditures towards investment in the areas
with a lower level of services.
3. The role performed by the main social programs oriented to childhood in Mexico should be
highlighted, including Oportunidades (Opportunities), the renowned social program of conditional
cash transfers, that provides monetary benefits in
exchange for children regularly attending school and
the family attending periodical health check-ups.
Oportunidades has been a revolutionary program in
terms of its design, targeting mechanisms, multidimensional perspective and evaluation. However, the
program still has areas where coverage could be improved, particularly urban areas, where coverage is
notably less than in rural areas. Furthermore, while
the impact of Oportunidades on school attendance
to secondary or middle school is well documented,
few significant results have been found on the
cognitive development and nutritional development
of children, so that it might be necessary to redesign some components of the program that could
improve its impact in those areas. Additionally there
are a significant number of families that are not
eligible to receive Oportunidades because they live
in areas where there are no close schools or health
centers. In view of this situation, specific programs
have been designed to service this population, such
as the Program of Alimentary Support of Diconsa,
which seeks to improve alimentation and nutrition
of the population that does not receive the Oportunidades Program because they are located in faraway
areas from schools and health centers.
2. Emphasis has been placed on this report not only
on monetary poverty indicator, but also on other
indicators of wellbeing and fulfillment of the rights
of boys, girls and youth, including health and nutrition. There are still significant populations –above
all rural and indigenous- where children suffer
malnutrition. indicator However, it is important to
note that an issue that now affects a larger proportion of the child population is obesity. Though this
is not a specific topic in the Report’s guidelines, we
consider it important to mention that obesity has
become a major public health concern, not only
because of the high proportion of children who are
overweight or obese in Mexico, but because of the
rhythm with which this prevalence has increased
4. It is worth highlighting the outstanding role of the
Federal Government through the National Commis-
3
sion for Evaluation (CONEVAL), an new institution
that is in charge of the definition, measurement
and publication of the poverty rates of the population, being the official source for these statistics.
We note that, based on the Social Development Act,
the CONEVAL is obligated to include in the measurement of poverty variables such as income per
capita, average education deficit at home, access to
health services and to social security, the quality of
housing and the availability of the basic services ,
in addition to access to alimentation and the degree
of social cohesion (LGDS, 2004). The CONEVAL is
also in charge of monitoring that all social programs
with Rules of Operation carry out external and
independent evaluations and regulates that the
recommendations derived from these external and
independent evaluations be followed. Furthermore,
since 2007 CONEVAL is collaborating with SHCP
(Treasury Department) and the Public Office Department to implement the Performance Evaluation
System, which seeks to measure and evaluate the
results of the programs and of the social policy to
systematically improve its performance.
ological terms. First, it has shown that, in spite of
the advances in matter of social development, the
disparity in social expenditures persists. Education
and health services continue to have a differential
quality between the poor and non poor population,
quality is much higher in urban populations and for
those of higher income. To eradicate these gaps in
access to health and education services of equal
quality, progressive government expenditures is
necessary with a general emphasis on increasing
services for those boys and girls who live in rural,
indigenous, or marginalized2 receives priority.
Secondly, this report takes advantage on the multidimensional character of the Mexican Family Life
Survey (ENNViH) to study poverty not only in monetary terms but also in terms of deprivations and
other indicators indicator (such as wealth, mother’s
education and indigenous condition) which allow to
crossing diverse information and thus elaborate on
the poverty of children in Mexico, which could not
be made with any other poll in Mexico. This Report
adds to a very advanced trajectory of social policy in
Mexico that seeks to deepen the multidimensional
analysis of poverty and, strengthen the actions that
have been carried out in Mexico to improve social
development, such as the creation of the Social
Development Act, the CONEVAL and the Oportunidades Human Development Program.
To be able to achieve this, it is proposed that there
are follow up of results through an Indicators Matrix, in which the budget of the programs is planned
and conformed in a manner so as to clearly define
the objective to which they were created; and also
to advance in the efforts to the full instrumentation
of the budget based on results. The preceding reflects a notable effort from the Federal Government
and an important step towards the development of a
social policy based on the integration of programs,
encouraging those program that work well and
removing those that do not.
Finally, it is important to point out that this Report
establishes a conceptual link between the multidimensional approach of poverty and the integrality of
human rights (specifically the rights of children and
youth). That is, the multidimensional measurement
of poverty strengthens the analysis of the causes
that prevent the fulfillment of rights and the effect
of such non-fulfillment, by encompassing all the
dimensions under which boys, girls and teenagers
may face situations of poverty, exclusion or deprivations.
The success of the Oportunidades Program represents an excellent example of a social program
where rigorous external evaluations that have been
carried out ever since its initial phases have allowed
to distinguish positive results, and that have also
put in evidence some of its weaknesses or negative
aspects of the program. Thus it is recommended to
continue the implementation begun CONEVAL of
carrying out rigorous external evaluations of social
programs; and also to continue using the results of
the evaluations to improve and/or expand programs
with positive outcomes and reduce or even eliminate programs with few positive impacts on the
beneficiary population.
2 For more information and data to this regard, see Parker, Susan (2008). “Poverty and Education in
Mexico”. UNDP. Parker, Susan (2008). “Health and Nutrition in Mexico”. UNDP. Parker, Susan; Rubalcava, Luis y Teruel, Graciela (2007). “Quality of Education in Latin America and the Caribbean Region: The
Mexican Case. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID - The Inter American Bank for Development).
In summary, This Report has made two important
contributions in matters of findings and in method-
4
STUDY ON
POVERTY AND
DISPARITIES IN
CHILDHOOD:
THE CASE OF
MEXICO
Section One:
Children and Development
I
n this chapter we present the objectives of
the research, synthesize the main results
and describe the precedents and the analysis of the characteristics of Mexico that are
relevant to the survey of childhood poverty.
hood is presented, as well as the social policies aimed
at improving childhood wellbeing. Surveys are also
used to construct aggregate indicators on childhood
wellbeing in Mexico, both at home level and individually. In matter of deprivations, indicators of housing,
sanitation, water, information, alimentation, health
and education are used. In the first place, poverty indicators based on income (for example, total income
or expense) were constructed with information on
home level, while the indicators such as malnutrition
were constructed based on individual information.
1.1 Children, poverty and disparities
Mexico is a Latin American country classified by the
World Bank as of medium-high income, with a GDP
per capita of $14,400 USD in 2008 (The World Factbook, 2009). The main language is Spanish, though
there are approximately 68 indigenous languages
(INALI, 2005) spoken by over six million people
above five years of age (COUNT, 2005). In 2005,
the population of Mexico was close to 103 million
people (CONAPO, 2005), of which 41 million were
between 0 to 17 years old (ENIGH, 2005). Close to 10
million of people lived in conditions of alimentary
poverty, this is, they lived in households with insufficient means to purchase a basic food basket.
One of the main purposes of this report survey is to
present multidimensional information, which allows
measuring poverty and deprivation from several
different dimensions, (including income, nutrition,
education and household dwelling characteristics).
The Report shows that, while there are significant
correlations between the different indicators of
poverty and disparities, there are also important differences in the incidence of different deprivations.
This Report is based on, in great extent, the Mexican Family Life Survey (ENNViH), and the National
Survey of Household Income and Expenses (ENIGH),
on Government reports and on other surveys such
as the National Survey of Youth’s, among other data
sources. One of the main advantages of the ENNViH
is that it brings together in one sole source information on income, health and nutrition, among other
topics, which enables to present an integral analysis
of all the deprivations using a single source.
This Report presents the situation of Childhood in
Mexico from a perspective of poverty, disparity and
deprivations. The survey uses a variety of sources of
nationally representative information to provide an
up to date panorama on the wellbeing of children in
Mexico. The Report provides statistics and analysis
in three levels: country, home and individual. At the
country level, an analysis on the general economic
and social conditions that affect the situation of child-
5
ENNViH
ENIGH*
Main Purpose: collect within one instrument
information on socioeconomic, demographic,
crime, health and community indicators
pertaining to the Mexican population.
Multi-thematic data base and
of longitudinal nature.
• It started in 2002 with a follow-up
round in 2005; two more rounds will
be carried out in 2009 and 2012.
• It collects information at individual,
home and community level about:
o Expendituresse and consumption
patterns, savings decisions, ownership of assets and family wealth.
o Social programs.
o Level of schooling, attendance
and permanence at school.
o Types of employment, mobility and work participation.
o Use of time.
o State of health: self perception and expectations, habits; anthropometric measurements (weight and size), biological markerss (blood pressure, hemoglobin,glucose.
o Reproductive health.
o Crime and victimization.
o Quantitative and qualitative information about schools, health centers
and small health suppliers.
o Home equipping, services, vehicles, appliances and items.
Main Purpose: provide information on
the distribution, amount and structure of
income and expenditures of households.
•
•
•
•
Cross section data base.
Provides some socio-demographic
characteristics, activity condition and
occupational characteristics of the family
members of 12 and older, in addition
to household dwelling characteristics.
Statistics are available for years:
1983-1984, 1989, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998,
2000, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2006.
It collects information on:
o Dwelling characteristics.
o Residents and home
identification at the dwelling.
o Socio-demographic characteristics.
o Activity condition and occupational
characteristics of the family
members of 12 and older.
o Household services, vehicles,
appliances and items.
o Total expenditures of the homes.
o Current non monetary expenditures.
Total income of the household, both
monetary and non monetary.
o Current total money and nonmonetary income of the homes.
¿What does this survey on children in
Mexico show? (Main conclusions)
In particularly, ENNViH was used to present the main
analysis on monetary poverty, deprivations and the
pillars of information wellbeing, due to the wealth of
information it provides in a solo survey. (for example, ENNViH allows to analyze health, child work and
education indicators according to the wealth levels
of households, parental level of schooling, by indigenous status and by region)3, which is not possible to
do with any alternative survey in Mexico.
In spite of the fact that Mexico is a country with medium high income that has had important progress
in matter of social development during the nineties 4
a large proportion of the population still lives under
poverty and disparity conditions.
* During 2008 CONEVAL and INEGI designed a
module of Socio-economic Condition inside ENIGH,
which incorporated data on health, income, education, social security, quality and dwelling’s spaces,
basic services, alimentation and social cohesion, to
fulfill provisions in articles 36 and 37 of the LGDS.
Disparity among urban and rural areas, as well as
among indigenous and non-indigenous locations is
evident. Almost one fourth of the population lives in
communities with less than 2,500 individuals. Due
to their general isolation, rural areas tend to have
lower access to basic health and education services,
an important correlate to its high levels of poverty.
3 It is important to mention that, due to the fact that the weights for the second round of the ENNViH
corresponding to 2005 were not ready at the time the analysis was made, the analysis in this report
uses the first round of data, that is 2002.
4 Specifically, Mexico has had an increase in the coverage of basic services, especially for the population of lower income; the expectation of life at birth has increased and poverty has reduced in an
important form since 1996 (CONEVAL, 2008).
6
This research has shown that Mexican children
suffer disadvantages in several areas. With regard
to monetary income measures, close to 25% of the
children lived in conditions of alimentary poverty
in 2005 (Chart 2.1.1 ENIGH). As per international
standards, 8% of the children in Mexico lived in
households with less than one dollar per capita per
day to survive (Chart 2.1.1, ENIGH)
to 9.5% of the population 5 to 17 years old did not
attend school (Mexican Conteo Survey 2005).
With respect to deprivations in the area of health,
approximately 25% of children (9.9 million) in 2002
reported either not having received vaccination or not
having seen a doctor to treat a respiratory disease,
or both.5 Almost 40% of the children (15.7 million)
had not received additional vaccines after the age of
two (ENNViH 2002). In spite of the fact that there are
an important proportion of l children who are mal
nourished (Chart 1.1.3, ENNViH), currently the proportion of children overweight and obese are rapidly
growing. For example, Parker, Rubalcava and Teruel,
2007 show that in 2005, close to 16% of individual
under fifteen were overweight and almost 12% were
obese. In turn, the ENSANUT 2006 shows that 16.5%
of boys between 5 and 11 years old were overweight
in 2006 and 9.4 suffered obesity, while 18.1% of the
girls within the same range of age were overweight
and 8.7% obese. The high rates of obesity are likely to
cause an increase in chronic diseases among children,
such as hypertension and diabetes, which would
threaten to reduce their life expectancies.
With regard to the deprivations analysis, we have
found that 9% of the children in Mexico lived with
at least two severe deprivations in 2005. About 5%
of children had no access to any type of sanitation
(close to 2 million). Close to 2% of children used
rivers or wells to get water. With regard to information, 17% of children had no access to Internet (2.2
million), to televisions or to books (ENIGH 2005).
With regard to education, there are still an important
number of children that do not attend school (as
per ENNViH 2002, more than a million and a half
between 6 and 15 years old, a number that increases
to 3.2 million if we consider those between 6 and
17 years old). There are also an important number
who do not finish primary education on time. That
is, on time implies that for children between 6 and
15 years, the difference between their age and their
education plus six is equal to or less than one.
Close to 2.1 million children and 2.4 million girls, in
conjunct little more than 20% of the total population
between 6 and 15 years old, ENNViH 2002 do not
finish primary school on time).
In spite of the existing disparities, it is important to
emphasize that there has been important progress
in some of the social indicators for children. For
instance, while in 1992 27% of the children lived
in conditions of alimentary poverty, in 2005 this
percentage had fallen slightly to 25% (close to 10
million of children). In terms of poverty of capacities, in 1992 36% of the children suffered this type of
poverty, while for 2005 this percentage had fallen to
33% (13 million children). In as much as patrimonial
poverty, in 1992 62% of the children lived in these
conditions, while in 2005 this percentage had fallen
to 57% - approximately 23 million children- (ENIGH
1992, 2005).6 The proportion of children who have no
access to a sanitary service of any kind has greatly
diminished over time (from 23% in 1994 to 5% in
2005); those who use rivers, wells, or walk 30 minutes or longer to get water (from 18% to 2% in the
This is associated with the high degree of repetition and dropout existing in Mexico. To this regard,
at the beginning of school term 2006/2007 the
group of boys and girls from 12 to 14 years old
was the one that represented the highest fallback
rate (persons who are enrolled two grades or more
below what would otherwise normally correspond
as per their age) of 9.3%. When differentiated by
state we find that while in the Federal District this
rate was 3.8% and in Nuevo Leon 3%, in Chiapas it
was 20.2% and in Oaxaca 21.3% (INEE 2007).
5 That is not inconsistent with the high rates of coverage of vaccination with full scheme reported on
children one year old, because the definition of severe deprivation by UNICEF applies only to children
from 0 to 18 years old and furthermore, the definition is not only based on vaccination but also on clinic
visits with regard to respiratory diseases.
6 In 2002, under the supervision of the Technical Committee for Measurement of Poverty (CTMP),
three official lines of poverty were created in Mexico used by the Federal Government to monitor the
changes in poverty as per the income of the homes and using the ENIGH as reference base. The first
line corresponds to alimentary poverty, the second one to poverty of capacities, and the third one to
patrimonial poverty. Alimentary poverty refers to the incapacity to obtain the basic food basket, even
using the whole of the available income at home purchasing only the goods of the said basket. Poverty of capacities refers to the insufficiency of the available income to purchase the value of the food
basket and make the necessary pay the necessary expenses on health and education, even assigning
the total income of the household for nothing more than these purposes. Patrimonial poverty refers to
insufficiency of the income available to purchase the alimentary basket, and also to perform the necessary expenses for health, education, clothing, housing and transportation, though the total income of
the household were used exclusively for the acquisition of these goods and services.
With respect to repetition, close to 5% of the children
repeated first grade during the 2007-2008 term and
1.2% repeated first grade of secondary or middle
school in the same term (INEE 2008). Furthermore, in
spite of the fact that basic education, which includes
preschool, primary and secondary are mandatory,
40% of fifteen years old and older had not finished
junior high in 2005, close to 10% of the five year and
older population did not read and write, and close
7
same years), and who have no access to television,
Internet or to reading materials(from 15% in 1994 to
just 7% in 2005, ENIGH).
tional and state to prevent and sanction violence and
discrimination based on gender. It is also worth mentioning the implementation of the Woman’s National
Program in 1996, which sought to incorporate the
perspective of gender into the planning, design and
execution of public policies, and the creation of the
National Institute for Institute (INMUJERES), in 2001,
as a federal government’s organization, the institution
in charge of directing the national policy to achieve
equality of opportunities among men and women.
In education, during the past three decades the
average of schooling of the Mexican population
more than doubled, from 3.4 in 1970 to 7.6 years in
2000 (Census). In 2005 the inhabitants 15 years old
and older had on average 8.1 grades of schooling
(about 2 years of secondary school). By state, there
are significant differences, for instance while in 2005
in the Federal District the population’s average years
of schooling was 10.56 and in Nuevo Leon 9.7, in Chiapas these were 5.6 and in Oaxaca 6.1 (INEE, 2006).
These efforts have contributed to a better legal and
institutional platform for the promotion and fulfillment of women’s rights, which are now beginning to
show positive results through the indicators such as
the Index for Development Related to Gender (IDG),
which adjusts the level of IDH (Human Development
Index) according to gender disparity and the Index
for Development of Gender (IPG), which measures
women’s participation in : legislative power, managing posts and labor income, both elaborated by the
UNDP (United Nations Program for Development).
With regard to the IPG, defined between 0 and 1,
where zero means no participation of women in the
public sphere and one implies total parity in the components of the indicator, in 2000, 19 of the 32 federal
entities in this country had a value of IPG less than
0.5, 11 entities had values between 0.51 and 0.60, and
two entities obtained a IPG over 0.61 (only the Federal
District had a value over 0.70); by 2005, 9 federal
entities registered a IPG less than 0.5 (half with regard
to that observed five years before), 12 reached values
between 0.51 and 0.6 and 11 entities reached values
over 0.61 (again the Federal District had the highest
value, this time with a IPG slightly over 0.80)7.
Additionally, it is important to remark that, government social expenditures has increased importantly
in real terms. While in the decade of the seventies
the social expenditures represented close to 4.5%
of the GDP, in 2005 it represented 11% of the GDP
(Scott, 2008). This clearly reflects a greater effort of
the Federal Government to improve both expenditures and the targeting of these expenditures (including the Oportunidades Program)- to improve the
focalization towards the poorest groups; although
some regressive expenditures persist.
Additionally, recently the Mexican Government has
implemented a careful system of evaluation and
monitoring to measure poverty and the impacts of
of the social development programs it has created.
The Social Development Act (LGDS) of 2004 brought
with it the creation of the National Commission for
Evaluation of Social Development Policy (CONEVAL)
in 2006, an institution in charge of monitoring and
regulating that the government’s main social programs be evaluated. Currently CONEVAL is working
on the measurement and follow-up of poverty in
Mexico based on a multidimensional approach of
poverty. These innovations represent an important
step forward for Mexico to improve the effectiveness and impacts of its social policy.
Finally, it is important to mention that this Report
establishes a conceptual link between the multidimensional approach of poverty and the integrality of
the human rights (specifically the rights of childhood
and adolescence). This is, the multidimensional measurement of poverty strengthens the analysis of the
causes that prevent the fulfillment of children’s rights.
In addition to this, in matter of equity of gender, in
Mexico has followed diverse strategies that seek to
reduce disparities between men and women. Among
these, the ratification of the Inter American Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination
against Women in 1981 exists, and the Inter American Convention to Prevent, Sanction and Eradicate
Violence against Women (Convention of Belem do
Para) in 1998, which seeks to guarantee women the
full enjoyment of their rights in conditions of equality
with men; and also the approval of several laws, na-
Childhood and the MDO's (Millennium’s Development Objectives): progress and disparity
Mexico has carried out social policies and strategies
that have allowed significant progress towards the
fulfillment of the MDO's. Furthermore, Mexico has
committed itself to fulfilling a series of additional
7 Indexes of Human Development and Gender in Mexico 2000-2005, UNDP Mexico, 2009, p. 7-12
8
Table 1.1.3 Estimated numbers of children affected by deprivations targeted by the MDG's
Percentage of
Mexico, Mexican Family Life Survey, 2002
A. Nutrition poor
girls or
hholds with
such children
women of
or youth
this age
in this category
boys or men
of this age
girls or
women of this age
not in this category
2.9
2.5
1.6
97.4
2. Enrolled in primary education
(MDG 2 and 3 Indicator 6 and 9,
between 5 and 14 years old)
70.9
54.6
54.7
45.3
3. Completing the final year of primary
education in proper age (MDG 2, Indicator 7
proxy)
72.8
65.4
62.4
34.5
4. Attending primary and secondary school in
proper age (MDG 3, Indicator 9)
90.0
80.7
77.4
19.2
7. Number of 1 year-olds immunized against
measles
83.5
82.1
84.5
17.8
9. Households and/or children with
sustainable access to an improved water
source (MDG Goal 7 Indicator 30)
82.4
79.1
79.3
20.8
10. Households and/or children with access
to improved sanitation (MDG Goal 7
Indicator 31)
77.4
72.0
72.3
27.9
1. Underweight children under five
years of age (MDG 1 Indicator 4)
B. Education poor
C. Health poor
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002 (MxFLS-1)
goals called “beyond the millennium”, among
which them are:: to reduce in half the proportion of
persons with less than the minimum recommended
level of consumption of proteins by the year 2015;
insure that 90% of youth 12 years and older who enroll in secondary or middle school finish within the
official term (three years), and achieve that students
of primary level and secondary education reach
satisfactory levels in Spanish and Math as per the
exams established by an independent evaluation
organism. (Millennium’s Objectives, 2000).
and by the effect of remittances. In countries such
as Mexico, the remittances are a key tool for the
reduction of poverty, 57% of remittances are used
to pay for essential expenses such as clothes, food
and lodging and the remainder is generally saved or
invested in small businesses, properties or education,
(BID 2008).
The progress to achieve the Millennium’s Development Objectives in matter of health has been
significant. Child mortality for children under five
fell from 33.7 in 1995 to 18.4 in 2007 (CONAPO); the
proportion of boys and girls one year old vaccinated against measles increased from 90% in 1995
to 96.4% in 2005 and the coverage of full scheme
vaccination of one year old children increased from
87.9% to 95.2% (MDO's, 2006).
Prior to the current financial crisis, the country had
advanced somewhat in the reduction of extreme poverty, between 2000 and 2005, it has reduced in over
half the percentage of persons with income under
one dollar a day, going from 8.6% in 2000 to 3.5% in
2005 (MDO's, 2006). The preceding can be explained
in part due by economic growth and low inflation, as
well as targeted conditional transfers by the Federal
Government –such as the Oportunidades Program-8,
However, there still are several challenges for the
fulfillment of the MDO's, above all in education.
In 2002, only 65% of the girls and 63% of the boys
had completed the last year of primary level at an
adequate age (Chart 1.1.3, ENNViH, 2002). Likewise,
80% of the girls and 77% of the boys attended
8 The governmental transfers of Oportunidades have contributed to increase the total net income
per capita of alimentary poor families in rural areas in almost 58% between 1992 and 2006 (Coneval,
2008).
9
primary and secondary school at the proper age.
Both indicators reflect the existence of high grade
repetition in Mexico. Interestingly, however, the
differences between genders in these two indicators
show that currently, girls have a better performance
than boys (Chart 1.1.3, ENNViH, 2002).
six years. In 2000 an important time was lived inside
the process of democratic transition of the country,
with the presidential electoral victory of PAN, which
represented the first party change at the federal level
after over seventy years of governance by the PRI.
Mexico generally has an open economic and political system. In 1994 it signed the North America Free
Trade Agreement with United States and Canada, and
has also signed free trade treaties with the European
Union, the majority of Latin American countries, Japan and Israel, and also with the Free Trade European
Association, formed by Iceland, Norway, Lichtenstein
and Switzerland. Furthermore, it is a member of
the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) since 1994. In legislative terms,
Mexico is ruled through the Political Constitution of
the United Mexican States, signed in 1917 and with
numerous reforms up to the present.
With regard to child health, Chart 1.1.3 shows that
82% of one year old girls (approximately 4 million)
and 84% of one year old boys (3.6 million) were
vaccinated against measles in 2002. 77% of homes
with children have access to a sanitation service
(12.9 million), and also only 82% of the homes (13.8
million) has access to sources of improved water,
this is, that they have access to treated or untreated
water, but not contaminated alternatively in urban
areas they receive water from a public source or a
well located no more than 200 meters away or that
in rural areas the members of a house do not have
to spend a large portion of the day carrying water
(Chart 1.1.3, ENNViH, 2002). 9
From a macro-economic point of view, after different periods of crisis and recoveries during the
decade of the eighties and the nineties, Mexico has
been relatively stable during the last ten years back
with low growth rates but also with low inflation
and a relatively stable currency. However, currently
Mexico is again amid a period of economic complications as a consequence of the world financial
crisis and due to its high interrelation with the
economy of the United States. The Finance Ministry
estimated that during the first quarter of 2009 the
real value of GDP fell at a yearly rate close to 7.0%,
(SHCP, 2009), since September of 2008 the currency
has devaluated close to 32.8% with regard to the
dollar, which has significantly increased the price of
imported goods. Furthermore, between December
of 2008 and March of 2009 a decrease of 1.3% on
formal employment was recorded, equivalent to
181,675 persons. (SHCP, 2009). Banco de Mexico,
for its part, stated at the end of April that Mexico’s
GDP in 2009 is expected to register a contraction of
between 3.8 and 4.8% of GDP annually. (Banxico,
2009).
1.2 Political, economic
and institutional context
We now present a general panorama of the country’s structure, population and economic indicators
and budget allocation.
Political, geographical
and institutional background
Mexico is a democratic republic, representative and
federal formed by 31 federal entities (states) and
one Federal District, seat of the federation’s powers
(executive, legislative, and judicial). Geographically,
Mexico has a surface of almost 2 million Km2 and
shares borders with the United States, Guatemala,
and Belize. For its territorial extension it has the
12th place worldwide and the 5th within the American Continent (INEGI, 2006). The official language
is Spanish, though there are also 68 indigenous
languages and multiple variable dialects. Mexico is
considered the 13th world economy.
The National Development Plan (PND) 2007-2012, developed by the Federal Executive Power, through the
President’s office, establishes the national objectives
of the current administration around five main topics
that are: 1) state of law and security; 2) competitive
economy and generator of employment; 3) equality of
opportunities; 4) environmental sustainability; and 5)
effective democracy and responsible external policy.
There are currently close to 45 social programs that
are defined as programs for overcoming of poverty
The Mexican political system is dominated by
three main parties: the Institutional Revolutionary
Party (PRI), the National Action Party (PAN), and the
Democratic Revolution Party (PRD). Both presidential
elections and state executives elections are every
9 Through the ENNViH it was not possible to construct indicator number 4 of the MDO's (mortality of
children under one year or between one year and five).
10
Table 1.2.1 Population and economic growth since 1990
Mexico
1995
Population (1000s)
GDP 1990=100 millions
of pesos)
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
91,725
98,439
99,716
100,909
102,000
103,002
103,947
104,874
749,169
926,332
920,132
953,706
993,282
1,058,096
1,094,615
1,158,263
627.3
899.3
920.6
955.7
1010.4
1082.7
1173.2
1267.9
GDPppp (billion US$)
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Consejo Nacional de Poblacion (CONAPO), Banxico (INPC), Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia (INEGI) (GDP), OECD Factbook 2008: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics
Table 1.2.2 Fertility (children per woman)
Mexico
TFR
1990
1995
2000
2005
3.4
2.9
2.7
2.2
Graph B
GDP per capita in Mexico
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Consejo Nacional de Poblacion (CONAPO)
8000
7000
USD (2000)
Graph A.
GDP Growth in Mexico
8
6
5000
4000
3000
2000
4
1000
2
0
0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
% Growth
6000
-2
-4
-6
Source: CepalStat, Latin America and the Caribbean Statistics
-8
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Population and economic growth
In 2005, close to 103 million people inhabited
Mexico, of which approximately 41 million are individuals 0 to 17 years old (CONAPO, 2005).
Source: CepalStat, Latin America and the Caribbean Statistics
(SHCP, 2008).10 Some of the main programs are:
Oportunidades, which delivers monetary benefits to
families in situation of extreme poverty to improve
their health, education and nutrition, serving 5 million
families in 2007. Procampo, which through transfer
mechanisms compensates the national producers
for the subsidies of their foreign competitors, in 2007
having 2, 800,000 farm producers throughout the
country beneficiaries that cultivate a surface of 13.9
million hectares in all the country; Seguro Popular,
a health Insurance, which offers financial and health
protection to the population without social security,
and which at the end of 2007 had 5’393,541 affiliated
families; and the Attention to Senior Adults over 70
and older in rural areas, which gives the elderly an
economic support, which in 2007 benefited 1’031,005
senior adults. The majority of the remaining programs
have relatively few beneficiaries compared to the
coverage of those just mentioned.
The growth rate of the Mexican population has been
diminishing overtime. In 2005 this rate was 15% for
women and 12% for men and it is expected that for
2015 it will reach 8% for women and 9% for men.
Mexico is experiencing an aging of its population.
It is expected that for 2015 the age group with the
highest group are those between 50 and 69 years
old, followed by individuals between 24 and 49
years old (National Population Conteo Census, 1995,
2005. CONAPO).
The noticeable decrease of the population of Mexico
can also be observed through the rate of fertility.
While in 1990 the fertility rate was 3.4 children per
woman, in 2005 it was 2.2 (CONAPO).
The demographic structure of Mexico in recent
years shows that individuals under 18 represent
a decreasing proportion of the population, so that
Mexico has been in a position of being able to take
advantage of the “demographic bonus or window”,
10 As considered by the Quarterly Reports about the Economic Situation, the Public Finances and
the Public Debt, of SHCP.
11
Graph 1.2.3.
The Structure of the economy in 2005 (Table 1.2.3.)
Graph 1.3.1a: Total public revenues and expeditures
in Mexico as % of GDP (Table 1.3.1.)
70
25.0
60
50
20.0
40
30
15.0
20
10
10.0
0
Agriculture
Mining, Manufacturing Services
eletricity,
water, gas and
construction
Share (%) in total GDP
Other
5.0
1995
2000
2001 2002
Total Public revenues
Share (%) in total employment
Source: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). Primer Informe FCH, 2007
2003 2004 2005
2006
Total public expenditures
Source: Sexto informe de Gobierno 2006. Secretaria de Hacienda y Crédito Público
this is, the idea of being able to stimulate economic
growth, as a consequence of the larger proportion
of workers, and of the reduction of the expenditures
on dependent persons. According to Mexico’s National Population Council Board (2004), this window
of opportunities generated by the demographical
bonus may last for about “the three next decades”;
afterwards, the aging of the population will bring
again a larger proportion of dependent persons.
Mexico is very connected to the economic conditions of the United States, its main commercial
partner (over 80% of the Mexican exportations are
directed to this country, INEGI 2008). The crisis,
which began in the residential real estate market of
the United States, has had repercussions in Mexico’s production activity and in the labor market.
During the past few years, Mexico’s GDP has been
growing at a lower pace, in 2006 the real annual
growth was 4.8 per cent, while in 2007 it was 3.3%
and in 2008 1.5% (Banxico, 2008). The most recent
forecasts for 2009 indicate that the GDP will fall
between 3.8 and 4.8% (Banxico, 2009).
The macro-economic panorama in Mexico for the
past 20 years has been marked by several economic
crises and periods of recovery (Graph A and B). As
can be seen, there have been recessions or crisis
in the years 1994 and 2000 and recoveries in the
following years.
Poverty levels are highly related to the economic
growth of Mexico. The several crises through which
the country has gone through have caused important increases in poverty. For example, as a result of
the economic crisis of 1994, the alimentary poverty
increased from 21.2% in 2004 to 37.4% in 1996, that
of capacities increased from 30% to 46% and the
patrimonial poverty increased from 52.4% to 69%.
(CONEVAL, 2006). Note that poverty levels in Mexico have generally taken a long time to recover, it
wasn’t until 2002 that the levels of poverty returned
to the pre crisis levels in 1994.
The analysis of inflation in Mexico indicates that
in the last years it has had relatively small fluctuations. In 2006 inflation was 4.05% and in 2007
3.76%. The recent inflationary pressures associated to the increase of the international prices of
raw materials (such as food, energy and metal)
provoked that in December of 2008 the annual
inflation rate was 6.53%, while in the first quarter
of 2009 at 6.18% (Banxico, 2009). The growth of
prices of goods and the increase of inflation of
course lead to immediate on the real income of
households, which can provoke, among other
effects, a shift to less nutritional but cheaper food
purchases.
The economic growth of Mexico is highly linked to
the services sector, as it represents close to 56% of
the GDP of Mexico and approximately 57% of the
total employment of the country (Graph 1.2.3, INEGI).
The next sector with larger participation in the economic growth is the manufacturing sector, with 18%
and with a participation in total employment of 16%.
Regarding foreign exchange rates, from 2007 to date
the exchange rate of peso vs. dollar has been relatively stable at near 11 pesos per dollar, nevertheless toward the end of 2008, there was a devaluation
of the currency and in January 2009, the exchange
rate was 13.89 pesos per dollar, and in March was
14.66 (Banxico, 2009).
12
Table 1.3.4: Financing from abroad (millions of pesos)
Mexico
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Trade balance
46,466.9
-79,021.7
-89,773.4
-74,349.6
-62,516.9
-99,867.2
-82,659.6
-66,990.9
Debt service
19,782.8
47,624.0
38,038.3
27,617.8
25,342.5
25,063.4
32,802.0
55,669.2
Remittances
24,075.6
62,298.7
83,038.8
95,599.3
147,656.2
189,623.4
221,000.2
259,327.6
Foreign Direct
Investment
62,447.4
170,160.4
275,649.0
224,572.1
180,457.3
260,044.2
237,844.6
211,150.2
Balance of payments
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Primer Informe de Gobierno, 2007. Anexo estadistico. Pagina 49. Banco de Mexico. BID. Banco Mundial (Basic Education Development Project in Support of the Third Phase of the Basic
Education Development Program). United Nations
Table 1.2.4: Income inequality
Country
Gini index of household income/consumption
Ratio between Ratio between Ratio between
last and first
last and first
last and first
decile
decile
decile
2006
2000
1992
2006
2000
1992
49.6
53.5
52.9
26.1
36.1
31.3
REFERENCE/SOURCE: CONEVAL, Informe de Evaluacion de la Politica de Desarrollo Social en Mexico, 2008.
In matters of public finances, Mexico has had
a public surplus since 1995, in other words, the
public income has surpassed that of expenditures,
although again in 2009 and 2010 that is likely to
reverse itself because of the economic crisis. (Graph
1.3.1a, SHCP).
By state and according to the Human Development
Index (IDH)11, we can observe that there are great
disparities within the country (Chart 1.2.5, UNDP).
For instance, while the Federal District had an IDH
of 0.88 in 2004, that of Chiapas was 0.71. However
most states have showed improvement over time
(between 1990 and 2004) with the exceptions of Baja
California, Baja California Sur, Chihuahua, Federal
District, State of Mexico, Nuevo Leon and Sonora.
With respect to external financing, Mexico does
not have a high dependence on the financing of
international institutions. It is characterized for
having a high level of private remittances sent
in mainly from the United States (in 2006 the
amount of remittances was close to 2,193 million
pesos). At a second level, Direct Foreign Investment (IED) represents an important source of
income –in 2006 it was 1,786 real million pesos)(Chart 1.3.4).
As previously stated, the high inequalities to the
inside of the country show that, while there are
municipalities with Indexes of Human Development similar to those in the United States or that of
countries with the OECD, there are also municipalities that have similar indexes or lesser to countries
in the Sub Saharan Africa. 12
These profound economic and social disparities
reflect a combination of several complex factors.
Ethnicity is a clear factor that affects inequality, as
the indigenous are much more likely to have lesser
income, less schooling and worse levels of health
than the non-indigenous population. For example,
while 26% of the indigenous households are located
in the lowest income quintile, only 6% are located in
the highest quintile (ENNViH, 2002).
Challenges to human
development and equity
In addition to existing poverty in Mexico, the
country is characterized by high levels of disparity
between the population with greater and lesser
resources, with few large changes over time. While
in 1992 the Gini Index was of 52.9, in 2000 it increased to 53.5; (Chart 1.2.4, CONEVAL). For 2006,
inequality dropped somewhat, the Gini coefficient
placing itself at 49.6 (CONEVAL 2008). While the
ratio between total income of the tenth and the first
decile was 31.3 in 1992, in 2000 it was 36.1 and in
2006 26.1.
11 The Human Development Index (IDH) is prepared by the United Nations Program for Development
(UNDP), and is based on three parameters: i) health (measured as per the life expectation at birth; ii)
education (measured by the rate of alphabetizing of adults and the combined gross rate of enrollment
to primary, secondary and high school education, as well as the years of duration of mandatory education); and iii) income (measured by the GDP per capita PPA in dollars).
12 To have a wider perspective on the history of inequality in Latin America, see World Bank (2003).
13
Table 1.2.5: Introducing sub-national dimensions of development
Population, 1,000s
Mexico
HDI scores (or similar
socioeconomic indicator)
Change over
2004
1990
2005
Change over
1990
Aguascalientes
1,065
48.0%
0.8271
2.4%
Baja California
2,845
71.3%
0.8391
-1.5%
Baja California Sur
512.2
61.2%
0.8332
-0.8%
Campeche
754.7
41.0%
0.8263
5.1%
Coahuila
2495.2
26.5%
0.8356
2.3%
Colima
568
32.6%
0.8097
1.6%
Chiapas
4293.5
33.7%
0.7185
9.6%
Chihuahua
3241.4
32.7%
0.8340
-0.7%
Distrito Federal
8720.9
5.9%
0.8837
-3.1%
Durango
1509.1
11.8%
0.8045
3.3%
Guanajuato
4893.8
22.9%
0.7782
5.6%
Guerrero
3115.2
18.9%
0.7390
7.3%
Hidalgo
2345.5
24.2%
0.7645
4.6%
Jalisco
6752.1
27.3%
0.8056
0.2%
Mexico
14007.5
42.7%
0.7871
-1.1%
Michoacan
3966.1
11.8%
0.7575
6.3%
Morelos
1612.9
35.0%
0.8011
1.8%
Nayarit
949.7
15.2%
0.7749
3.3%
Nuevo Leon
4199.3
35.5%
0.8513
-2.1%
Oaxaca
3506.8
16.1%
0.7336
9.6%
Puebla
5383.1
30.5%
0.7674
5.7%
Queretaro
1598.1
52.0%
0.8087
3.4%
Quintana Ro
1135.3
130.1%
0.8296
0.1%
San Luis Potosi
2410.4
20.3%
0.7850
4.5%
Sinaloa
2608.4
18.3%
0.7959
2.2%
Sonora
2394.9
31.3%
0.8253
-0.7%
Tabasco
1990
32.5%
0.7800
2.7%
Tamaulipas
3024.2
34.4%
0.8246
1.5%
Tlaxcala
1068.2
40.3%
0.7746
4.4%
Veracruz
7110.2
14.2%
0.7573
3.9%
Yucatan
1818.9
33.5%
0.7831
4.6%
Zacatecas
1367.7
7.2%
0.7720
4.4%
States
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Esquivel Hernandez Gerardo, Lopez Calva Luis F. & Velez Grajales Roberto (2003). Crecimiento economico, desarrollo humano y desigualdad regional en Mexico 1950-2000. Sexto Informe
de Gobierno, 2006. Informe sobre Desarrollo Humano Mexico 2006-2007, Migracion y desarrollo humano. UNDP. INEGI
14
Table 2. Public spending and development supports
Millions of Pesos as of 2002
2005
2006
2007
Information Source
19,077
SHCP. Report on Economic Situation, Public
20,205 Finances and Public Debt, Fourth Quarter 2005 and
2006
270
Report on Economic Situation, Public Finances and
Public Debt, Fourth Quarter 2005, 2006 and 2007.
299 Federal Spending Budget 2005, 2006 and 2007.
Second State to the Nation Report 2008. Statistic
Appendix.
31
41
Report on Economic Situation, Public Finances
and Public Debt, Fourth Quarter 2005, 2006 and
35
2007. First State to the Nation Report 2007. Statistic
Appendix. Page 204
Public spending in health
(Millions of pesos)
1,960
2,091
1,732
First State to the Nation Report 2007. Page 56
Second State to the Nation Report 2008. Page 104
Public spending in education
(Millions of pesos)
2,813
3,020
3,148
First State to the Nation Report 2007. Page 56
Second State to the Nation Report 2008. Page 104
Total Public Spending
(Millions of Pesos)
Public spending in cash
transfers and household
income generation programs
(Millions of pesos)
Public spending in child
nutrition (Millions of
pesos)***
17,127
266
**Budgeted expenditures
***”Oportunidades” educational component was not included in this row in order to avoid duplications of amounts.
Public spending in cash transfers and income generation programs refers to the budget of “Oportunidades” and Senior Adults program
Public spending in child nutrition refers to Diconsa, Liconsa and Scholar Breakfasts budget.
Public spending in health and education refers to programmable spending of the Public Sector Budget
Additional inequalities exist with respect to access
to basic services because of the complexity to offer
basic services such as electricity and sanitation to
small rural isolated communities, of which there
are over 100,000 in Mexico Additionally, urban
infrastructure in schools and health clinics tends
to be much superior to that in rural areas, perhaps
reflecting historical inequalities in government
expenditure. (Parker, 2008).
health services. This not only affects the situation of
poverty in which the children currently live, but also
increases the probability that the children continue
being poor when they become adults.
1.3 Macroeconomic strategies
and resources allocation
Public budgets and partnerships as evidence of
commitment
The government’s expenditures in the sections of
education and health represent one of the main
variables for attempting to reduce existing disparities of the population. However, historically,
the federal expenditures have been regressive in
the areas of education and health. Scott (2008)
shows the high inequality that exists in the federal
expenditure on high school and university. Likewise, there is are a number of subsidies which are
regressive (for example, the subsidy to energy is
absorbed by almost 35% of the population of the
top income decile, Scott, 2008). Additionally, Parker
(2008) shows that the characteristics of the schools
to which children of lesser resources go are significantly worse than those of children in wealthier
households.
In Mexico public spending has been increasing in
real terms during the last decades. (although its
growth has been interrupted by economic crises).
While in the decade of the seventies social spending
represented around 4.5% of GDP, at the beginning
of the eighties it represented almost 9% of GDP,
as a product of large increases in the expansion of
public education, health and social security systems.
After its collapse in 1982 and in 1994 public spending recovered to almost 11% of GDP in 2005 (Scott,
2008). During 2008 social spending of the budgetary
public sector ascended to 2 billion 865 thousand 298
million pesos, this amount was 9.8% higher in real
terms compared to the budget of the previous year.
(SHCP, 2008). The highlights are the real increases
in budget allocated to 1) urbanization, housing and
regional development, 2) social assistance and 3)
potable water and sewage (20.3, 14.6 and 13.0%,
respectively, SHCP 2008).
As will be demonstrated throughout this Report,
in addition to the low income, there are other
dimensions of poverty that affect children, including the lack of education and the lack of access to
15
Table 3. Data related to childhood regarding Household Income –Key Budget Allocation
Millions of pesos
as of 2002
Cash for human
development
programs
Cash for labor
programs
Price subsidies,
tax exemptions
Total
spending
in 2005
261
221
1,644
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2005
1.5
1.3
9.6
Total
spending
in 2006
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2006
267
1.4
320
1.6
2,103
11.0
Total
spending
in 2007
297
205
2,448
Total spending
as % of
government
spending in
2007
Data Source
1.5
Report on Economic
Situation, Public
Finances and Public
Debt, Fourth Quarter
2005, 2006 and 2007.
Second State to the
Nation Report 2008.
Statistic Appendix.
1.0
Report on Economic
Situation, Public
Finances and Public
Debt, Fourth Quarter
2005, 2006 and 2007
12.1
Report on Economic
Situation, Public
Finances and Public
Debt, Fourth Quarter
2005, 2006 and 2007
Social pensions
(seniority and
disability )
1,552
9.1
1,705
8.9
1,888
9.3
Report on Economic
Situation, Public
Finances and Public
Debt, Fourth Quarter
2005, 2006 and 2007
Other – support
programs for
senior adults
5
0.03
3
0.01
53
0.3
Federal Expenditure
Budget 2005, 2006
and 2007
Note: Information on social programs refers to budgeted spending, while subsidies, pension, motherhood and fatherhood benefits and child and families allocations information refers to the actual exercised
spending.
Public spending for human development programs refers to “Oportunidades” Program budget.
Public spending for labor programs in 2005 includes: Program for Temporary Employment, Priority Groups and Regions, Productive Re-conversion Program, National Support Fund for Companies in “Solidaridad”
(Solidarity) (FONAES), and Productive Options. For 2006 and 2007 it includes Agri-Food and Fishing Chains, Priority Groups and Regions, Productive Re-conversion, FONAES and Productive Options
Subsidies of prices and tax exemptions are targeted to social development, economic growth and government actions. They include gasoline subsidies; Luz y Fuerza (light) to support electric energy costs; decentralization and relocation agreements in federal entities encompassed in the Alliance for the Countryside Program; subsidies to the States destined to support education at medium high, high school and superior
levels; Scholarship Program and CONAFE Financing; highly specialized hospitals equipment for the health sector, between others.
Social pensions (seniority and disability) include those granted by IMSS, ISSSTE, CFE, LFC and PEMEX.
Others: in 2005 and 2006 refers to the Senior Adult Program in Rural Areas; in 2007 it refers to the Attention Program for Adults of 70 years and on in Rural Areas.
In 2007 the fractions of the spending in education and
health occupied approximately 24% of the total public
spending in Mexico (Table 2, SHCP). From the social
development spending, the percentage dedicated to
anti poverty programs. was approximately 47%. Specifically, Oportunidades (which is categorized as public spending in cash transfers and income generation
to combat extreme poverty), is the social program
with the highest budget, using approximately 26% of
the spending destined to anti poverty programs.
progressive expenditures in order to ensure that
those in poorer areas have similar health and education services than those in wealthier areas.
Table 3 (SHCP) shows that 1.5% of the public spending is destined to human development programs
(Oportunidades) and that 1.02% is destined to programs to support and promote jobs (including the
Temporary Employment Program, the National Fund
of Supports for Companies in Solidaridad). It is important to highlight that close to 12% of government
spending is composed of price subsides (mainly
destined to gasoline, electric energy and Procampo).
9% of government spending is destined to pensions
of the systems of social security.
The increase of the social spending in real terms,
and specifically of the expenditures destined to
combat poverty, reflects that the Mexican government has been seeking to improve the living conditions of those in poverty. Additional efforts however
should include not only increasing generally social
spending on education and health but engaging in
Regarding the resources dedicated to nutrition, it
can be seen that they are very low (Table 4, SHCP).
16
Table 4. Data related to childhood regarding Nutrition –Key Budget Allocations
Millions of pesos
as of 2002
Communitarian
services targeted to
nutrition and health
(growth promotion,
supplementary
food)
Nutrition services
at institutions
(severe
undernourishment
treatment)
Procurement of
micronutrients
supplements
Selective food
assistance
Total
spending
in 2005
5.4
19.3
83.1
8.2
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2005
0.03
0.1
0.5
0.05
Total
spending
in 2006
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2006
11.00
0.1
23.74
0.1
88.88
0.5
10.25
0.05
Total
spending
in 2007
16.50
24.66
114.19
21.38
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2007
Data Source
0.1
First State to the
Nation Report 2007,
page 204. Statistic
Appendix (Public
Expenditure on
Poverty Reduction
Programs). Second
State to the Nation
Report 2008. Statistic
Appendix (Food
Support Programs,
page 245). Report on
Economic Situation,
Public Finances and
Public Debt, Fourth
Quarter 2005, 2006
and 2007
0.1
First State to the
Nation Report 2007,
page 204. Statistic
Appendix. Report on
Economic Situation,
Public Finances and
Public Debt, Fourth
Quarter 2005, 2006
and 2007.
0.6
Sixth State to the
Nation Report 2006,
page 37
Federal Finance
Ministry Account
2007. Public Spending
Policy.
0.1
Report on Economic
Situation, Public
Finances and Public
Debt, Fourth Quarter
2005, 2006 and 2007.
Second State to the
Nation Report 2008.
Statistic Appendix
Food Support
Programs, page 245).
Communitarian services targeted to nutrition and health (growth promotion, supplementary food) refers to Liconsa Program
Nutrition services at institutions (severe undernourishment treatment) refers to Scholar Breakfasts Program
Procurement of micronutrients supplements refers to the food component of Oportunidades
Selective food assistance refers to Rural Supply Program and Food Support Program
Programs like Liconsa, School Breakfasts, Nutrition
Supports receive less than 1% of social spending
(specifically the nutritional component of Oportunidades represented 0.57% of total government
spending focused on micronutrients supply). Health
spending on the population in poverty conditions
(like immunization programs, prenatal and neonatal
programs and reproductive health) has been relatively constant at a very low level (Table 5, PEF).
Regarding childhood protection, it is important to
mention that in the last few years an important
effort has been performed to increase the budget on
child care, specifically through the Child Care Center
17
Table 5. Data related to childhood regarding Health –Key Budget Allocations
Millions of
pesos as of
2002
Total
spending
in 2005
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2005
Total
spending
in 2006
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2006
Total
spending
in 2007
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2007
Data Source
Immunization
programs
0.03
0.0002
9
0.05
6.4
0.03
Federal Expenditure Budget,
Subdivision 12. 2005, 2006
and 2007
Prenatal
attention
programs
3.8
0.02
3.9
0.02
3.8
0.02
Federal Expenditure Budget,
Subdivision 12. 2005, 2006
and 2007
Neonatal
attention
programs
10.5
0.06
9.6
0.05
9.8
0.05
Federal Expenditure Budget,
Subdivision 12. 2005, 2006
and 2007
Reproductive
health and
support for
mothers
2.4
0.01
4.6
0.02
2.8
0.01
Federal Expenditure Budget,
Subdivision 12. 2005, 2006
and 2007
Expenditure in immunization programs includes the budgeted expenditure in vaccines programs and the procurement of consumables for those programs.
Expenditure in prenatal attention programs correspond to the budgeted expenditure of the National Institute of Perinatology Isidro Espinosa de los Reyes each year.
Expenditure in neonatal attention includes both the budgeted expenditure of the National Institute of Perinatology Isidro Espinosa de los Reyes and the National Pediatrics Institute.
Expenditure in reproductive health and support for mothers corresponds to the budgeted expenditure of the National Center of Gender Equity and Reproductive Health.
Table 6. Data related to childhood regarding Infancy Protection – Key Budget Allocations
Millions of pesos
as of 2002
Family Support
Services *
Total
spending
in 2007
Total spending as
% of government
spending in 2007
5.9
0.03
Data Source
Second State of the Nation Report 2008. Statistic Appendix
(Expenditure in the main programs for poverty reduction, page 243).
* Family support services refers to the Nursery And Children Houses Program
Program created in 2007. This program grants a cash
monthly support to mothers and single fathers that
live in poverty condition to register their children
in a child care facility. Also, the Program grants up
to $35,000 to individuals or groups that desire to
establish or operate a child care facility. The budget
of this program increased from 731 million pesos in
2007 to 1,500 million pesos in 2008 (Table 6, State
to the Nation Report 2008). This program allows
those mothers with an income of maximum 6 minimum salaries, to have available time to look for and
obtain a stable job.
relation to national income: during the 1995-2005
period, spending in educational institutions in
Mexico increased from 5.6 to 6.5% of GDP, this level
is actually above OECD’s mean of 5.8%. Nevertheless because of Mexico’s relatively lower GDP than
other OECD countries, spending per student at all
academic levels (excluding preschool education)
in Mexico is US$2,405, that is, lower that OECD’s
mean of US$7,527. In addition, the largest part of the
spending is absorbed by teachers’ remuneration.
In primary only 2.3% of the spending is destined to
capital expenditures (long term assets, as installations and equipment), compared to OECD’s average
of 8.9%. In secondary that spending is 2.7% compared to OECD’s average 7.8%; and at college level
it is of 4.5%, compared to OECD’s average of 9.5%.
(OECD, 2008).
Education receives significant resources from the
government (Table 7, State of the Nation Reports).
In 2007 2.3% of government spending was allocated
to preschool education, 6% to primary education,
almost 4% to secondary education (junior high)
and 2% to high secondary education (high school –
general and technological).
In general, the outlook presented by OECD on Mexico indicates that, despite the important increase
experienced in education investment over time, this
has not translated into a significant improvement of
school performance.
Mexico has registered increases in its investment
in education, not only in absolute terms, but also in
18
Table 7. Data related to childhood regarding Children Education – Key Budget Allocations
Millions of
pesos as of
2002
Pre-school
teaching
Elementary
teaching
Total
spending
in 2005
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2005
Total
spending
in 2006
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2006
Total
spending
in 2007
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2007
406
2.37
445
2.3
468
2.3
First State to the Nation
Report 2007, page 276.
Statistic Appendix, page
16
6.1
First State to the Nation
Report 2007, page 276.
Statistic Appendix, page
16
1,199
7.00
1,246
6.5
1,233
Data Source
Lower
secondary
teaching
760
4.44
794
4.2
804
3.9
First State to the Nation
Report 2007, page 276.
Statistic Appendix, page
16
Higher
secondary
teaching
(general and
technological
high school)
590
3.45
625
3.3
430
2.1
First State to the Nation
Report 2007, page 276.
Statistic Appendix, page
16
Note: Real expenditure.
In summary, despite the elevated expenditure levels in relation to GDP and also in relation to public
resources, the expenditure per student remains
low in absolute terms. Practically all the spending
in education is linked to salaries. Compared to
other countries, Mexico dedicates a much smaller
part of the spending to schools infrastructures and
teaching material.
In general, in the case of Mexico, GDP’s increases
per capita have provoked the reduction of the
proportion of the population that lives in monetary poverty conditions. Specifically, Programs
like Oportunidades have also favored the social
development of the poor. The transfers of Oportunidades represent a secure income for beneficiaries.
Whereas macroeconomic fluctuations might affect
the labor income of the beneficiaries, transfers
from Oportunidades are guaranteed and updated
each year for inflation according to the price of the
basic basket), reducing with this the impact of negative macroeconomic downturns. Other programs
oriented to the poor and to children include Child
Care Centers, Seguro Popular insurance program
and the Health Insurance for the New Generation
(SMNG).
Growth in favor of the poor
and results in favor of children
Growth in favor of the poor can be defined in
different ways (see Ravallion, 2005), but it generally implies economic growth that causes the
reduction of the percentage of people living in
poverty conditions. Nevertheless, as pointed by
Ravallion (2005), there are few factors that can
predict which countries with economic growth
have a higher reduction of their poverty levels. In
his research, Ravallion shows that it is less probable that the countries with constant inequalities
and inequities have growth in favor of the poor.
Given the general lack of a “formula” to ensure
and promote this type of growth, the government
should have policies aimed at a better distribution of the gains derived from growth towards
the poor.
Chapter’s Conclusions
In matter of social development, it is important to
mention the important advance of Mexico with the
creation of the General Social Development Act
(LGDS) in 2004, whose law formalizes the evaluation
of social policy and creates the CONEVAL. The Law
also establishes that the federal budget destined to
social spending cannot be inferior, in real terms, to
the one of the previous fiscal year.
19
Currently all social programs in Mexico that have
published Operating Rules have to be evaluated
and monitored. Additionally, there is now official
poverty lines for the definition and measurement
of poverty (there are three official poverty lines:
alimentary, capacities and wealth), that allows to
perform comparative analysis on the evolution
of poverty in the country. Also the LGDS orders
CONEVAL to establish the methodology and criteria
to initiate a multidimensional measurement of
poverty. The guidelines and criteria that CONEVAL
establishes to define, measure and identify poverty
will use information on indicators about current
income per capita, educative lag, and the access to
health and social security services, characteristics
of the dwelling, alimentation and social cohesion
(LGDS, 2005).
compared with other populations. Unfortunately, in
addition to higher poverty, these groups generally
have access to worse health and education services
than other groups.
Mexico is undergoing a number of transitions;
the life expectancy at birth has increased and
contagious illnesses have ceased to be the main
causes of death. However, chronic diseases, and the
proportion of the population who are overweight or
obese have increased significantly in Mexico.
In educational terms, the average schooling of
the Mexicans has increased, on average currently
about 7 years of schooling, but there continue
to be a population who cannot read or write. A
significant percentage of children do not attend
school; there are high rates of grade failure, and
the indigenous have much worse education indicators than the rest of the population. Also, there
are great disparities between the performance of
children between states. While in Chiapas 30.4% of
the children failed a year during primary in 2006,
in the Federal District only 7.4% did so.
Mexico has a relatively high per capita GDP and is
classified as a medium high income country. Nevertheless, a high percentage of its population still lives
in poverty conditions. Particular groups, including
the indigenous, and those living in rural areas,
have greater degrees of poverty and deprivations
20
STUDY ON
POVERTY AND
DISPARITIES IN
CHILDHOOD:
THE CASE OF
MEXICO
Section Two:
Poverty and Childhood
Introduction
represents approximately 3.6 million households.
(Table 2.1.1, ENIGH)
In this chapter the topic of child poverty is analyzed
using a number of different indicators (including income/consumption, deprivations and child
mortality). Each one of these concepts is examined
through micro level disaggregated data, with the
purpose of analyzing how the individual’s, household’s and community’s characteristics influence
children’s poverty conditions.
As per international standards (less than one dollar
per day per capita), 3.8% of households found themselves in conditions of extreme poverty in 2005,
which corresponds to approximately 974 thousand
households. (Table 2.1.1, ENIGH)
In 2005 there were close to 17.7 million households
with children between 0 and 17 years. Almost 25%
of the children in Mexico lived in conditions of
alimentary poverty (close to ten million children)
in that year. 33% lived in conditions of poverty of
capacities (close to 13.4 million children), and 57%
lived in conditions of poverty of patrimony (23.5 million children). As per the international standard of
less than one dollar per day per capita, this proportion is 8%, which corresponds to approximately 3.3
million children (Table 2.1.1, ENIGH)
2.1 Income poverty and
deprivations that affect children
Findings of the
income/consumption approach
There are three poverty lines which are used to
make official measurements of poverty in Mexico.
These lines are: poverty of alimentation, of capacities and of patrimony. In the Report we emphasize
those statistics based on the strictest version, poverty of alimentation, which defines itself as the lack
of sufficient income to purchase a basic food basket.
Using this definition, the levels of poverty have
been slightly decreasing within the period of 1992
to 2005 (though the 1995 financial crisis temporarily increased the poverty rates up to 29%). In 1992
16% of households lived in conditions of alimentary
poverty (close to 3 million homes), and in 2005 14%
of the households lived in these conditions, which
The analysis of the correlation of income/consumption poverty in households with children (Table
2.1.2, ENNViH 2002) shows that close to 40% of
the households with children lived in conditions of
alimentation poverty in 002.13 There are few differ13 This chart emphasizes the differences on the percentage of households with children that live in
alimentation poverty conditions as per the ENNViH (40%) and the ENIGH (19%). In general, the ENNViH reports larger incomes at both extremes of the income distribution than the ENIGH. One reason
why the difference is so large may be because of the elimination by ENIGH of those households that
delivered incomplete questionnaires. However, in spite of the identification of this difference between
both sources, the pattern of eliminated households in the ENIGH is not clear (see Rascon and Rubalcava 2008 for more information on this subject).
21
Table 2.1.1 Trends in income/consumption poverty since 1990
1992
1994
2002
2005
- by national poverty line 1 (food poverty)
19.3
18.5
19.0
17.2
- by national poverty line 2 (poverty of capacities)
27.2
27.0
26.0
23.7
- by national poverty line 3 (poverty of patrimony)
51.2
50.4
50.4
47.7
- by international poverty line
5.7
6.2
5.9
5.0
- by national poverty line 1 (food poverty)
16.4
29.1
15.6
14.1
- by national poverty line 2 (poverty of capacities)
23.1
23.2
21.4
19.5
- by national poverty line 3 (poverty of patrimony)
44.5
43.6
42.4
39.6
- by international poverty line
4.6
5.0
4.4
3.8
- by national poverty line 1 (food poverty)
27.1
27.2
26.5
24.7
- by national poverty line 2 (poverty of capacities)
36.9
37.8
34.9
32.7
- by national poverty line 3 (poverty of patrimony)
61.8
61.6
60.2
57.5
- by international poverty line
9.3
10.4
8.8
8.2
Poverty headcount among households with children 0-17 (%)
Poverty headcount among all households (%)
Number of children in poverty (%)
National poverty 1 refers to the alimentation poverty threshold of the household (incapacity of acquiring a basic food basket even though all income available was used for that purpose). National poverty line 2
refers to those households that have less income per capita than the necessary for acquiring basic alimentation, health and education. National poverty line 3 refers to those households that have less income per
capita than the necessary for acquiring basic alimentation, clothing, dwelling, health, education and transportation.
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2002,2005, CONEVAL.
ence by gender when poverty is analyzed at the
individual level. Poverty rates at the individual level
are highest for children aged 0 to 14 and for the
elderly. (Table 2.1.2, ENNViH).
in rural areas, within lower level quintiles, or when
living in the South-Southeast region of the country,
poverty conditions are greater. For example, 53% of
households with children within the lowest quintile
of wealth lived in poverty conditions compared to
19% of households with children in the last quintile
(Table 2.1.2, ENNViH 2002).
At the household level it is found that households
with children and that have a larger number of
members live in worse conditions (54% of those in
households with over seven members lived in conditions of poverty compared to the 36% of households with less than 3 members). Similarly, when
the head of the household does not have a primary
level education, or has no secondary level education, the household probability of being in poverty
is higher (53% lived in poverty when the head has
no studies and 48% when he/she has studied only
primary level). When the head of the house is a
woman, or when he or she is of indigenous origin,
When the levels of poverty are calculated according to the labor force participation of the parents, it
is also observed that when neither of them works
poverty worsens (47% in households with children
where neither of the parents works lived in conditions of poverty, while 24% of the households with
children where both worked lived with this condition). Likewise, households with single parents
have very high poverty levels (48%). (Table 2.1.2,
ENNViH 2002).
22
Table 2.1.2 Correlates of income/consumption poverty among households with children
Poverty headcount
rate (%)
Poverty gap ratio (income/consumption
shortfall as proportion of poverty line)
40.8
0.2
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
40.9
0.2
Age group 1 (0-14)
46.7
0.2
Age group 2 (15-24)
37.1
0.2
Age group 3 (25-44)
36.4
0.2
Age group 4 (45-64)
35.7
0.1
Age group 5 (65- )
42.1
0.3
Female
40.6
0.2
Age group 1 (0-14)
44.3
0.2
Age group 2 (15-24)
38.3
0.2
Age group 3 (25-44)
38.1
0.2
Age group 4 (45-64)
37.9
0.1
Age group 5 (65- )
43.2
0.3
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
36.1
0.1
3-4 members
31.5
0.1
5-6 members
38.9
0.2
7+
54.4
0.2
53.1
0.3
48
0.2
27.8
0.1
Male
39.4
0.2
Female
48.1
0.2
53.6
0.3
Q2
47
0.2
Q3
42.1
0.1
Q4
23.2
0.1
Q5
19.3
0.1
61.3
0.3
Mexico, 2002
All households with children (0-17)
Education of the head of the household
None
Primary
Secondary+
Gender of the head of the household
Wealth index quintiles
Q1 (poorest)
Ethnicity/language/religion
Group 1: Indigenous
23
(Continued from previous page)
Poverty headcount
rate (%)
Poverty gap ratio (income/consumption
shortfall as proportion of poverty line)
36.6
0.1
Both parents working
24.7
0.1
None of the parents are working
47.5
0.2
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
44.8
0.2
At least one child under 15 working
39.7
0.1
Access to land in rural areas
55.1
0.2
Adult(s) with chronic illness
33.3
0.2
Child/children with disability
62.2
0.2
48.1
0.2
Orphan child in household
N/I
N/I
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
71.5
0.4
Elder (70+) person in household
43.9
0.2
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz,
Yucatan)
59.3
0.2
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla,
Morelos).
30.7
0.1
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco,
Guanajuato).
42.1
0.2
37
0.2
32.7
0.1
Urban
34.3
0.1
Rural
59.6
0.2
Mexico, 2002
Group 2: Not Indigenous
Work (not mutually exclusive categories)
Illness and disability in the household
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive
categories)
Single parent
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa,
Sonora).
Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo
Leon)
Residence
Exchange rate using at day October 14th. $12.00
Poverty gap ratio is the mean distance separating the population from the poverty line (with the non-poor being given a distance of zero), expressed as a percentage of the poverty line.
National poverty line is in rural areas $494.78 and in urban areas $672.27
Wealth index quintile define as the cost of the assets that have the household
Single parent define as a woman that is the head of the household
The poverty gap ratio is the sum of the income gap ratios for the population below the poverty line, divided by the total population
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey, MXFLS 2002 (ENNVIH)
Definitions and sources: Orphan children are considered those for whom one or both biological parents are dead (MICS HL9=2 or HL11=2). DHS asks also on foster status which is not available from MICS. A
vulnerable child is defined as a child who lives in a household where parents have been chronically ill or adult death after a chronic illness or any adult household member has been sick for 3 of 12 months preceding
the survey. Children with disability are available from the MICS for 2-9 year olds only (if Mexico has elected to have a disability module).
24
Table
2.1.4, ENNViH). In this case, severe deprivation
refers to children who live in homes with five
or more persons, with dirt floors and the lesser
deprivation refers to children in homes with four or
more persons living in houses with an inappropriate roof or dirt floors. With regard to sanitation, the
overview is more encouraging since only close to
7% (3 million) children experimented severe deprivations in 2002 (they do not have access to sanitary premises of any kind); though there are still
20% of children with this deprivation (close to 8
million) in a less severe degree (they use latrines).
In terms of lack of water, 9.6% of the children (3.8
million) have severe deprivations (they use rivers,
wells or walk 30 minutes or more to get water),
and 1% (4.4 million) experienced a less severe
privation (they take water from a tap or walk 30
minutes or more to get it (Table 2.1.4, ENNViH).
Households with children younger than 17 years old
Income quintile
% of indigenous
1
28
2
21
3
11
4
11
5
06
Source: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
Table
All households
Income quintile
% of indigenous
1
26
2
17
3
14
4
08
5
06
With regard to nutritional issues, only 3% of
children (1.2 million) surpassed three standard
deviations under the international reference for
their BMI (Body Mass Index) to their age in 2002.
Close to 12% of the children (5.1 million) lived this
deprivation in a less severe manner, namely, over
two standard deviations under the international
reference (Table 2.1.4, ENNViH 2002).
Source: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
Summarizing, the above table shows that there
is a high level of poverty within households with
children and that these conditions intensify when
dealing with households with which are larger, in
rural or indigenous areas.
With respect to access to information, 11% of the
children (3.9 million) suffered this deprivation in a
severe manner (children between 3 and 17 years
who have no access to television, Internet or do
not read) and close to 30% (9.9 million) suffered it
in a less severe manner (children between 3 and
17 years of age and adults without access to television or Internet). On education, there are important
severe deprivations, 12% of children between 7
and 17 years old have never attended school or did
not currently attend school), which corresponds to
3.1 million children (Table 2.1.4, ENNViH 2002).
The indigenous population in Mexico usually lives
in very precarious conditions, without access to
quality basic services. Close to 28% of indigenous
households with children under the age of 17 are in
the lowest income quintile, versus only 6% are in
the highest income quintile.
Findings of the deprivation approach
Finally, with respect to deprivations on access to
health, close to 25% of the children (9.9 million)
reported to not have received vaccination or to
have visited the doctor due to a recent disease
related to a respiratory infection or diarrhea, or
both (severe deprivation). Close to 40% of the
children (15.7 million) had not been vaccinated
since age two (Table 2.1.4, ENNViH 2002).
In this section the concept of childhood poverty is
analyzed as per the deprivations of dwelling, sanitation, water, information, nutrition, health and education, and as per the degree of severity of these,
making a distinction between each deprivation as of
less severe and severe.
In general, there is a high percentage of children
who experiment severe conditions of dwelling
deprivation –almost 27%, which corresponds to
10.6 million children- and less severe -41.3%, which
corresponds to 16.5 million children- in 2002 (Table
It is interesting to analyze the trends on the
incidence of poverty with respect to the different
deprivations (Table 2.1.5, ENIGH). Here we show
results with the ENIGH in order to make compari-
25
Table 2.1.4 Child poverty as multiple deprivations
Of which experiencing
‘severe’ deprivation, %
Of which experiencing
‘less severe’
deprivation, %
26.7
41.3
2. Sanitation
7.5
20.2
3. Water
9.6
11.1
4. Information
11.6
29.1
5. Food
3.1
12.8
6. Education
12.3
11.9
7. Health
24.8
39.3
Total
b) The incidence of the most frequent combinations of deprivations
The most frequent case of any deprivation: Shelter
26.7
41.3
Two most frequent combinations Shelter & health
7.6
17.7
Two second most frequent combinations Health & Information
2.8
10.9
Three most frequent combinations: Shelter, Health & Information
1.9
6.4
Three second most frequent combinations: Health, Information &
Education
0.3
0.8
The most frequent associate of food: Food & Shelter
1.8
8.1
The most frequent associate of education: Education & Shelter
2.5
3.3
The most frequent associate of health: Health & Shelter
7.6
17.7
Only one (any) deprivation
32.6
30.4
Two of any deprivations
14.3
23.5
Three of any deprivations
5.9
12.6
Four of any deprivations
2.1
6.8
Five of any deprivations
0.3
2.2
Six of any deprivations
0.1
0.5
0
0.01
Mexico, 2002
a) Incidence (prevalence) of deprivation
1. Shelter
c) The incidence of multiple deprivations
Seven of any deprivations
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
sons in time, although for two specific deprivations it was not possible to construct deprivation
indexes (nourishment and health only) due to the
lack of information from ENIGH to construct these
indicators. The results show that there has been a
significant reduction in the proportion of children
who experience severe deprivations in sanita-
tion, going from 23% (9 million) in 1994 to 5%
(1.9 million) in 2005; in water, from 18% (7 million
children) to 2% (almost 800 thousand children) in
the same years; and in the area of information,
going from 15% (5 million) in 1994 to just 6% (2.2
million) in 2005. However, the advance in education has not been as encouraging, in 1995 19% of
26
Table 2.1.5 Change in the incidence/prevalence of severe deprivations over the last decade among children
2005
1994
Number of children in
relevant age cohort,
(estimates in 1,000s)
Of which experiencing
‘severe’ deprivation, %
Number of children in
relevant age cohort,
(estimates in 1,000s)
Of which experiencing
‘severe’ deprivation, %
1. Shelter
38,785
24.4
39,030
26.1
2. Sanitation
38,785
5.1
39,030
23.3
3. Water
38,785
2.1
39,030
17.9
4. Information
33,170
6.6
32,943
15.3
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
24,722
13.1
24,046
18.9
7. Health*
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
38,785
9.4
39,030
22.5
Mexico
5. Food*
6. Education
Two severe
deprivations*
N/A: not applicable. N/I: no information obtained.
* Note: Information is not available in the ENIGH
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 1994, 2005.
the children (4.5 million) did not go to school or
had never gone to school and in 2005 this proportion was 13% (3.2 million)14. It is important to point
out that while in 1994 almost 22% of the children
experienced at least two severe deprivations, only
9% did so in 2005.
With respect to the indigenous population, 75% experienced at least one severe deprivation and 48%
experienced at least two severe deprivations, while
51% of the non-indigenous households experienced
at least one severe deprivation and 17% at least
two severe deprivations. If living in rural areas or in
the South-Southeast of the country, the percentage
of households that experience at least one or two
severe deprivations increases considerably with
regard to urban areas or other geographical areas in
this country (Table 2.1.6, ENNViH 2002).
Within the same analysis, the table 2.1.6 (ENNViH
2002) shows the variables associated to having at
least one or two severe deprivations. Nation-wide,
close to 55% of the children lived with some kind
of deprivation in 2002 and 22% with at least two
deprivations. When making the differentiation by
gender there are slightly more women who experience at least one severe deprivation (56%), versus
54% of men.
Furthermore, when there is a high rate of dependency (more than four children per adult) the proportion
of children who live with at least one severe deprivation is greater.
As was the case for monetary poverty, for the case
of deprivations, households where the head of
family is a woman or the mother has no education, they find themselves in worse conditions
with regard to the deprivations they experience.
Similarly, when the household finds itself within
the lowest wealth quintile, 70% of the children suffered at least one severe deprivation, compared to
38% of the wealthiest quintile (Table 2.1.6, ENNViH
2002).
When analyzing by region and residence condition (Table 2.1.8, ENNViH 2002) it is found that the
South-Southeast15 region, is the one that has the
highest levels of deprivations, measured by the
level of deprivation in practically all of the deprivations (including dwelling, sanitation, water, information, alimentation and health). In each one of
these indicators this region has the largest poverty
deprivations, while the Northeast region (Coahuila,
Durango and Nuevo Leon) presents the lowest
14 It is very important to mention that, in general, the level of deprivation in children with ENNViH
and ENIGH are very similar, except for the deprivation of water. Probably, this last item is due to the
fact that with ENNViH there are questions about the characteristics of the dwelling that have different
options to those in ENIGH and it is not possible to fully compare them, which affects the form in which
the variable was accrued to measure this deprivation. For more information about the creation of the
indexes on deprivations of ENNViH and ENIGH see Exhibit 3.
15 It is appropriate to keep in mind that the ENNViH is representative nation-wide, urbanely, rurally,
and it divides the Mexican Republic into 5 regions as per the National Development Plan, thus the outcome of the polled states by region (in the case of the South-Southeast region, the states of: Oaxaca,
Veracruz and Yucatan) are representative of the whole region (in the case of the South-Southeast
region, the states of Puebla, Campeche, Yucatan, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Guerrero
and Veracruz)
27
Table 2.1.6 Correlates of severe child deprivations (by individual, households and geographic dimensions)
Mexico, 2002
At least one severe deprivation
At least two severe deprivations
55.4
22.8
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
54.6
23
Age group 1 (0-2)
52.7
18.8
Age group 2 (3-4)
56.0
22.5
Age group 3 (5-9)
51.6
22.3
Age group 4 (10-14)
53.9
22.5
Age group 5 (15-17)
62.1
29.3
Female
56.2
22.6
Age group 1 (0-2)
53.2
20.6
Age group 2 (3-4)
53.4
19.9
Age group 3 (5-9)
54.2
21
Age group 4 (10-14)
55.3
22.6
Age group 5 (15-17)
66
28.9
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
68.9
17.7
3-4 members
40.2
10.7
5-6 members
56.8
21.4
7+
68.3
37
Total
Women’s education
None
79.1
51.3
Primary
64.6
29.5
Secondary+
38.8
8
Gender of the head of the household
Male
55
22.7
57.6
23.4
Q1 (poorest)
69.3
35.5
Q2
67.5
32.4
Q3
58.9
22.1
Q4
41.7
9.8
Q5
37.9
8.3
Female
Wealth index quintiles
28
(Continued from previous page)
Ethnicity/language/religion
Group 1: Indigenous
75.3
48.4
Group 2: Not Indigenous
51
17
Work (among hholds with children)
Both parents working
51.7
17.3
None of the parents are working
58.2
28
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
57.7
30.03
At least one child under 15 working
67.5
31.3
Adult(s) with chronic illness
55.2
20.8
Child/children with disability
14.4
7.58
57.67
23.4
Orphan child in household
N/I
N/I
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
76.4
44.7
Elder (70+) person in household
57.6
24.5
Region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz,
Yucatan)
74.6
44.3
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla,
Morelos).
50.9
16.8
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco,
Guanajuato).
55.5
20.6
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa,
Sonora).
46.7
12.8
Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo
Leon)
36.4
7.6
Urban
47.8
13.7
Rural
75.3
46.4
Illness and disability in the household
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive categories)
Single parent
Geographic dimension
Region
Residence
The variable women’s education contain the education of the children’s mother
Definitions: Orphan children are considered those for whom one or both biological parents are dead (MICS HL9=2 or HL11=2)
N/I: no information or Data
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
prevalence of deprivations in dwelling, sanitation, water, and health. The only case in which the
South-Southeast region does not have the greatest
deprivations is in that of education, this indicator
being worse in the Central West Region (Michoacan, Jalisco and Guanajuato). In this region close
to 10% of the children did not go to or does not go
to school (while in the south region this indicator is
6%). It is also important to remark that, in the case
of nutrition, the Northeast area (Baja California Sur,
Sinaloa and Sonora) has the lowest prevalence
of poverty (0.73% compared to 6% in the South-
29
Table 2.1.8 Prevalence of seven severe deprivations by region and residence
Mexico
Shelter
Sanitation
Water
Information
Food
Education
Health
Region 1: South-Southeast
(Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan)
48.8
13.5
21.7
21.5
5.5
6.5
29.0
Region 2: Center (Distrito
Federal, Mexico, Puebla,
Morelos).
19.5
6.5
7.0
5.2
2.4
8.8
24.6
Region 3: Center-West
(Michoacan, Jalisco,
Guanajuato).
25.8
7.1
7.9
7.5
3.1
9.9
24.9
Region 4: Northwest (Baja
California Sur, Sinaloa,
Sonora).
16.9
3.4
2.9
6.5
0.7
5.5
26.2
Region 5: Northeast
(Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo
Leon)
11.3
1.8
1.0
6.2
1.8
5.9
17.0
Urban
18.5
4.6
4.5
4.8
2.2
7.2
23.6
Rural
47.9
14.9
22.8
22.9
5.4
9.7
28.0
Region
Residence
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
Southeast area). This analysis also implies that
there is certain correlation between the incidences
of the deprivations, since it is likely that areas that
have high prevalence of one deprivation also have
high prevalence of the other deprivations (Table
2.1.8, ENNViH).
income. In general, there is a high and significant
correlation between the monetary income and the
deprivations on dwelling, sanitation, water and information, with correlations of about 0.20. However,
the correlation between income and deprivations on
education and health is much smaller –through positive and significant-, with a correlation coefficient of
0.003 and 0.007, respectively.
Table 2.1.8 also shows very clearly the numerous
disadvantages of the population living in rural areas. In these areas there are larger levels of deprivations in the categories related to dwelling, sanitation, water, information, food, education and health.
Furthermore, the differences between zones is quite
large. For example, 48% of the homes in rural areas
suffered shelter deprivations while this indicator is
of 19% in urban areas.
Table 2.1.10 (ENNViH 2002) examines the variables
related to the probability that a household with
children lives with less than one dollar per day per
capita. Close to 22% of the children lived in households with less than one dollar per day per capita in
2002. Furthermore, close to 16% of the children who
did not live under this situation of extreme poverty
continued to experience at least one severe deprivation.
Correlation among poverty
measures and combined poverty incidence
Close to 33% of the children who live in households with over seven inhabitants lived with less
than one dollar per day per capita, compared
to the 12% of households with less than three
members. Similarly, almost 38% of the children
whose mothers have no schooling lived in households with less than one dollar per capita per day,
in comparison to the 11% of the children whose
mothers have secondary education or more (Table
2.1.10, ENNViH 2002). There is also large differences in the proportion of children who live in
In this section, an analysis on the correlation
existing between the different measures of poverty
is presented, using disaggregated data on gender, age group, household size, education of the
mother, wealth quintiles, ethnicity, geographical
area, etc.
Table 2.1.9 (ENNViH 2002) shows the correlations
among the different deprivations and monetary
30
31
0.1
[0.01]***
0.1
[0.01]***
0.1
[0.02]***
0.0
[0.01]***
0.0
[0.01]**
[0.01]***
0.3
[0.01]***
0.2
[0.02]***
0.0
[0.01]
0.0
[0.01]
[0.11]
[0.14]***
0.2
0.1
0.6
[0.01]***
[0.06]***
[0.08]***
[0.01]***
0.4
0.5
0.1
[0.01]***
[0.01]***
0.3
0.2
0.3
[0.01]***
[0.01]***
[0.01]***
1.0
0.2
0.2
[0.01]***
0.3
0.1
1.0
Bottom
asset
quintile
(Q1)
[0.01]***
0.3
[0.01]***
0.4
[0.02]***
0.5
[0.01]***
0.6
[0.01]***
0.6
[0.01]***
0.6
[0.01]***
0.5
[0.12]***
0.8
[0.06]***
0.8
1.0
[0.01]***
0.2
[0.01]***
0.2
Two
deprivations
[0.001]***
0.0
[0.002]***
0.0
[0.003]
0.0
[0.002]***
0.0
[0.002]***
0.0
[0.002]***
0.0
[0.001]***
0.0
[0.015]***
0.1
1.0
[0.001]***
0.0
[0.001]***
0.0
[0.001]***
0.2
Shelter
0.3
0.6
0.7
0.3
1.0
[0.126]***
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.0
[0.001]*** [0.009]***
0.0
[0.001]*** [0.014]***
0.0
[0.002]*** [0.022]***
0.1
[0.001]*** [0.012]***
0.0
[0.001] [0.013]***
0.0
[0.001]*** [0.014]***
0.0
[0.001]***
0.0
1.0
[0.007]*** [0.071]***
0.0
[0.001]*** [0.007]***
0.0
[0.001] [0.009]***
0.0
[0.001]*** [0.008]***
0.0
(F,E, H)
(Sh, S, W, I)
0.0
Last three
deprivations
First four
deprivations
Correlation is significant at 10% level (*), 5% level **, or 1% level***. REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
Health
Education
Food
Inform.
Water
Sanitation
Shelter
Last three
First four
Two depr
Asset Q1
Hh. inc.
Mexico
Household
income
(1.08$ a
day per
person in
ppps)
Table 2.1.9 Correlation between different indicators for child poverty/disparity
0.1
Water
0.1
0.3
0.9
0.1
[0.084]
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
[0.005]*** [0.006]***
0.0
[0.008]*** [0.009]***
0.1
[0.013]*** [0.014]***
0.1
[0.007]*** [0.008]***
0.1
[0.008]***
0.1
[0.009]***
1.0
[0.005]*** [0.005]***
0.1
[0.073]***
0.5
[0.041]*** [0.046]***
0.9
[0.005]*** [0.005]***
0.2
[0.006]*** [0.006]***
0.1
[0.005]*** [0.005]***
0.1
Sanitation
Food
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.0
[0.025]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
[0.004]***
0.0
0.0
[0.007]*** [0.003]***
0.0
[0.010]*** [0.005]***
0.1
[0.019]***
0.2
1.0
[0.010]*** [0.005]***
0.2
[0.011]*** [0.005]***
0.1
[0.007]*** [0.003]***
0.2
[0.095]*** [0.042]***
0.5
[0.052]***
0.9
[0.006]*** [0.003]***
0.3
[0.007]*** [0.004]***
0.1
[0.006]*** [0.003]***
0.1
Information
[0.008]
0.0
1.0
[0.023]***
0.1
[0.011]***
0.1
[0.012]***
0.1
[0.014]***
0.1
[0.008]***
0.1
[0.096]***
0.9
[0.066]***
0.4
[0.008]***
0.3
[0.009]***
0.0
[0.007]
0.0
Education
0.0
1.0
[0.013]
0.0
[0.022]***
0.1
[0.012]***
0.0
[0.013]***
0.1
[0.014]***
0.1
[0.008]***
0.0
[0.123]***
0.8
[0.069]***
0.3
[0.008]***
0.3
[0.009]**
0.0
[0.008]
Health
Table 2.1.10 Combined child poverty incidence
Mexico, 2002
All children (0-17)
% of children in relevant category
who are experiencing less
who are experiencing severe
severe deprivation of human
Who live in households
deprivation of human need
need
under the 1$ day/person
ppp-s threshold
while their households live above the 1$ day/person ppp-s
threshold
22.8
16.0
19.4
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
23.1
15.9
19.8
Age group 1 (0-2)
20.9
14.4
18.6
Age group 2 (3-4)
23.8
17.3
20.1
Age group 3 (5-9)
24.7
16.8
21.5
Age group 4 (10-14)
23.7
16.0
20.6
Age group 5 (15-17)
20.5
14.4
16.2
Female
22.6
16.1
19.0
Age group 1 (0-2)
24
17.4
19.8
Age group 2 (3-4)
21.2
16.1
19.3
Age group 3 (5-9)
24.5
16.7
20.5
Age group 4 (10-14)
22.8
16.3
18.7
Age group 5 (15-17)
18.6
13.7
16.1
Less than 3
11.9
8.3
9.9
3-4 members
13.9
7.5
11.3
5-6 members
22.1
14.2
16.7
7+
33.31
27.2
31.5
None
37.3
32.6
36.1
Primary
29.9
22.4
26.5
Secondary+
11.3
5.1
7.6
Male
21.1
15.0
18.0
Female
31.4
21
26.4
Q1 (poorest)
33.6
27.3
31.1
Q2
27.5
23.2
26.0
Q3
17.7
11.6
15.0
Household dimension
Household size
Women’s education
Gender of the head of the
household
Wealth index quintiles
32
(Continued from previous page)
Q4
12.2
5.9
8.7
Q5
9.1
5.1
7.5
Ethnicity/language/religion
Group 1
39.3
35.0
38.4
Group 2
19.1
11.7
15.1
Both parents working
9.2
7.0
8.6
None of the parents are working
34.6
28.0
34.2
No adult in primary working age
(18-54)
24.7
16
22.5
At least one child under 15
working
18.2
13.7
16.3
Illness and disability in the
household
Adult(s) with chronic illness
15.2
11.7
14.0
Child/children with disability
58.6
36.3
53.8
Single parent
31.4
21
26.4
Orphan child in household
N/I
N/I
N/I
High dependency ratio
(4+children per adult)
54.0
41.5
45.5
Elder (70+) person in household
29.8
20.7
27.7
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1
36.7
31.7
34.9
Region 2
12.6
7.5
10.0
Region 3
27.6
18.7
23.8
Region 4
18
9.7
13.1
Region 5
16.6
6.7
9.3
Residence
Urban
15.7
8.7
11.8
Rural
41.3
35.0
39.2
Work (among hholds with
children)
Family vulnerability (not mutually
exclusive categories)
N/I: No information or Data. N/A: Not Applicable
The sub-national regions are: region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan). Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla, Morelos). Region 3: Center-Western (Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato).
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa, Sonora). Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon)
Groups of ethnicity: Group 1: Indigenous. Group 2: Not Indigenous
Exchange rate using at second quarter of 2002. $9.25
National poverty line is in rural areas $494.78 and in urban areas $672.27
Wealth index quintile define as the cost of the assets that have the household
Single parent define as a woman that is the head of the household
See definition for ‘severe’ and ‘less severe’ under Table 2.1.4
Definitions: Orphan children are considered those for whom one or both biological parents are dead (MICS HL9=2 or HL11=2)
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
33
Table 2.1.11 Children in public care or adopted
extreme poverty as per their indigenous status,
since 39% of children in indigenous households
lived with one dollar per day per capita, versus
19% of non-indigenous children.
Mexico
1990
1995
2000
2007
Total number
adoptions
N/I
N/I
N/I
3101
N/I: No information obtained.
The proportion of households with children who
live with less than one dollar per day per capita also
increases when there is a high ratio of children to
adults in the households, when a child is disabled or
when they living in rural areas.
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Sistema Nacional para el Desarrollo Integral de la Familia, 2008
Table 2.2.1 Change in U5MR by wealth quintile and gender
Mexico
1990
Total
1995
Total
2000
Total
2005
Total
2006
Total
2007
Total
U5MR
44.2
33.7
28.5
19.6
19.0
18.4
REFERENCE/SOURCE: CONAPO
Children deprived of a family upbringing missing
from household surveys
Alternative of Table 2.2.1
Proportion of infant deaths by decile 2000
All the analyses made to this point refer to children who appear in household surveys because
they belong to a household or family. However, in
Mexico there are many children who live outside
households and thus do not appear in these kind
of surveys. (such as ENIGH or the ENNViH). It is
evident that those children who live in public care
institutions or shelters of any type would likely be
very susceptible to live with high levels of deprivation.
Unfortunately, due to the shortage of available
information, it has not been possible to obtain
historical information on the total number of
children in foster care. It has also not been possible to obtain information on the total number
of adopted children who come from international
adoptions. However, through the SNDIF we were
able to obtain information on the number of adoptions performed in Mexico in 2007 (Table 2.2.11).
Here it can be seen that there were 2,200 regular
adoption trials and 973 adoption trials through
judgment.
Decile
Infant deaths (%)
1
21.3
2
14.2
3
11.2
4
8.8
5
8.7
6
7.6
7
7.6
8
7.1
9
7.3
10
6.3
100%
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Scott, J. 2006, “Desigualdad de la Salud y de la Atencion de la Salud en
Mexico”, Serie de Documentos de Trabajo 4, Innovacion en el Financiamiento de la Salud, FunsaludINSP.
By income decile, the lower income deciles have
a disproportionate share of child mortality, with
the first decile having 21% of all the child deaths in
2000, while the last decile of income has only 6% of
child mortality (Table 2.2.1, alternative).
2.2 Child survival and equity
U5MR by main social stratifiers
In the following section, results on infant and child
mortality rates are presented by gender and geographic area of residence. Furthermore, a regional
comparison on these indicators is provided.
By geographic dimensions (Table 2.2.2, SSA and
INEGI), in 2006 it can be seen that the infant mortality rate was larger for the South and Southeast area
(almost 19 deaths per every one thousand born
alive), while the Northeast area was the one that
presented the lowest indicator of child deaths (13.6
per each 1000 born alive).
Change in U5MR and differentials over time
The child mortality rate for five year olds and under
has been decreasing during the last years (Table 2.2.1,
CONAPO). While in 2005 this rate was 19.6 deaths per
thousand children born alive, in 2007 it was 18.4.
The rate of child mortality for under five years old
shows very similar trends, though the values are
somewhat larger than in the case of the child mor-
34
Table 2.2.2 Under 5 and infant mortality rates and their correlates
Infant
mortality rate
Under 5
mortality rate
15.7
18.4
Male
14.0
16.6
Female
10.8
13.0
Northeast (includes Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon,
Chihuahua and Durango and Coahuila)
13.6
18.7
Northwest (Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora and Sinaloa)
13.5
19.3
Center (Distrito Federal, Queretaro, Hidalgo, Tlaxcala, Morelos and Estado de Mexico)
15.3
20.8
Center West (Jalisco, Michoacan, Colima, Aguascalientes, Nayarit, Zacatecas, San Luis
Potosi and Guanajuato)
16.0
22.0
South and South East (Puebla, Campeche, Yucatan, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo,
Tabasco, Guerrero and Veracruz)
18.7
26.1
Mexico 2007
Total
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Household dimension
Geographic dimension
Region
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Total infant mortality rate and under five mortality rate come from CONAPO 2007. Infant mortality rate and under five mortality rate according to gender and to region come from Situacion
de la Salud en Mexico 2006, Indicadores Basicos, Secretaria de Salud
Table 2.2.3: Relationship between U5MR and income/consumption poverty at sub-national level
Mexico 2005
U5MR
Number of individuals under the hhold income/
consumption poverty threshold
Proportion of poor individuals
Region
Northeast
19.6
1,313,590
7.5
Northwest
20.1
759,469
4.3
Center
21.7
3,499,902
19.9
Center West
23.1
3,766,894
21.5
South and South East
27.4
8,170,108
46.6
Note: Poverty Threshold refers to alimentation poverty
Northeast region includes Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon and Coahuila; Northwest includes Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora, Sinaloa, Chihuahua and Durango. Center includes Distrito Federal, Queretaro,
Hidalgo, Tlaxcala, Puebla, Morelos and Estado de Mexico. Center West includes Jalisco, Michoacan, Colima, Aguascalientes, Nayarit, Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi and Guanajuato; and South-Southeast includes
Campeche, Yucatan, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Guerrero and Veracruz.
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2005, Situacion de Salud en Mexico 2005, Indicadores Basicos, Secretaria de Salud
tality rate. This indicator continues to be larger in the
case of males and for the South-Southeast zone of
the country.
Links between child mortality and poverty
Table 2.2.3 shows that the South-Southeast area is
the one that presents a largest child mortality rate
n 2005, in addition to the fact that the proportion
of persons who live in conditions of alimentary
poverty was also larger in this area (46% of the
individuals who live in this region lived under these
conditions of poverty in 2005). On the other hand,
the Northeast area presented both the lowest rate of
child mortality and the lowest proportion of individ-
It is also useful to note that the 100 municipalities with lowest Human Development index in
Mexico had a child mortality rate of 32.5 in 2007,
a much larger rate than the national average. To
this regard, one of the goals of the Health Sector
Program 2007-2012 is to reduce by 40% this rate
for 2012 (PROSESA).
35
uals who lived in conditions of alimentary poverty
(7.5%, that corresponds to 1.3 million individuals).
Hence, it can be seen that the regions with a higher
level of child mortality tend to be the regions with
greater child poverty.
larger than 7 persons. The gender of the head of the
family does also not affect the probability of suffering at least two types of deprivation. 16
In both regressions, the schooling of the woman has
a high negative relationship to the probability of suffering deprivations, with less schooling increasing
the probability of suffering at least 2 deprivations
and reducing the probability of not experiencing
deprivations. Furthermore, the level of wealth is
highly and negatively related to the probability of
suffering deprivations. Being indigenous status has
a positive impact on this probability. When both
parents do not work the probability of not suffering
any deprivation is reduced, while children working
under the age of 15 in the household increases the
probability of suffering severe deprivations (Table
2.1.7, ENNViH 2002).
2.3 Causal analysis: which factors
explain the levels and trends of
poverty?
In this chapter we analyze the variables affecting the
probability of living under the poverty line, using
the alimentary poverty line, including individual,
household and geographic levels. (Table 2.1.3, ENNViH 2002).
Families in extreme poverty tend to have a greater
number of household members. Low levels of
schooling of the head of the household increase the
probability that the household lives in conditions of
alimentary poverty. If the head of the household is
male, the probability that the household lives in these
conditions decreases. If the household is indigenous,
this probability increases (Table 2.1.3, ENNViH 2002).
A high dependency ratio increases the possibility of
suffering at least two severe deprivations, though it
does not affect the probability of not suffering any
deprivation. Residents in the South region have the
highest probability of suffering deprivations relative
to other regions, followed by the Central and Northwest regions. Finally, residents of rural areas have
a much higher probability of suffering deprivations
than residents of urban areas.
Finally, if both parents work, the probability of living
in conditions of extreme poverty decreases. This
finding may provide an additional justification to
the recently created Program of Day Care Centers
previously mentioned, which aims at providing child
care services to families with mothers who work or
single parents. Thus the program may facilitate the
search and obtaining of a job. Finally, it is observed
that if the household lives in rural areas, in the
South-Southeast area or if it has a high dependence
rate, then the probability of being poor increases
(Table 2.1.3, ENNViH 2002).
The variables related to which children live in households with deprivations are analyzed in Table 2.1.7
(ENNViH 2002). In the first column variables affecting
households that have no deprivations are shown,
while the second column analyzes the variables
related to having two or more severe deprivations.
In general, small children have a higher probability of having two severe deprivations than older
children.
It is interesting to point out that, controlling for by
other demographic and social variables the size of
the household does not tend to affect the probability
of suffering deprivations unless households are
16 There is a long and important debate on the causality between the number of children in the family
and the level of poverty, namely if poverty affects the number of children born or if the number of
children affects whether the family is poor or not. In this survey we only report the relationship as per
the format of the established tables, this is, the association among the size of the household and the
probability of suffering deprivations.
36
Table 2.1.3 Odds ratios for the probability of income/consumption poverty by individual, household and geographic dimensions
Odds ratio of living under the poverty line
Mexico, 2002
among households with
among all households
children
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
Age group 2 (15-24)
Age group 3 (25-44)
Age group 4 (45-64)
Age group 5 (65- )
0.76
0.76
[0.059]**
[0.059]**
0.83
0.83
[0.048]**
[0.048]**
0.808
0.808
[0.080]*
[0.080]*
0.792
0.792
[0.137]
[0.137]
Female
Age group 2 (15-24)
Age group 3 (25-44)
Age group 4 (45-64)
Age group 5 (65- )
0.738
0.738
[0.052]**
[0.052]**
0.894
0.894
[0.047]*
[0.047]*
0.634
0.634
[0.066]**
[0.066]**
0.954
0.954
[0.170]
[0.170]
Household dimension
Household size
3-4 members
5-6 members
7+
1.681
1.681
[0.533]
[0.533]
2.316
2.316
[0.735]**
[0.735]**
3.378
3.378
[1.075]**
[1.075]**
Education of the head of the household
None
Primary
Secondary+
Gender of the head of the household
Male
Wealth index quintiles
Q1 (poorest)
Q2
Q3
37
1.498
1.498
[0.099]**
[0.099]**
1.391
1.391
[0.059]**
[0.059]**
dropped
Dropped
0.852
0.852
[0.048]**
[0.048]**
4.971
4.971
[0.349]**
[0.349]**
3.24
3.24
[0.219]**
[0.219]**
2.442
2.442
[0.164]**
[0.164]**
(Continued from previous page)
Odds ratio of living under the poverty line
Mexico, 2002
Q4
among households with
children
among all households
1.386
1.386
[0.098]**
[0.098]**
Ethnicity/language/religion
Group 2: Not Indigenous
0.608
0.608
[0.033]**
[0.033]**
0.55
0.55
[0.026]**
[0.026]**
Work (not mutually exclusive categories)
Both parents working
None of the parents are working
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
At least one child under 15 working
Access to land in rural areas
1.345
1.345
[0.156]*
[0.156]*
1.084
1.084
[0.941]
[0.941]
0.897
0.897
[0.063]
[0.063]
1.548
1.548
[0.078]**
[0.078]**
Illness and disability in the household
Adult(s) with chronic illness
Child/children with disability
0.694
0.694
[0.026]**
[0.026]**
1.1
1.1
[0.186]
[0.186]
N/I
N/I
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive categories)
Orphan child in household
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
Elder (70+) person in household
1.721
1.721
[0.201]**
[0.201]**
1.238
1.238
[0.089]**
[0.089]**
1.608
1.608
[0.101]**
[0.101]**
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan)
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla,
Morelos).
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato).
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa,
Sonora).
0.759
0.759
[0.046]**
[0.046]**
1.395
1.395
[0.084]**
[0.084]**
1.225
1.225
[0.075]**
[0.075]**
1.73
1.73
[0.070]**
[0.070]**
Residence
Rural
Definitions: Orphan children are considered those for whom one or both biological parents are dead (MICS HL9=2 or HL11=2)
* significant at 5%; ** significant at 1%
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
38
Table 2.1.7 Odd ratios for the probability that children will or will not experience deprivations
Odds ratio of children having
not even ‘less severe’
at least two ‘severe’
Mexico, 2002
deprivations
deprivations
Total (average)
0.219
0.228
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
Age group 1 (0-2)
Age group 2 (3-4)
Age group 3 (5-9)
Age group 4
(10-14)
Female
Age group 1 (0-2)
Age group 2 (3-4)
Age group 3 (5-9)
Age group 4
(10-14)
0.824
0.58
[0.142]
[0.081]**
0.955
0.709
[0.165]
[0.102]*
0.91
0.568
[0.128]
[0.063]**
0.997
0.519
[0.150]
[0.062]**
1.266
0.616
[0.206]
[0.086]**
0.931
0.544
[0.159]
[0.081]**
0.864
0.537
[0.122]
[0.060]**
1.017
0.612
[0.153]
[0.071]**
Household dimension
Household size
3-4 members
5-6 members
7+
Women’s education
None
Secondary+
Gender of the head of the household
Male
Wealth index quintiles
Q1 (poorest)
Q2
39
0.505
1.305
[0.249]
[1.074]
0.504
3.731
[0.249]
[3.068]
0.314
4.663
[0.156]*
[3.836]
0.495
1.851
[0.102]**
[0.170]**
1.822
0.54
[0.140]**
[0.040]**
1.162
0.968
[0.127]
[0.092]
0.28
3.593
[0.033]**
[0.445]**
0.348
2.868
[0.038]**
[0.353]**
(Continued from previous page)
Odds ratio of children having
not even ‘less severe’
at least two ‘severe’
deprivations
deprivations
Mexico, 2002
Q3
Q4
Ethnicity/language/religion
Group 1: Indigenous
Work (among hholds with children)
Both parents working
None of the parents are working
0.534
1.568
[0.053]**
[0.198]**
0.778
1.037
[0.073]**
[0.144]
0.712
1.823
[0.089]**
[0.138]**
0.979
0.918
[0.078]
[0.076]
0.509
1.375
[0.165]*
[0.263]
At least one child under 15 working
0.812
1.331
[0.116]
[0.130]**
1.173
0.832
[0.079]*
[0.051]**
0.718
1.459
[0.244]
[0.342]
Illness and disability in the household
Adult(s) with chronic illness
Child/children with disability
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive categories)
N/I
N/I
0.684
1.919
[0.166]
[0.271]**
0.847
0.911
[0.130]
[0.112]
Geographic dimension
Region
0.634
3.365
[0.070]**
[0.371]**
0.789
1.508
[0.080]*
[0.162]**
Orphan child in household
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
Elder (70+) person in household
Region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan)
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla,
Morelos).
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato).
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa,
Sonora).
Residence
Urban
0.874
1.664
[0.089]
[0.175]**
0.641
1.297
[0.067]**
[0.151]*
2.602
0.39
[0.199]**
[0.025]**
The variable women’s education contain the education of the children’s mother
Definitions: Orphan children are considered those for whom one or both biological parents are dead (MICS HL9=2 or HL11=2)
N/I: no information or Data
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
40
Conclusions
18% to 2% in the same years, ENIGH). The advances
in education have been slower, in 1995 19% of the
children had never attended or were currently not
enrolled in school and in 2005 this percentage was
13% (ENIGH).
In this chapter we have shown that, using the
traditional indicators of child poverty based on the
household per capita income, an important percentage of Mexican children live in conditions of
monetary poverty. In 2005, 25% of the children lived
in alimentary poverty (close to 10 million children).
The analysis also shows that child mortality has
been decreasing from 1995 to this date (from 27.7
deaths per one thousand children born alive in 1995
to 15.7 in 2007, CONAPO). There are however substantial variations by region, the South-Southeast
region presents larger mortality rates than other
regions in the country.
Variables such as the low schooling of adults in the
household, being indigenous and household size (a
larger household size increases the probability of
being poor) are highly related to the probability of
a household living in poverty conditions. Furthermore, individuals who live in rural areas also have a
higher probability of being poor than the residents
of urban areas.
Our analysis has shown relatively high rates of
poverty and deprivations in childhood in Mexico,
given the level of the GDP per capita in Mexico
(of approximately US$14,400 in 2008). Households that suffer monetary poverty also tend
to suffer deprivations in other areas;, there are
important correlations between monetary poverty
in Mexico and the prevalence of deprivations. In
particular, there are strong correlations between
shelter, sanitation facilities, water and information
deprivations and poverty measured by household
income.
When measuring poverty based on the prevalence
of deprivations, there is a high percentage of households that have dwelling, information and health
deprivations. On the other hand, the deprivations
on sanitation are somewhat lower. Overtime there
has been a significant reduction in the proportion
of homes that experience sanitation deprivations
(from 23% in 1994 to 5% in 2005) and of water (from
41
STUDY ON
POVERTY AND
DISPARITIES IN
CHILDHOOD:
THE CASE OF
MEXICO
Section Three: The Pillars
of Childhood Wellbeing
Introduction
need to take measures to fight against diseases and
malnutrition through the use of available technologies and with the supply of suitable nutritious foods
and safe drinking water.
In this chapter the five pillars of childhood wellbeing
are analyzed; nutrition, health, child protection, education and social protection. Each pillar analyzes the
concept of childhood poverty taking in consideration
the laws, policies, strategies and national programs
set to improve outcomes in favor of children. As
well as the results, the access and use of services
related to these pillars are analyzed.
The Health Act does not distinguish nutrition from
health. This Act lays down the objectives of the
National Health System, which aims to provide
health services to all the population and improve
the quality of services. The Law for Protection of the
Rights of Boys, Girls and Adolescents establishes
the importance of fighting against malnutrition by
promoting a balanced diet.
The legal reference frame for this chapter are based
on The Mexican Constitution, The Convention on the
Rights of the Child, and Law for the Protection of the
Rights of the Boys, Girls and Adolescents.
Regarding policies and strategies in childhood nutrition, the PND (The National Development Plan), with
the Social Development Sectorial Program 20072012 (PROSESA) stand out. In addition, the Action
Program 2002-2010, that emerged from the United
Nation’s Special Session for Children has committed
in accordance with the Millennium Development
Objectives to decrease malnutrition in children
under 5 years of age.
3.1 Nutrition
National laws, policies and key programmes
The main legislations regarding childhood nutrition in Mexico are the Constitution of the United
Mexican States, The Convention on the Rights of the
Child, the 1984 Health Act, Mexican Official Norm
(NOM) for the Health Attention of the Child (1999),
and the Law for the Protection of the Rights of the
Boys, Girls, and Adolescents(2000). The first establishes that the nutrition of the children and youth
from indigenous and immigrant families should be
supported by nutrition programs. As well, the Convention on the Rights of the Child establishes the
Institutions such as DIF; SSA and SEDESOL, in coordination with federal entities, are the main agents
in charge of implementing and developing policies
and social programs related to the improvement of
childhood nutrition. Specifically, DIF implements a
variety of national food programs in coordination
with the DIF State Systems. An example of these
programs is the School Breakfast Program, which
42
provides breakfasts to children from low income
families aimed at improving nutrition. In 2007
this program had a coverage of nearly 5.5 million
children.
ments. In 2007, the PAL benefitted 143,423 thousand
households (2007 Public Account). Considering the
similarities with the Alimentary Program on Areas of
Priority Attention (PAZAP), in 2009 these 2 programs
were merged into one program.
Under the coordination of SEDESOL, the Oportunidades Program has an important nutritional
component; providing nutritional supplements to
women during pregnancy, as well as during the first
two years of life of the child and up to 5 years of age
in case of malnutrition. The mother of the family is
required to attend monthly talks on family health,
good nutrition and good hygiene practices. An evaluation from the National Institute of Public Health
(INSP) on the impact of the program on nutrition
in urban areas (INSP, 2005) shows that beneficiary
children younger than 6 months of age when the
program began (2002), measured on average 1cm
more and weighed an average of 0.5kg more than
non beneficiary children, after one year of receiving
the benefits from Oportunidades.
The Action Program 2002-2010 from the Report “A
Suitable Mexico for Childhood and Youth”, derived
from the Special Session of the General Assembly
of the United Nations in favor of Childhood, has
set the goal to decrease, at least by one third,
the malnutrition of children under 5 years old; to
keep the number of newborns with low weight at
birth below the 10% percentage and to reduce at
least by one third the gap between states by 2010.
Currently the tendency of low weight for age in
children younger than 5 years has decreased from
a 7.6 in 2000 to a 5% in 2006 (fulfilling one of the
indicators of Goal 2 of the MDO's ); the low height
for age prevalence in children younger than 5 has
decreased from 17.8 in 2000 to 12.5% in 2006; the
prevalence of underweight children younger than 5
years has fallen from 2.1 to 1.6% in the same years
and the low height for age prevalence in children
younger than 5 years in the indigenous population
has decreased from 44.3 in 2000 to a 33.2 % in 2006
(CONEVAL,2008)
In turn, Liconsa, a company with majority state
ownership that industrializes and distributes milk
coordinates the Milk Supply Program, that distributes fortified milk with vitamins and minerals at a
subsidized price to families that live in patrimony
poverty conditions. In order to distribute the milk,
Liconsa has a diverse number of community stores
that sell the milk to the beneficiary population. At
the end of 2007, Liconsa benefited nearly 5.6 millions of people (2007 Liconsa Program Consistency
Evaluation)
There are few evaluations of the impact of the aforementioned programs, which would allow us to know
which of the improvements in the nutritional indicators are a result of the government programs and
which are due to other factors, such as the economic growth. The main social program that has proven
impacts in the malnutrition indicators of children
using a rigorous methodology is the Oportunidades
Program. As well it is very important to emphasize
the evaluation studies of the Social Supply of Milk
Program by Liconsa (the studies of the impacts
done through the INSP in 2006 show that the intake
of Liconsa fortified milk decreased anemia in 44% of
the children between 12 and 24 months of age that
consumed the milk for six months under controlled
conditions, that is, supervising the intake). In the
same manner, the PAL has developed external
evaluations which show an increase in the total
consumption of beneficiaries between 14 and
16%. Regarding the quality of the diet , children
and women that received the in kind food basket
increased their intake of bioavailable iron and zinc
significantly more that those who received benefits
in cash (who only improved the consumption of bioavailable iron marginally but not that of zinc). Both
groups improved the intake of vitamin C, reflecting
In turn, the Nutrition Support Program (PAL), run by
Diconsa17 promotes actions to improve the nutrition of households that live in poverty conditions
and do not receive help from other programs of the
Federal Government, in particular Oportunidades.
This program grants: i) bimonthly an alimentary
support of $530 in 2009 in cash or/and in kind ii) a
bimonthly support in cash of $240 to compensate
families from the international rise of food prices
iii) bimonthly visits to the communities in order
to provide counseling in matters such as: hygiene
practices and health prevention, good eating habits,
obesity and overweight prevention, iv) food complements for the families with children under five years
and/or with lactating mothers; v) nutritional monitoring of the families that receive this food comple17 Diconsa is a company with a majority of state participation that belongs to the Social Development
Sector. With the purpose to contribute the overcoming of nourishment poverty, through the supply of
basic and complementary products to rural areas with high and very high marginalization, based on
the organization and participation of the community.
43
Table A
an increase in the consumption of fruits and vegetables. The improvements in the consumption of
food from animals were not reflected in reductions
in anemia. The evaluation expresses concern about
the potential increase of calories consumed by the
benefited population many of whom already have
weight problems. However, there was no significant
impact on anthropometric measures. As well, the
educational component had a positive impact in the
indicators of pre-scholars diet and alimentary safety
of households18.
Individuals under 15 years old by expense per capita
group in 2002
Expenses per capita by
% overweight
% obese
group
Group 1(poorer)
13.6
5.85
Group 2
16.78
6.54
Group 3
18.38
9.19
Group 4
21.38
13.27
Group 5
24.48
12.72
Source: Mexican Family Life Survey (MXFLS-1)
Besides economic growth, other factors that could
have helped to fight malnutrition are: i) systematic
growth of social expenditures from 1996 (Scott,
2008); ii) Better targeting of social programs; iii) improvements in progressivity of social expenditures;
iii) the decentralization of federal resources towards
the states, among other aspects (CONEVAL 2008).
Table B
Health indicators for children age five or less, by region
Stunting
Overweight
Child outcomes, disparities and gender inequality
North
7.0%
5.0%
Center
11.0%
5.5%
Mexico City
12.0%
4.9%
South
18.0%
5.4%
National
12.7%
5.40%
Source: National Survey of Health and Nutrition (ENSANUT 2006)
In the following section an analysis on childhood
nutrition is shown according to the different disaggregations available in the ENNViH.
members the percentage of children with stunting
was 19%, with wasting 1.4% and underweight 3%).
When the mother has no schooling, is more likely
that her children will be stunted (21%), have low
height for weight (35%) and low weight (4.6%), than
when the mother has studied at least junior high (in
this case the proportion of children with stunting is
7%, with wasting 0.75% and underweight 0.9%)
About 11.5% of the children nationwide suffered
stunting (approximately 978 thousand children),
almost 2% with wasting (around 142 thousand children) and 2 % (254 thousand children) underweight
weight in 2002 (ENNViH 2002 table 3.1.1). Boys have
higher stunting rates than girls (12% versus 10%),
while girls suffer higher under weight problems
(3% versus 1.6% of the boys).By age and sex, two
years old boys have the highest rates of stunting,
although in the girls case the most vulnerable
group is between four and five years old. Regarding
wasting, one year old girls as well as boys have the
highest levels of this childhood malnutrition problem. Likewise, one year old boys have the highest
underweight problems (4% of the boys of this group
suffered this in 2002), while two years old girls are
the group of girls with the highest rate. (5.7%).
Similarly, according to different levels of wealth,
children from lower wealth quintiles show a higher
incidence rates of malnutrition, than others located
in higher quintiles (for example, the 5% of the children in the first wealth quintile were underweight
compared with the 0.2% of the children in the last
quintile)
Finally, indigenous children with non-working parents, who live in households with high dependency
ratios (more than 4 children per adult), who live in
the South-Southeast region of the country or in rural
areas, showed higher levels of stunting, wasting
and underweight.
As household size increases the percentage of
children with malnutrition measured by stunting,
wasting and underweight increases (while a household with less than three members had no children
with this problem, at a household of seven or more
Table A provides information on the percentage
of children younger than fifteen years old that are
overweight or obese by expenditures per capita.
Table A shows that in the higher income quintile
there are a higher percentage of obese children
18 National Institute for Public Health Research Center on Nutrition and Health; Evaluation on the
nutritional conditions of children younger than 5 and their mothers, and the food expense of families in
marginalized communities in Mexico. Comparative Analysis of the delivery of food and cash transferences 2003-2005;2006
44
Table 3.1.1 Child nutrition outcome and its correlates
(by individual, households and geographic dimensions in 2005 or most recent year)
Mexico
Stunting
Wasting
Underweight
Total incidence/prevalence
11.46
1.18
2.11
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
12.55
1
1.61
Age group 1 (0)
9.28
3
4
Age group 2 (1)
17.84
2
1.21
Age group 3 (2)
14.90
1.13
2.16
Age group 4 (3)
12.71
0.7
0.94
Age group 5 (4-5)
7.82
0.42
1.01
Female
10.4
1
3
Age group 1 (0)
10.55
0.97
0.56
Age group 2 (1)
6.56
2.37
2.67
Age group 3 (2)
9.48
0.37
5.78
Age group 4 (3)
11.53
0.82
2.02
Age group 5 (4-5)
12.5
1.13
2.06
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
3-4 members
7.64
0.97
1.02
5-6 members
9.6
1.22
2.23
19.05
1.42
3.38
7+
Women’s education
None
20.91
3.21
4.68
Primary
16.18
1.43
3.29
Secondary+
6.63
0.75
0.91
Male
11.55
1.04
2.21
Female
10.98
1.96
1.57
Q1 (poorest)
13.14
0.94
5.09
Q2
15.1
1.54
1.47
Q3
9.94
1.94
1.25
Q4
10.37
0.81
1.15
Q5
3.56
0.89
0.2
Group 1: Indigenous
23.41
1.59
3.59
Group 2: not indigenous
9.14
1.1
1.8
Gender of the head of the household
Wealth index quintiles
Ethnicity/language/religion
Work (among hholds with children)
Both parents working
9.07
0.72
1.56
None of the parents are working
22.62
3.35
2.9
45
(Continued from previous page)
Mexico
Stunting
Wasting
Underweight
11.46
1.18
2.11
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
0.00
0.00
0.00
At least one child under 15 working
18.72
2.32
7.32
Adult(s) with chronic illness
8.35
1.35
2.07
Child/children with disability
4.18
0.00
8.5
10.98
1.96
1.57
N/I
N/I
N/I
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
19.49
1.6
4.39
Elder (70+) person in household
Total incidence/prevalence
Illness and disability in the household
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive categories)
Single parent
Orphan child in household
10.49
2.31
1.69
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1
18.95
1.33
2.1
Region 2
12.72
1.16
2.48
Region 3
6.25
1.62
2.25
Region 4
4.72
0.78
0.85
Region 5
9.02
0.4
1.62
Residence
Urban
9.3
1
1.62
Rural
17.3
1.7
3.52
The sub-national regions are: region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan).
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla, Morelos).
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato).
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa, Sonora).
Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon)
Wealth index quintile defined as the cost of the assets that have the household
Single parent defined as a woman that is the head of the household
Stunting defined as children who are under -2sd and -3sd from height for age
Wasting defined as children who are under -2sd and -3sd from weight for height
underweight defined as children who are under -2sd and -3sd from weight for age
Definitions: Orphan children are considered those for whom one or both biological parents are dead (MICS HL9=2 or HL11=2)
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
(13% versus 6% from the first expenditures quintile).
Likewise, while only 13% of the poorest children
are overweight, 24% of the wealthier children are
overweight.
Table C
Besides the ENNViH, the National Survey on Health
and Nutrition (ENSANUT) allows analyzing health
indicators of children age five or less and children
between 5 and 11 years old in 2006. Table B shows
the percentage of children less than five years old
that were stunted and the proportion overweight by
region. While in the South of the country 18% of the
children were stunted, in the North only 7% had this
problem. Nationally 12.7 % of the children with less
than five years of age were stunted. On the other
5
15.3
6
11.9
7
9
8
8
5.5
9
7.6
9.2
10
10.9
11.5
17
11
10.1
9.1
21.2
Total
10.4
9.5
16.5
18.1
Health indicators for children
between 5 and 11 years old in 2006
Stunting
Overweight
Age
Men Women Men Women
12.8
12.9
12.6
4.8
7.5
14.5
13.7
9.8
7
10.8
13.4
16.1
7.8
10
13.9
17.5
12.3
8.9
21.2
23.2
11
8.5
20
8.6
10.3
21.8
11.3
7.7
9.4
8.7
Source: National Survey of Health and Nutrition (ENSANUT 2006)
46
Obesity
Men Women
8.6
Table 3.1.2 Child nutrition: supply side and uptake variables by region
Number of children in nutritional control per thousand children with malnutrition between 1-4 years old
2006
Total
Major nutrition supply indicator*
- supply/delivery indicator* (e.g. unit number/per capita)
605
By region
Region 1: Northeast
Major nutrition supply indicator*
- supply/delivery indicator* (e.g. unit number/per capita)
319
Region 2: Northwest
Major nutrition supply indicator*
- supply/delivery indicator* (e.g. unit number/per capita)
163
Region 3: Center
Major nutrition supply indicator*
- supply/delivery indicator* (e.g. unit number/per capita)
529
Region 4: Center-West
Major nutrition supply indicator*
- supply/delivery indicator* (e.g. unit number/per capita)
608
Region 5: South-Southeast
Major nutrition supply indicator*
- supply/delivery indicator* (e.g. unit number/per capita)
825
Northeast region includes Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Chihuahua and Durango and Coahuila; Northwest includes Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora and Sinaloa. Center includes Distrito Federal, Queretaro,
Hidalgo, Tlaxcala, Morelos and Estado de Mexico. Center West includes Jalisco, Michoacan, Colima, Aguascalientes, Nayarit, Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi and Guanajuato; and South-Southeast includes Puebla,
Campeche, Yucatan, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Quintana Ro, Tabasco, Guerrero and Veracruz.
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Base de datos de Oportunidades, Encuesta Nacional de Salud y Nutricion (ENSANUT 2006)
hand, the number of overweight (without considering obesity) children under five is more similar
between regions, even though in the South of the
country rates are higher than in the North.
lems, while in the Northeast of the country only
served 163. This may reflect the existence of more
social programs in areas with higher numbers of
cases with malnutrition.
By gender, five years old boys are more likely to be
stunted than girls (15% against 13%), and girls from
this age had higher obesity levels than boys (8.6%
against 5%). In general, 10.4% of boys and 9.5% of
girls between 5 and 11 years old were stunted in
2006; 16.5% of boys and 18% of girls were overweight and 9.4% of boys and 8.7% of girls were
obese.
Causalities and correlates analysis
Table 3.5.3 (ENNViH 2002) analyzes the correlation
between the main indicators of childhood nutrition
(stunting, wasting and underweight) and childhood
poverty. In general, it shows that when children live
in households with an income less than a dollar a
day per capita, are in the lowest wealth quintile or
have at least one deprivation (whether it is shelter,
water, hygiene, health or education) it is more likely
that they suffer stunting. In the same manner, there
is a positive correlation between child labor and the
probability that they suffer stunting. There are also
correlations between stunting, and being underweight.
Now we present some statistics from the Oportunidades program about children being treated
for malnutrition. Table 3.1.2 shows that, in general,
Oportunidades has covered with health and nutrition services more than half of the children from
1 to 4 years of age diagnosed with malnutrition.
There are however differences in the geographical regions coverage (Table 3.1.2 ENSANUT 2006
Oportunidades 2006). For example, in the SouthSoutheast region, in 2006 the program served 825
children for every 1,000 that had malnutrition prob-
In general, the results show that the worst off
children in matters of nutrition (measured in accordance with the indicators of low height for age,
47
low height for weight and underweight) are those
who are younger, who live in households with
many members (between 5 and 6 or more than
seven), whose mother has low levels of education, and who live in households with less wealth,
that are indigenous or that live in the south of the
country.
international standards (for example, as measured
by stunting). While these traditional measures of
malnutrition have shown reductions overtime in
Mexico in recent years, there continue to be an
important percentage of children that suffer malnutrition, mainly in rural, poor or indigenous areas.
Whereas obesity indicators are not part of the
guidelines of this study, it is important to observe
that in Mexico a much higher fraction of children
suffer obesity or are overweight than the children
that have malnutrition. Additionally, not only the
middle or upper class children show high percentages of overweight, but the percentages of poor
children that suffer from weight problems is increasing significantly as well (Parker, 2008).
All the indicators of malnutrition show more
pronounced differences when comparing indigenous and non indigenous (being the formers the
ones with the worst conditions). , when comparing
the first quintile (the poorest) and the last wealth
quintile (the wealthiest), and according to mother’s
education levels.
By gender, there are few relevant differences in the
percentage of girls and boys with low height for
weight. Nevertheless, the percentage of boys who
are stunted is higher than girls, while there are more
girls who are underweight than boys.
The reasons for the rapid increase of obesity in
Mexico are complicated and require more research.
It is important to investigate the elements that
explain the changes in food consumption and/or the
physical activity patterns, as well as the environmental elements that have promote these trends.
For example, Mexico is the top consumer of soft
drinks at international level (measured by soft drinks
consumed per capita Reuters, 2005). The aforementioned implies that there could be many children
with overweight as well as malnourished19, in the
sense that the intake of vitamins and minerals is not
sufficient for a healthy development.
In this section it is also important to analyze the
emerging difficulties in matter of nutrition and the
health risks that come with it. In particular, there
has been an alarming increase in obesity in Mexico
which is also evident in the case of children.
The 1999 National Survey on Nutrition (ENN) and
the National Survey on Health and Nutrition (2006),
show that between 1999 and 2006 the proportion of
children who were overweight increased from 12.9
to 21.2% in boys from five to eleven years of age
and from 12.6 to 21.8% in girls. Obesity increased
from 4.8 to 11.3% in boys from this age range and
from 7 to 10% in girls.
These characteristics of the Mexican context show
the need for a strategy that ensures that poor
children receive enough healthy food and that
their families have the capacity to buy or produce
a diet with a variety of foods. In addition, Mexico
must turn to the problem of obesity, an important
problem for children and young people that, if it
follows current trends, will become a heavy burden
for health and social protection systems due to its
relation with the prevalence of chronic-degenerative
illnesses and disabilities.
Between the ages of 12 and 19, the proportions are
even larger. The 2006 ENSANUT show that one in
every three Mexican adolescents are overweight or
obese. These statistics are alarming given that they
imply that this population is likely to suffer risks
related to obesity problems, including cardiovascular problems (such as arterial hypertension, high
cholesterol and diabetes), among others.
Specifically, in the framework of Equality of Opportunities the PND 2007-2012 sets forth a series of
strategies connected with this problem. For example, the PND looks to strength the protection against
health risks associated with unhealthy lifestyles. In
order to achieve its goals, it strengthens the actions
of fomenting, promoting, communal work, fiscal
policies and other not regulated policies. Another
strategy consists in promoting physical activities
Basic elements and alliances for a strategy
Concerning childhood nutrition, the situation in
Mexico is complex. There is an elevated proportion
of people who live in poverty conditions, which
implies that there are still an important percentage
of boys and girls with malnutrition according to
19 The specialists recognize this phenomenon as excess malnutrition.
48
3.2 Health
at schools and sports at all levels of the education
system, to prevent obesity and a sedentary life style.
Laws, policies and fundamental national programs
Therefore, a national strategy which promotes
healthy nutrition and an exercise or sports culture
should be developed; considering measures such
as information programs at schools, banning “junk
food” at schools, revising and strengthening regulations regarding production and commercialization
of food, and taxing certain food and processed
beverages, like soft drinks.
The Health System of Mexico is conformed by
different systems that operate in parallel. In 2005,
approximately 40% of women and 33% of men
were covered by at least one type of social security
(measured according to the possession of a medical insurance from IMSS, ISSTE, Sedena, Pemex,
Secmar or from any private institution); however it
is important to mention that there is a lot of mobility
in and out of these organisms, since many individuals with social security benefits in a determined
moment in time do not have them a few years later
because of job changes (Parker, Rubalcava and
Teruel, 2008).
In regard to this last aspect, Rivera (2008), from
the National Institute of Public Health, has presented a series of recommendations related to
the intake of beverages for a healthy life. Rivera
classifies beverages in six categories according to
its energetic content, nutritious value and health
risks in a scale that classifies beverages from 1 to
6, being one the healthiest. In level 1 is drinking
water; level 2 low fat milk, and sugar free soya
drinks; level 3 sugar free coffee and tea; level 4
non caloric beverages with artificial sweeteners;
level 5 beverages with high caloric value and
limited health benefits (fruit juice, whole milk, fruit
drinks with sugar, alcoholic beverages and sport
drinks); and level 6 beverages with sugar and low
nutritive content (soft drinks). In these beverages
the water intake is documented in first place, followed by beverages without or with low energetic
contribution and skim milk.
In general, in the National Health System there are
social security institutions that cover workers from
the social sector and their families. These institutions are divided in two different systems that cover
workers from the private sector (IMSS) or workers
from the public sector (ISSSTE, Pemex, Secmar and
Sedena). In turn, there are the medical services for
the uninsured, which are provided by the federal
government and state governments through the
Ministry of Health (Parker and Scott, 2008).
Broadly speaking, an individual with social security
enjoys the benefits such as: workplace risk insurance; illnesses and maternity; disability and life; retirement, old age unemployment insurance; daycare
and social assistances, among other services (1995,
Social Security Act).
Besides this study recommends schools to: i)
offer drinking water for the all the community;
ii) to get involved with school cooperatives with
the purpose of amending the rules and to create
awareness among the Public Education Ministry
(SEP), directors and teachers about the need to
limit the accessibility of sweetened beverages; iii)
suggest the use of skimmed milk, without flavor
and without sugar in the breakfasts offered by
DIF to schools; iv) suggest incentives for schools
certified as free from sweetened beverages at their
premises. In the matter of regulations, subsidies
and taxes it is recommended: i) that the SSA works
with Congress to tax the content of saturated fat in
milk and subside skim milk; charge taxes for every
gram of sugar added to all the commercial bottled
beverages such as coffee, tea, soft drinks, energetic
beverages, and juices; ii) regulate radio, television
and internet commercials of drinks with calories
targeted to children; iii) label all the beverages that
need to be diminished; and iv) advice parents and
the general population.
The Sectorial Health Program (PROSESA 2007-2012),
in accordance with PND, defines the actions of the
agencies and of the federal organisms that belong
to the National Health Program. The General Health
Act is the document that regulates the right for
health protection that all Mexican people have and
sets forth the main agents related to it. In addition,
the Law for protection of the Rights of Boys, Girls
and Youth (2000) establishes that all boys, girls and
youth have the right to health and that the government official should coordinate strategies in order to
reduce childhood mortality, promote immunizations,
promote breastfeeding, prevent early pregnancies
and help children and adolescents victims of domestic violence, among other things.
Likewise, the 2002-2010 Action Program of the
Special Session of the United Nations in favor of
49
childhood set forth a number of obligations to reduce childhood and maternal mortality and increase
the access to reproductive health services and youth
health programs.
conditions through a basic health package to
all the beneficiaries. The program conditions its
monetary transfers to the regular attendance of
the families to health clinics and to informative
sessions where they review basic preventive
health topics. The Program has shown to have
significant impacts, including increasing by 35%
the use of health services and decreasing by 20%
decrease the number of sick days in children
younger than 6 and adults between 16 and 49
years, among other results (INSP, 2005)
There are different governmental programs dedicated to improve the level of health of the poor
population with or without insurance. The Seguro
Popular offers a public insurance option for informal
workers, who do not have social security. According to this definition, the informal sector represents
approximately the 58% of the economically active
population (PEA), while the formal sector represents
38% and the unemployed 4% (Levy, 2007). In the Seguro Popular operating rules, payments for services
depend on the decile -in the income distributionbeing exempted of payment the first two deciles.
The Seguro Popular covers the expenses incurred
according to a manual of health procedures that
catalogs the illnesses and medicines covered.
Hoddinott and Skoufias (2004) have found positive impacts, as a result of Oportunidades, in the
consumption of calories (a 6.4% increase on the
average intake), with greater impacts on fruits,
animal and vegetable products, which shows
that the families are not only consuming more
but are also consuming a better quality diet. In
matters of health, Riviera et al (2004) found that
when comparing the children that had received
the benefits of the program for 2 years opposed
to those that only received them for one year,
the first ones had an increase in height of 1cm
approximately (for children 12 months and under
in 1998).
In turn, the SMNG grants free Health attention in
matter of prevention, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation to Mexican children born from December
1st 2006, that are not social security beneficiaries,
until they reach five years of age.
In 2007 the Seguro Popular covered 5 million
100 thousand families around the country, 255
medical interventions and 285 medicines (2008
Seguro Popular). In turn, the SMNG covered 108
interventions related to infectious and parasitic
illnesses (such as tuberculosis), tumors, endocrine, nutritional and metabolic illnesses, from
the nervous system, circulatory system and
respiratory system, among others. The children
affiliated to the SMNG are granted, the right to
receive preventive medicine services and medical
attention, without any payment for the service.
The general components of these services are:
i) a preventive actions package; ii) Laboratory
tests and specialized exams; iii) medical attention, medicines and health inputs, and iv) certain
types of interventions (as the aforementioned).
Possibly since they have been operating for a
relatively short time, there are few evaluations of
the impacts of these health programs, however
the most recent studies do not reveal important
impacts on health with the exception of the indicator of household expenditures on health. (see
Barros 2007 and Parker and Scott 2007).
In the same context, Cattaneo et al (2009) have
shown that the “Piso Firme” program, which
consists in replacing dirt floors with concrete
floors, improves significantly the health of young
children (measured according to the incidence of
parasitic illnesses, diarrhea and the prevalence of
anemia) besides improving the cognitive development of children.
It is important to mention that there are about
279 thousand households, located in very small
and disperse areas, that are not incorporated in
the existing social programs, in particular Oportunidades, because of lacking basic health and
education services (Development Program for
Marginalized Zones20) Diconsa’s Nutrition Support Program looks to improve the nutrition of
the population who does not receive the assistance of the Oportunidades Program. To achieve
this, the program grants bimonthly monetary
supports of $530 and organizes bimonthly visits
to provide counseling on hygiene practices and
health prevention, among other things.
20 It is important to mention, due to the similarities in their components and objectives, in 2009 the
nourishment component from the prior Alimentary Program on Areas of Priority Attention merged
with the Nutrition Support Program from Diconsa and the infrastructure component merged with
the Regional Development Program (Micro regions), taking the name of Development Program on
Priority Areas.
In turn, Oportunidades contributes to improving the health of households in extreme poverty
50
Table 3.2.1 Young child health outcomes, related care and correlates (by individual, households and geographic dimensions)
Mexico, 2002
Total incidence
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Child
diarrhea*
% children
aged 0-4
Received ORT or
increased fluids, and
continued feeding
(MICS Indicator No.
35)
Child
fever**
%children
aged 0-4
12.50
43.00
18.20
48.54
Antibiotic treatment of
suspected pneumonia
(MICS Indicator No 22)
Male
13.70
44.70
18.60
48.76
Age group 1 (0)
17.50
67.51
21.60
55.41
Age group 2 (1)
21.40
42.07
21.50
52.50
Age group 3 (2)
17.80
40.66
20.00
54.99
Age group 4 (3)
6.30
31.05
14.40
34.80
Age group 5 (4)
5.60
23.36
16.00
40.13
Female
11.30
40.97
17.70
48.31
Age group 1 (0)
10.30
35.31
15.20
56.67
Age group 2 (1)
20.20
44.89
20.00
52.29
Age group 3 (2)
13.80
40.62
25.60
45.94
Age group 4 (3)
8.30
46.80
16.00
48.53
Age group 5 (4)
3.90
23.44
11.30
38.11
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
2.90
0.00
26.20
30.35
3-4 members
12.00
51.18
19.30
57.90
5-6 members
10.90
33.61
15.70
42.16
7+
15.40
43.95
19.80
44.37
None
17.80
54.06
24.40
37.84
Primary
13.70
41.17
18.50
39.90
Secondary+
11.20
42.99
17.30
58.26
Male
12.90
44.08
17.70
51.43
Female
10.20
35.25
20.50
34.31
Q1 (poorest)
17.80
46.28
23.90
44.22
Q2
12.50
35.71
16.40
49.50
Q3
10.90
43.26
14.70
46.46
Q4
10.40
39.56
16.00
54.83
Q5
9.90
50.27
23.20
54.00
Women’s education
Gender of the head of the household
Wealth index quintiles
Ethnicity/language/religion
Group 1: Indigenous
18.70
35.86
23.70
34.91
Group 2: Not Indigenous
11.20
45.40
17.00
52.38
Work (among hholds with children)
51
(Continued from previous page)
% children
aged 0-4
Received ORT or
increased fluids, and
continued feeding
(MICS Indicator No.
35)
%children
aged 0-4
Both parents working
10.50
39.32
20.40
54.93
None of the parents are working
15.30
23.57
11.90
48.40
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
22.20
0.00
47.20
52.93
At least one child under 15 working
11.60
20.35
21.60
38.68
Mexico, 2002
Illness and disability in the household
Child
diarrhea*
Child
fever**
Antibiotic treatment of
suspected pneumonia
(MICS Indicator No 22)
Adult(s) with chronic illness
14.60
43.30
21.70
50.90
Child/children with disability
0.00
0.00
18.10
60.74
10.20
0.35
20.50
34.31
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
High dependency ratio (4+children per
adult)
11.00
0.34
17.80
23.76
Elder (70+) person in household
15.80
0.59
23.40
52.11
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca,
Veracruz, Yucatan)
17.30
39.20
21.80
39.34
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico,
Puebla, Morelos).
10.90
49.54
16.80
59.56
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan,
Jalisco, Guanajuato).
12.60
44.64
19.30
48.49
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur,
Sinaloa, Sonora).
13.70
37.50
16.80
35.26
Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango,
Nuevo Leon)
7.40
35.46
14.00
49.65
Urban
10.70
47.47
16.80
53.08
Rural
17.60
35.07
22.10
38.52
Family vulnerability (not mutually
exclusive categories)
Single parent
Orphan child in household
Residence
* Child had diarrhea in the last 4 weeks
** Child had fever in the last 4 weeks
Wealth index quintile defined as the total value of the assets that have the household
Single parent define as a woman that is the head of the household
Definitions: Orphan children are considered those for whom one or both biological parents are dead (MICS HL9=2 or HL11=2)
Note: The values in column 3rd. & 6th are the children that visited to the doctor & received some medications.
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
(around 535 thousand children) and nearly 49% of children (877 thousand) were given antibiotics to prevent
pneumonia (table 3.2.1, ENNViH 200221)
Results in favor of the children, disparities and
inequality between genders
In this section the main results on childhood health
are presented according to the prevalence of illnesses
such as diarrhea or fever, and the provision for oral
re-hydration or antibiotic treatments for the prevention
of pneumonia. Around 12% of the children (1.2 million)
had diarrhea and 18% fever in the last month (1.8 million), with about 43% receiving re-hydration treatment
By gender, it can be seen that a higher percentage
of boys than girls suffered these illnesses, and also
a higher percentage of boys received oral treatment
21 We follow the guidelines from this study, although with respect to treatment, we consider that a
child with fever can evolve in many other illnesses than pneumonia.
52
Table 3.2.2 Adolescent health outcomes, care and correlates (by individual, households and geographic dimensions)
Mexico
Total incidence
Currently
Comprehensive
uses any
knowledge about any
contraceptive
contraceptive method
method
Comprehensive
knowledge about any
Sexual Transmission
Disease (STDs)
Comprehensive
knowledge about
contraceptive methods
that prevent STDs
64.2%
91.2%
86.9%
73.4%
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
69.9%
97.2%
91.1%
74.7%
Age group 1: 12-14 years old
55.1%
99.6%
65.4%
97.6%
Age group 2: 15-19 years old
70.4%
87.8%
87.0%
98.6%
Age group 3: 20-24 years old
66.2%
97.6%
92.9%
98.5%
Age group 4: 25-29 years old
65.0%
96.3%
88.5%
97.7%
Female
55.4%
83.4%
83.2%
72.3%
Age group 1
22.0%
53.0%
69.0%
98.3%
Age group 2
53.9%
74.1%
80.7%
98.2%
Age group 3
59.6%
91.5%
87.2%
96.7%
Age group 4
62.9%
92.7%
88.4%
97.8%
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
33.2%
66.2%
66.8%
61.3%
3-4 members
68.1%
92.9%
90.6%
76.8%
5-6 members
70.4%
97.1%
95.9%
79.4%
7+
60.8%
98.4%
71.0%
60.0%
35.6%
4.4%
3.3%
0.4%
Primary
41.0%
82.9%
73.6%
15.6%
Secondary+
68.3%
97.0%
89.8%
31.3%
Women’s education
None
Gender of the head of the
household
Male
85.1%
77.2%
75.5%
75.5%
Female
14.9%
22.8%
24.5%
24.5%
Socio-economic level
Medium-high
78.2%
96.6%
75.5%
75.9%
Medium
62.0%
94.0%
92.7%
90.6%
Medium-low
71.9%
95.9%
92.1%
89.1%
Low
47.6%
80.6%
76.4%
75.4%
Very low
41.9%
89.4%
92.9%
90.4%
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1: Northeast
58.3%
95.8%
91.5%
70.9%
Region 2: Northwest
77.3%
77.4%
86.1%
69.0%
Region 3: Center
63.2%
90.5%
83.8%
71.6%
Region 4: Center-West
73.4%
94.2%
88.6%
81.3%
Region 5: South-Southeast
50.1%
90.5%
88.7%
69.5%
Urban
64.4%
92.6%
87.3%
74.0%
Semi-urban
61.0%
74.0%
77.0%
63.3%
Rural
83.6%
100.0%
97.3%
84.9%
Residence
REFERENCE/SOURCE: National Youth Poll 2005
Note: Weighted results
53
Table 3.2.3 Child and youth health: supply side and uptake variables by region 1990-2006
Major health supply indicator: Number of
doctors per 1,000 habitants
Total
- number of doctors per 1,000 habitants
By region
Region 1: Northeast
- number of doctors per 1,000 habitants
Region 2: Northwest
- number of doctors per 1,000 habitants
Region 3: Center
- number of doctors per 1,000 habitants
Region 4: Central West
- number of doctors per 1,000 habitants
Region 5: South-South East
- number of doctors per 1,000 habitants
1990
1995
2000
2005
2006
2007
0.96
1.20
1.28
1.37
1.42
1.48
1.02
1.39
1.51
1.50
1.62
1.72
1.00
1.20
1.32
1.51
1.54
1.62
1.00
1.20
1.32
1.51
1.54
1.62
0.80
1.01
1.17
1.46
1.52
1.64
0.79
0.98
1.19
1.28
1.37
1.43
Northeast region includes Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Chihuahua and Durango and Coahuila; Northwest includes Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora and Sinaloa. Center includes Distrito Federal, Queretaro,
Hidalgo, Tlaxcala, Morelos and Estado de Mexico. Center West includes Jalisco, Michoacan, Colima, Aguascalientes, Nayarit, Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi and Guanajuato; and South-Southeast includes Puebla,
Campeche, Yucatan, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Guerrero and Veracruz.
Source: First State to the Nation Report 2007
for dehydration. The analysis by age groups allows
seeing that boys and girls of one year of age were the
ones with more cases of diarrhea. Nearly 21% of boys
with one year of age (207 thousand) had fever, while
almost 26% of girls age years had fever in the last
month (270 thousand), according to the 2002 ENIGH.
On the other hand, the percentages for pneumonia
treatment allows to see that all the age groups had
this kind of attention, however it was more prevalent
for boys than for girls (Table 3.2.1ENNViH 2002)
er than five years had diarrhea in the state of Nuevo
Leon, 21% of the children in Chiapas had diarrhea.
The health analysis on the youth in reference to
the use and knowledge of contraceptive methods,
sexually transmitted diseases (ETS) and the use
of contraceptive methods to prevent these (Table
3.2.2 National Youth Survey, 2005) shows that,
even though teenagers are very well informed on
these topics (92% admit to knowledge of at least
one contraceptive method), the percentage of
teenagers who in fact currently use a contraceptive
method is high (64%). Only 83% of teenagers in
2005 had knowledge of any sexually transmitted
disease.
This analysis also shows that as household size
increases, the proportion of children with diarrhea and fever also increases (for example, 15% of
children in households of seven or more members
had diarrhea during the past four weeks versus 3%
of the children in household with less than three
members). (Table 3.2.1ENNViH 2002).
On the use of contraceptive methods, table 3.2.2
shows that there are few differences between the
proportion of men (66%) and women (61%) that
use contraceptives. In the case of men, those who
are between 15-19 years old report to have a higher
percentage use of them (70%) while in the women’s
case the age group from 25 to 29 (63%).
Furthermore, children in households from the lowest wealth quintile, who are indigenous, from the
South-Southeast area or rural areas are more likely
to become ill and when ill, less likely to receive
treatment. (Table 3.2.1 ENNViH 2002).
Regarding the socioeconomic level, the percentage
of youth that uses contraceptive methods is higher
as the socio economic level increases generally
speaking. There are also large differences in the
percentage of youth that used them according to
urban (63%) and rural areas (42%).
By comparing the previous table with the outcomes
from ENSANUT 2006, this survey reveals that 12.9
of the children had diarrhea in the last two weeks.
This survey shows clearly the regional differences in
matters of health, while 6.4% of the children young-
54
By gender, men are generally better informed than
women, about contraceptive methods as well as
sexually transmitted diseases. Younger men (12-14)
had more knowledge on contraceptive methods
(99%), versus only 53% of women in this range.
The higher the educational level of the mother, the
higher the proportion of teenagers that are knowledgeable on contraceptive methods and ETS.
increases (44%); if the mother of the household
has no formal education, (38%); if the household is
located in the lowest wealth quintile (44%); if the
children are indigenous (34%); or from rural areas
(38% Table 3.2.1, ENNViH 2002).
At a descriptive level (Table 3.2.1), the outcomes on
childhood health presented in the previous section
show that children who live in rural areas, are indigenous or in households where the mother has a low
schooling level usually have a higher incidence of
illnesses such as diarrhea and fever; besides when
ill they have less probability of receiving the proper
treatment. For example, 24% of the children between 0 and 4 years of age whose mother does not
have formal education, had fever the month before
the survey, and only 38% of these children received
an antibiotic treatment to prevent pneumonia; while
17% of children whose mother has a junior high
education level or more, had fever and almost 58%
of these children received antibiotic treatment. The
area with more illnesses incidences in the childhood
population is the South-Southeast of the country.
By geographic areas, in the north and the center of
the country youth are better informed on contraceptives that in other areas, as well as when living in
urban areas (Table 3.2.2, National Youth Survey,
2005).
Regarding medical coverage, from the perspective
of supply (number of doctors for every 1,000 inhabitants), we can observe a relatively slow progress in
increasing medical coverage by regions, -measured
by the number of doctors for every thousand inhabitant-, in 1990 there was almost one doctor for every
1,000 inhabitant, in 2007 this number was about 1.5
(table 3.2.3, State of the Nation Report 2007). The
differences by geographical areas clearly show the
disparities in the interior of the country: while in
the Northeast area there were approximately 1.72
doctors for every 1,000 inhabitants, in the SouthSoutheast area the number was 1.43 (Table 3.2.3
State of the Nation Report 2007).
In general, only 40% of the children that had diarrhea received oral re-hydration treatment, and
there are important differences in the probability of
receiving this treatment according to gender, being
more probable that boys receive treatment than
girls, however in the case of antibiotic treatment to
prevent pneumonia the differences are not as large.
It is evident, as well, that the probability of having
received treatment is lower for children living in rural
areas and when the mother has a low schooling level
or when the household has a lower wealth level.
Analysis on causality and correlation
This study shows that Mexico, in matters of childhood health, has made important progress towards
achieving the MDO's (Millennium Development
Objectives). For example, childhood mortality rate
was reduced in children younger than five years old,
from 33.7 deaths for every thousand born alive in
1995 to 18.4 in 2007 (CONAPO, 2007).
These outcomes suggest that children from low
income families get ill more frequently, and also
when they do they tend to receive treatment less
frequently than children in better economic conditions that get sick as well.
Notwithstanding, there are still many challenges.
In matter of health deprivations, around 25% of
children (9.9 million) neither received immunization
nor visited the doctor for a recent illness related to
a respiratory infection or diarrhea, or both, which
represents the definition of a severe deprivation. In
addition to this, nearly 40% of the children (15.7 millions) did not receive immunizations after two years
of age. (Table 2.1.4 ENNViH 2002)
An important potential explanation of the high incidence of illnesses and the lower probability of being
treated in the poorest population is related to the access to health services and their insurance conditions.
Parker (2008) explores the conditions of the supply
of services using the ENNViH which has a module
with information about the general characteristics of
schools and health clinics situated in the locality.
In general, only half of the children receive antibiotic
treatment to prevent pneumonia, a percentage that
decreases considerably as the size of the household
In this document Parker (2008) shows that the provision of medical services in Mexico is far from being
equitable according to the socioeconomic level of
55
the population. The analysis shows that, for example, 26% of the clinics that cover the households
from the lowest quintile per capita have ambulances, while this percentage is 57% for the highest
quintile. Likewise, the clinics that cover people from
the highest quintiles have higher salaries for health
personal for instance directors from clinics treating
the population in the highest quintile earn $18 thousand pesos versus $9 thousand paid for the lowest
quintile. (Parker, 2008).
illnesses related to obesity. First, it is necessary to
fight against obesity to avoid further increases and
to encourage the obese population to lose weight.
This implies the consideration and/or implementation of policies that promote exercising, campaigns
to improve nutrition and improve regulations and
environmental conditions.
3.3 Child Protection
National laws, policies and key programmes
Building blocks and partners for a strategy
Childhood protection refers to all actions and strategies that are carried out to safeguard the physical,
mental and emotional state of children, especially
those who live in marginalized conditions, abandonment, abuse, violence or any other situation that
puts in risk their integrity and fulfillment of their
rights.
The epidemiologic profile of the county is dominated by chronic-degenerative illnesses and injuries
related with the ageing of the population; inequity
of opportunities and the growth of risks related to
less healthy lifestyles. There are high levels of individuals who are overweight and obese in children
and young people, as well as high incidences of
high blood pressure and diabetes.
The protection of childhood rights is foreseen in the
Politic Constitution of the United Mexican States, in
general, as an element of the individual guarantees,
acknowledged in favor of all individuals and in particular in article 4 (reforma 199922)) and 18 (reforma
200523). It is recognized as well in different international treaties ratified by Mexico, among which
stand out the Convention on the Rights of the Child
(1989) and its Facultative Protocols24, the Committee
on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women
(1979) and The International Convention on the
Protection of the Rights of Immigrant Workers and
their Families (1990) that, according to article 133 of
the constitution, are supreme law of the Union.
Data from the National System for Health Information (SINAIS) show that, in 2007, the main causes
of mortality in girls and boys from 1 to 4 years of
age were infectious intestinal illnesses, respiratory and congenital malformations. In the case of
teenagers (15 to 19 years of age), the main causes
of mortality in men were traffic accidents, aggressions (homicides) and self-inflicted injuries. In the
case of women were traffic accidents, self-inflicted
injuries, nephritis and nephritic syndrome and
leukemia.
There remain great challenges in Mexico in matters of health attention and prevention of intestinal
and respiratory illnesses, particularly for infants. In
view of this, it is necessary to intensify the efforts to
reduce the incidence of infectious illnesses which
are still an important cause of childhood mortality in
poor areas of Mexico. Certain evaluations of Oportunidades have shown that the program is useful to
improve childhood health. Likewise, programs like
the Seguro Popular and the SMNG could be useful in
this aspect as well and should have strict evaluations
to assure their impacts. As mentioned before, there
is an important segment of the population that is not
benefited by Oportunidades or by any social security
system. therefore it is necessary to continue promoting universal access to quality health services.
This legal framework is integrated as well, by different national laws including the Law for protection
of the Rights of Boys, Girls and Youth (2000); the
General Health Act (1984); the Social Assistance Law
(2004), The law to Prevent and Sanction Human Trafficking (2007) and the General Population Law (1974)
the law of General Access of Women to a Life Free of
22 On December of 1999, the Congress of the Union amended the 4th article of the Constitution, in
order to incorporate in its context the notion of boys and girls as subject of rights. Through this amendment it was recognized that the boys and girls are entitled of the right on the satisfaction of their
nourishment needs, health, education and leisure for their integral development. It was established
that the ascendants, tutors and guardians have the obligation to preserve these rights and that the
State will provide the necessary to propitiate respect and dignity to childhood and the full exercise of
their rights. Likewise, it was stated that the State would grant facilities to the individuals to contribute
with the fulfillment of the childhood rights.
23 In 2005 there was another amendment to the 18th article of the Constitution, through which the
Juvenile system for minor offenders was transformed and the bases for the creation of an Integral system of justice for adolescents in conflict with the criminal law were set, according with the Convention
on the Childhood Rights. With this reform, the Federation as well as the States was complied to adapt
their own legislation in the matter and implement a new integral system of justice for the adolescent.
The federal law in this matter is not approved yet.
24 For a description of the approach on right developed by the United Nations, see http://www.unicef.
org/org/spanish/crc/index_framework.html
Related to this, there is a need for a country level
strategy to face the problem of obesity and the
56
Violence (2007) and the Federal Law to Prevent and
Eliminate Discrimination (2003), Federal Civil Code
and the Federal Penal Code among others, as well
as state laws of health, education, social assistance
and childhood rights protection, justice for youth
and local civil and penal codes.
boys, girls and adolescents. The second one refers
to the National Board for Children and Teenagers (COIA), formed by presidential decree on July
2001, as a permanent inter-secretarial commission,
with the purpose to coordinate and define policies,
strategies and actions that guarantee the total and
integral development of boys, girls and adolescents.
This board is formed by representatives from SSA,
SEDSOL, STPS, as well as the main directors of
IMSS, ISSSTE and SNDIF. Nevertheless, there have
been no recent reports, the last report on the Action
Program 2002-2010, was carried out in 2006, and
the COIA currently does not appear to be active.
The main institutions that have powers in matter of
protection of childhood rights are the DIF, the Attorney’s General Office (PGR), Human Rights National
Board (CNDH), Mexican Board for Aid to Refugees
(COMAR), the STPS; SEDESOL, the National Board
for Development of Indigenous People (CDI), Public
Security Ministry (SSP); Health Ministry (which is in
charge for the NOM 190 against domestic violence);
Judicial Power of the Federation and judicial state
power and the Civil Registry Office.
Specifically, the Law for Protection of the Rights of
Boys, Girls and Adolescents strives to assure the full
and integral development, which entails the chance
to develop physically, mentally, emotionally, socially
and morally. This law states, as well, that boys, girls
and adolescents cannot be imposed a regime of
life, study, work or discipline rules that would make
them renounce their rights to rest and leisure. It is
very important to emphasize that this Law states, in
its 14th article, that all the boys, girls and adolescents
are assured the right to the fulfillment of all their
rights.
The Social Assistance Law establishes a National
Social Assistance System to promote and coordinate the rendering of public and private social assistance services and to stimulate the participation
of the society. This law stipulates that all boys, girls
and adolescents- especially those in risky situations
due to malnutrition, physical or mental development deficiencies, mistreatment, abandonment,
etc.–, are eligible for social assistance. Likewise the
General Health Act states the importance of providing social assistance services that promote wellbeing and integration to society.
DIF is specifically the public organism in charge of implementing and applying public policies in matter of
social assistance that promote the integral development of the family and the community. Part of the DIF
includes the Proctorships on Defense of the Minor
and the Family, which are in charge of rendering free
orientation, protection, defense and legal counseling
to all people in vulnerable conditions. They receive
and orient affairs related to childhood mistreatment,
domestic violence, divorces, food allowances, search
for missing boys and girls and adoptions.
As for strategies and national programs, the PND,
the National Health Program 2007-2012 and the
State Development Plans integrate the main documents governing child protection. The PND sets
forth objectives related to child protection policies.
Specifically, the Program Oportunidades emphasizes the importance of developing a public policy
aimed to the family, with the purpose of reducing
social vulnerability. In addition it seeks for the sane
and integral development of Mexican childhood
warranting total respect to their rights, health attention, nourishment, education and housing.
DIF has several programs in matters of protection and
childhood rights, such as the Program for Prevention,
Attention, Discouragement and Eradication of Urban
Marginal Child Work (PROPADETIUM), which composes actions to prevent the incorporation of boys, girls
and adolescents in labor activities and to encourage
their enrollment in school (in case they are working).
Among these actions are: help the DIF state systems distribute academic and training scholarships;
provide training and counseling to those in charge of
coordinating and carrying out the program; counseling and monitoring visits to the DIF state systems. In
2007 the program attended to 74,446 working girls,
boys and adolescents, as well as 99,943 boys and
girls in risk of entering the labor market. (DIF, 2007),
The “Vivir Mejor” (Better living) strategy has two
parts related to childhood protection in Mexico. The
first one is, the “2002-2010 Action Program”, derived
from the Special Session in Favor of Childhood
of the General Assembly of the United Nations
celebrated in 2002, which comprises the federal
Government strategies to improve educational,
health conditions and the protection of rights for
Similarly, the Program on Promotion and Diffusion
of Childhood Rights, distributes information on
57
rights and guarantees of the laws to children and
and adolescents. It is estimated that, through this
program, in 2008 nearly 30,258 girls and 30,557
boys were informed and 7 thousand girls and
around 6 thousand boys have been trained, and
spread and promote the knowledge of their rights
to their families, schools and communities. As an
additional effort complementary to this program,
the Human Rights National Board coordinates
the Program on Women, Child and Family affairs,
founded in 1993 with the purpose of disseminating
knowledge on the human rights of women, children and family.
UNICEF, Casa Alianza among others. The purpose
of this coordination is to promote policies and
systematic actions for the prevention, attention and
protection of girls, boys and adolescents who are
victims of sexual exploitation.
Finally in matter of childhood protection, it stands
out the creation of the Inter-institutional Committee
on Dialogue on Unaccompanied Girls, Boys and
Adolescent in 2007, whose objective is to open a
discussion forum about policies and responsibilities on migrant boys and girls including mechanism to protect their rights. This committee is
integrated by the Secretary of State, The Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, SEDESOL, SEP, SSA, DIF, INM,
OIM, ACNUR, The Mexican Board for the Help of
Refugees (COMAR) and UNICEF, among other
institutions.
On the other side, in the Inter-institutional DIF
Program for Attention to Minors in the Border, the
Strategy for Prevention and Attention to Migrant
Girls, Boys and Adolescents Repatriated strives to
attend the necessities of migrant boys, girls and
adolescents and repatriates that travel alone and
the associated problems which they are exposed to,
as well as promoting coordinated actions to protect
and contain families and communities. In 2007 this
program served 21,366 girls, boys and adolescents
unaccompanied migrants and repatriates without
companion in the network of transit shelters (DIF/
UNICEF, 2009).
It is important to mention as well, that through the
creation of a task force of Officers of Protection
to Childhood (OPI), an important step to strength
the protection of the childrens’ rights was made.
The OPIs, forming part of the National Immigration
Institute have been trained to operate a repatriation
model for unaccompanied boys, girls and adolescents that guarantees the complete protection of
their rights. Its purpose is to identify and attend
the most urgent necessities of the migrant boys
and girls; to have the necessary tools to intervene
in crisis situations; handle protection requests and
cases of human trafficking, as well as to inform
boys, girls and adolescents – in appropriate terms,
about their rights as well as answering questions
on the immigration procedure. In the same manner,
the OPIs are in charge of bringing children to DIF
shelters and, in the case of foreigners, accompanying them during the repatriation process to their
countries of origin.
In addition, during 2008 the DIF aids the vulnerable population through integral attention rendered
in the Support Centers “Attention, Research and
Training Modules”.These centers serve girls and
adolescents between 6 and 19 years of age that
require social assistance, physical and mental protection to guarantee their rehabilitation (medical,
physiological, pedagogical), security, and survival
by providing opportunities for their education and
integral development. For example, are subject of
attention those children and adolescents that present degenerative illnesses, any kind of incapacity
or terminal illness. There are new centers that provide services such as medical attention, immunizations, civic events, social attention, pedagogical
and formative counseling, rehabilitation therapy,
everyday life activities and legal attention. (Second
State to the Nation Report, 2008).
Child outcomes, disparities and gender inequality.
In this section we analyze diverse indicators
regarding childhood rights and protection. Among
the indicators that are analyzed in this section are
the ones related with the birth registry, child labor,
teenage marriage and adoptions in Mexico.
Another important aspect in terms of protection of
rights of childhood is the “National Coordination to
Prevent, Attend and Eradicate Commercial Sexual
Childhood Exploitation”, which is headed by DIF, and
formed by diverse public institutions, civil society
organizations and international organisms, including SSA, SEP, SRE, SEGOB, STPS, SSP, PGR, CNDH,
We now analyze the indicator of registration of children at birth. Specifically we analyze the percentage of children with late registry (between one and
eight years after being born) in 2005. It is worth
noting that the analysis is done on children with
58
Table 3.3.1 Birth registration and its correlates (individual, HH and geog. Dimensions)
Mexico
Total incidence/prevalence
% of children registered
late/total number of
children registered in 2005
Of which: due to high cost,
Number children aged 0-59
travel or not want to pay
months (2002)
late fee
42.54
N/I
9,766,615
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
41.36
N/I
4,841,875
Female
43.71
N/I
4,924,740
None
77.71
563,863
Incomplete primary
60.72
4,032,884
Complete primary
46.93
4,032,884
Secondary
33.19
N/I
4,847,723
High school
25.87
N/I
4,847,723
Professional
19.13
N/I
4,847,723
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1: Northeast
34.41
N/I
1,311,618
Region 2: Northwest
33.63
N/I
684,496
Region 3: Center
34.71
N/I
3,189,840
Region 4: Center-West
30.39
2,309,960
Region 5: South-Southeast
61.72
2,270,701
Women’s education
Note: due to the lack of information regarding the number of children whose birth is not registered, this table displays information about the number of children that were registered late (from one to eight years
late) according to the total number of children registered.
Definitions: Orphan children are considered those for whom one or both biological parents are dead (MICS HL9=2 or HL11=2)
N/I: No information available
REFERENCE/SOURCE: INEGI, Mexican Family Life Survey 2005
late registration instead of children not registered
because for the latter information is not available.
country and lower in the Center-West (Table 3.3.1
ENEGI 2005)
Table 3.3.1 (INEGI, 2005) shows that approximately 42% of children in 2005 were registered
late (around 4 million), which can be as a result of
diverse causes such as: lack of money to go to the
civil registry, the absence of civil registry offices in
their community, the remoteness of these offices,
the charge for late expedition of the certificates,
as well as lack of knowledge of the importance of
timely registration.
Another indicator of child protection is related to
the level of childhood vulnerability according to
diverse characteristics of the individuals and the
household, taking as reference the vulnerability
definition from the Global Study on Poverty and
Disparities of Childhood, which indicates that a boy
or a girl is vulnerable if he or she lives in a household where parents suffer some chronic illness. In
the Table 3.3.2 (ENNVIH 2002) shows that about 42%
of the children were considered vulnerable in 2002
(around the 16.4 million). When the analysis is done
according to the size of the household, it is found
that in households with 5 and 6 or seven members
or more children were more vulnerable (43% in the
first case and 42 % in the second). When the head of
the family is a man, the children were more vulnerable, - 42% versus 39% in cases of households
headed by a woman. (Table 3.3.2, ENNViH 2002).
By gender, there are slightly more girls registered
late. According to the mother’s schooling, around
the 77% of the boys were registered late when the
mother has no schooling, while this percentage
was only 20% when the mother has a professional
career. As for the analysis according to geographical areas, the proportion of the children registered
late was higher in the South-Southeast of the
59
Table 3.3.2 Orphanhood, child vulnerability and their correlates (by individual, households and geographic dimensions)
% Vulnerable children
Number of children aged 0-17
years
41.27
39,961,034
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
41.68
19,526,898
Age group 1(0-2)
36.87
2,949,916
Age group 2(3-4)
38.16
2,001,231
Age group 3(5-9)
39.59
5,610,310
Age group 4(10-14)
44.71
5,893,468
Age group 5(15-17)
46.59
3,071,973
Female
40.87
20,434,136
Age group 1(0-2)
37.72
2,929,701
Age group 2(3-4)
38.67
2,078,426
Age group 3(5-9)
39.70
5,842,239
Age group 4(10-14)
41.35
6,233,066
Age group 5(15-17)
46.17
3,350,704
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
23.16
471,769
3-4 members
39.65
11,753,454
5-6 members
42.68
15,958,845
7+
41.69
11,776,966
None
39.52
3,768,184
Primary
39.44
17,808,063
Secondary+
43.64
15,666,506
Male
41.75
33,299,187
Female
38.83
6,661,847
Q1 (poorest)
37.15
9,186,066
Q2
42.02
8,137,545
Q3
44.92
7,332,664
Q4
42.15
6,528,072
Q5
54.67
6,221,163
Group 1: Indigenous
38.34
7,336,662
Group 2: Not Indigenous
41.93
32,624,372
Mexico, 2002
Total incidence/prevalence
Women’s education
Gender of the head of the household
Wealth index quintiles
Ethnicity/language/religion
Work (among hholds with children)
60
(Continued from previous page)
% Vulnerable children
Number of children aged 0-17
years
Both parents working
47.22
7,982,113
None of the parents are working
44.33
625,325
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
55.13
386,418
At least one child under 15 working
45.78
3,350,766
Adult(s) with chronic illness
100.00
16,490,875
Child/children with disability
6.47
1,532,442
38.83
6,661,847
N/I
High dependency ratio
(4+children per adult)
19.92
1,340,274
Elder (70+) person in household
57.98
2,702,967
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1: South-Southeast
(Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan)
43.65
9,503,953
Region 2: Center
(Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla, Morelos).
45.31
12,672,714
Region 3: Center-West
(Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato).
37.32
9,614,657
Region 4: Northwest
(Baja California Sur, Sinaloa, Sonora).
42.71
2,983,797
Region 5: Northeast
(Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon)
33.49
5,185,913
Urban
42.72
28,836,014
Rural
37.50
11,125,020
Mexico, 2002
Illness and disability in the household
Family vulnerability
(not mutually exclusive categories)
Single parent
Orphan or fostered child in household
Residence
Wealth index quintile define as the cost of the assets that have the household
Single parent define as a woman that is the head of the household
Definitions: Orphan children are considered those for whom one or both biological parents are dead (MICS HL9=2 or HL11=2)
Vulnerable child is define as a child who lives in a household where parents or some adult has a chronically illness
Chronically ill define as diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, cancer, rheumatism, gastric ulcer or migraine.
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
It is important to mention that the topic of orphan
hood was not considered here because of lack of
information on this variable in the ENNViH. From
the available e information on this subject, in
Mexico there are around 1.6 million orphans from
newborns to 18 years of age25.
By household wealth level, the results show that
the children who live in households from the
highest wealth quintile (the wealthiest) are in
more vulnerable conditions than the poorest children, which contrasts with the previous results.
These results can likely be explained because of
the fact that the questions from the ENNViH concerning chronic illnesses are self-reported. And it
may be that those with higher wealth have more
25 Words of the deputy Gabriela Molina Aguilar, president of the Commission of Vulnerable Groups,
Equity and Gender, in the announcement of the realization of the Adoption Forum: Juridical and Social
Problematic, of April 1, 2009. March 26, 2009.
61
Table 3.3.3.A Child labor and its correlates (by individual, households and geographic dimensions)
Total child labor (MICS
indicator 71, children
aged 5-14 years)
of which: paid work
outside the household
Number of children
aged 5-14 years
4.96
91.73
23,579,083
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
6.22
91.83
11,503,778
Age group 1(5-6)
0.25
100.00
2,196,779
Age group 2(7-8)
1.90
87.11
2,278,401
Age group 3(9-10)
3.42
84.02
2,306,887
Age group 4(11-12)
8.18
97.24
2,379,763
Age group 5(13-14)
16.80
91.11
2,341,948
Female
3.76
91.58
12,075,305
Age group 1(5-6)
0.04
100.00
2,189,161
Age group 2(7-8)
2.27
90.83
2,362,266
Age group 3(9-10)
1.62
71.44
2,601,665
Age group 4(11-12)
5.35
90.39
2,516,316
Age group 5(13-14)
9.27
96.26
2,405,897
Yes
4.61
90.32
20,659,559
No
15.59
97.86
1,401,026
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
6.99
100.00
193,174
3-4 members
3.32
93.92
6,578,518
5-6 members
5.29
88.84
9,782,063
7+
5.99
93.89
7,025,328
None
7.82
96.77
2,341,498
Primary
5.73
90.13
10,525,041
Secondary+
3.39
90.66
9,208,350
Male
5.12
91.64
19,567,822
Female
4.17
92.29
4,011,261
Q1 (poorest)
4.57
88.88
5,249,195
Q2
5.05
98.62
4,677,688
Q3
6.17
96.62
4,413,742
Q4
3.97
85.43
3,918,714
Q5
5.91
94.89
3,770,167
Mexico, 2002
Total incidence/prevalence
School participation
Women’s education
Gender of the head of the household
Wealth index quintiles
62
(Continued from previous page)
Total child labor (MICS
indicator 71, children
aged 5-14 years)
of which: paid work
outside the household
Number of children
aged 5-14 years
Group 1
4.98
94.07
4,388,896
Group 2
4.96
91.19
19,190,187
Both parents working
8.08
89.29
5,027,265
None of the parents are working
2.45
100.00
387,614
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
4.63
100.00
217,072
At least one child under 15 working
99.57
91.73
1,174,803
Adult(s) with chronic illness
5.58
95.13
9,752,604
Child/children with disability
3.37
69.45
212,055
Single parent
4.17
92.29
4,011,261
Orphan child in household
N/I
N/I
N/I
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
8.98
92.45
875,998
Elder (70+) person in household
6.99
100.00
1,617,007
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1
2.74
88.17
5,750,350
Region 2
5.14
92.89
7,306,115
Region 3
8.25
91.41
5,728,871
Region 4
3.95
95.89
1,734,862
Region 5
3.10
91.65
3,058,885
Residence
Urban
4.94
91.13
16,834,768
Rural
5.00
93.22
6,744,315
Mexico, 2002
Ethnicity/language/religion
Work (among hholds with children)
Illness and disability in the household
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive
categories)
The sub-national regions are: region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan).
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla, Morelos).
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato).
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa, Sonora).
Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon)
Groups of ethnicity: Group 1: Indigenous. Group 2: Not Indigenous
Exchange rate using at day October 14th. $12.00
National poverty line is in rural areas $494.78 and in urban areas $672.27
Wealth index quintile define as the cost of the assets that have the household
Single parent define as a woman that is the head of the household
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
63
Table 3.3.3 Child labor and its correlates
(additional table)
knowledge about their true health conditions.
Similar patterns exist with respect to indigenous
status, almost 42% of non indigenous children
lived in a vulnerable situation in 2002. (13.6
million), compared with 38% of the indigenous
(around 2.8 million).
Mexico
Occupation rate of
children age 5-17
Total incidence/prevalence
Individual dimension
When analyzing childhood protection according to
the percentage of children who work26, Table 3.3.3.
(ENNViH 2002) shows that nearly 5% of children
from 5 to 14 years of age worked in 2002, and of
those working, almost 92% had a paying job27. Distinguishing by gender, a higher proportion of males
worked than of females (6% versus 4%). Only 5% of
children who worked went to school (approximately
951 thousand).
16.6
Female
8.3
Yes
58.5
No
41.5
Household dimension
Household size
1-3 members
14.1
8+
36.7
Education of the head of the
family
None
29.8
High school +
9.8
Geographic dimension
State
According to the National Survey on Occupation and
Employment 2007, which had a module on childhood
labor, the labor force participation rate was 12.5%
(16.6% for boys and 8.3% for girls) in other words,
near 3.6 million children from 5 to 17 years of age
performed some kind of economic activity.
Male
School participation
Mother’s schooling has an important negative relation with the probability that her children will work.
When she has never attended school, nearly 8 % of
children worked, whereas when the mother went to
Junior High only 3% of children worked. The Center
area of Mexico is where there is a higher proportion
of children who work, (about 8%) (Table 3.3.3. ENNViH 2002)
12.5
Estado de Mexico
8.6
Jalisco
7.9
Puebla
7.9
Distrito Federal
3.2
Baja California Sur
0.3
Residence
Urban (+ 100 thousand habitants)
8.6
Rural
15.6
Source: Encuesta de Ocupacion y Empleo. Modulo de Trabajo Infantil 2007
Of all working boys and girls, approximately 1.5 million did not attend school (41.5%), from which 70.7%
were boys and 29.5% girls. By household size, the
labor force participation rate of children rises as the
size of the household increases. In households with
one to three members there were 14.1% households
with working children while in households with eight
or more members this rate was 36.7%.
thousand habitants was 15.6%.
By state, the State of Mexico concentrated 8.6% of
the total number of children with a labor activity in
the country (312 thousand children), followed by
Jalisco and Puebla with 7.9% each (228 thousand children). The Federal District has 3.2% of total childhood
labor (115 thousand children). Baja California Sur
reported a lower number of children working (0.3%
of the total, which corresponds to nearly 12 thousand
children.)
When the head of the household has less schooling,
the percentage of the households with children with
labor activities was higher (29.8% of the households
where the head of the family had no formal studies
versus 9.8% of the households where the head of the
family had at least some high school education.
In addition to these indicators, the ENOE shows
interesting numbers on the labor conditions of
children between 5 and 17 years of age. About 3.6%
of these children worked in places considered not to
be suitable or prohibited for minors, (for examples
mines, places without ventilation or light, streets
or avenues, bars). Likewise, 20.7% boys and girls
The labor force participation rate in more urbanized areas was 8.6% and in areas with less than 100
26 Childhood labor refers in this case when the child developed any economical activity the week
before, paid or not.
27
64
Table 3.3.4 Early marriage and its correlates (by individual, household and geographic dimensions)
Percentage of
women aged
15-49 married
before age 15
Percentage of
women aged
15-49 married
before age 18
Number of
women aged
15-49
2.82
16.65
27,529,952
Individual dimension
Female
Age group 1(15-20)
2.39
12.25
6,573,528
Age group 2(21-25)
1.81
13.09
3,947,756
Age group 3(26-30)
3.27
17.58
4,469,577
Age group 4(31-40)
2.99
19.80
7,343,479
Age group 5(41 +)
3.49
19.68
5,195,612
Mexico, 2002
Total incidence/prevalence
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
1.27
16.68
1,652,024
3-4 members
1.94
14.20
10,487,265
5-6 members
3.16
16.80
9,442,197
7+
4.26
20.73
5,948,466
Women’s education
None
1.25
6.60
1,967,909
Primary
0.91
3.69
5,643,228
Secondary+
1.12
2.36
2,176,438
Gender of the head of the household
Male
2.84
17.24
22,095,546
Female
2.72
14.27
5,434,406
Wealth index quintiles
Q1 (poorest)
3.45
21.72
5,446,582
Q2
3.98
20.17
4,975,966
Q3
4.03
19.96
4,635,969
Q4
1.87
14.23
4,763,976
Q5
1.78
11.14
5,727,110
Ethnicity/language/religion
Group 1: Indigenous
4.92
23.66
4,178,127
Group 2: Not Indigenous
2.44
15.40
23,351,825
Work (among hholds with children)
Both parents working
1.56
1.73
692,482
None of the parents are working
4.20
4.20
58,235
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
1.85
1.85
101,919
At least one child under 15 working
4.17
21.87
1,497,867
Illness and disability in the household
Adult(s) with chronic illness
2.66
16.15
12,514,757
Child/children with disability
6.01
37.03
117,855
Single parent
2.72
14.27
5,434,406
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
5.61
27.34
374,492
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive categories)
65
(Continued from previous page)
Percentage of
women aged
15-49 married
before age 15
Percentage of
women aged
15-49 married
before age 18
Number of
women aged
15-49
1.78
9.26
2,153,280
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan)
4.11
20.71
6,111,100
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla, Morelos).
2.43
17.25
9,162,361
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato).
2.49
14.14
6,180,699
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa, Sonora).
2.79
12.89
2,310,480
Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon)
2.23
15.05
3,765,312
Urban
2.26
14.62
21,338,483
Rural
4.75
23.66
6,191,469
Mexico, 2002
Elder (70+) person in household
Residence
Wealth index quintile define as the cost of the assets that have the household
Single parent define as a woman that is the head of the household
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
Table 3.3.5 Child protection: supply side and
uptake variables by region 1990-2006
in labor activities were exposed to some kind of
workplace risk, meaning they worked in places with
excessive noise, humidity, dangerous tools, chemical products, etc.
Number of
trials for
adoptions
Number of
trials for
adoptions
due to a
sentence
2182
973
574
117
- number of trials
490
322
Region 3: Center
- number of trials
328
48
- number of trials
550
430
Region 5: SouthSoutheast
- number of trials
240
56
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
2007
Regarding early marriages, the Table 3.3.4 (ENNViH,
2002) shows the percentage of women between 15
and 49 years of age that married before 15 and 18
years of age in 2002. Nearly 3% of women in this age
range married before the age of 15 and almost 17%
did before 18 years of age.
Total
- number of trials
By region
Region 1: Northeast
- number of trials
There is a significant difference between the percentages of indigenous women that married before 15
years of age (almost 5%) compared with non indigenous women (2%). Likewise nearly 24% of indigenous women married before 18 years of age, versus
15% of non indigenous women.
Region 2: Northwest
Region 4: Center-West
In matter of adoptions, Table 3.3.5 (DIF, 2008) shows
the number of trials performed in Mexico in 2007
for an adoption to be granted. Here the number
of trials for regular adoptions and the number of
trials by sentence is reported, according to the
geographical area. In general it shows that the
number of adoption is very low (2,200 for the case
of regular adoptions and 973 due to a sentence),
being higher the number of regular adoptions in
the Northeast region (574) and in the Center-West
(550). The adoptions due to a sentence are higher
in the Center-West (430) and almost minimal (48) in
the Center area.
Urban
- number of trials
Rural
- number of trials
Northeast region includes Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Chihuahua and Durango and Coahuila; Northwest includes Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora and Sinaloa. Center includes Distrito Federal, Queretaro, Hidalgo, Tlaxcala, Morelos and Estado de Mexico. Center West includes Jalisco,
Michoacan, Colima, Aguascalientes, Nayarit, Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi and Guanajuato; and
South-Southeast includes Puebla, Campeche, Yucatan, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Tabasco,
Guerrero and Veracruz.
Source: www.dif.gob.mx
66
Since Mexico is a country with high levels of
population migration (in particular to the United
States), it is important to analyze the situation of
the migrants and mainly boys, girls and adolescents who travel alone or with their parents on
their way to the United States. Due to their vulnerable situation, there is a high probability that they
will suffer violations of their rights. According to
the National System for Integral Family Development, in 2007 there were 27 shelters in the country, for immigrant boys, girls and adolescents who
are not accompanied by their parents (DIF/UNICEF,
2009). From these shelters, there is only one in the
Southern region of the country, the remainder are
at the north border.
to the United States and were repatriated to
Mexico.
In the same manner, childhood sexual exploitation
represents a serious violation to the rights of boys
and girls. Regarding this subject, the “Infancia Robada” (Stolen Childhood) study from the Unicef, DIF
and CIESAS estimates that in 2000 around 16,000
girls were victims of this type of exploitation.
The absence of birth certificates from the childhood
population that live in marginalized conditions
also represents a serious lack of protection to their
rights, since by not having a legal identity, the children face an obstacle to attending school and having access to the basic services such as health, and
to exercise their rights in general. This is particularly
common in indigenous communities
Causalities and correlates analysis
There are a number of different situations that put
in risk the fulfillment of childhood rights in Mexico.
Child labor, unaccompanied migration of boys, girls
and adolescents without companion, sexual exploitation, violence, lack of registration at birth and the
case of boys and girls that live with VIH/SIDA are
some examples (UNICEF, 2008).
It should be mentioned that the prevalence of VIH/
SIDA among the children and adolescents, even
though it is currently relatively low, requires attention and constant monitoring to avoid the spreading
of new infections at increasingly early ages. The
proportion of people younger than 14 years of age
living with VIH represented 2.4% of the total of the
accumulated cases between 1983 and 2008, corresponding to 2831 cases, according to statistics from
CENSIDA (UNICEF, 2008).
About 3.6 million Mexican children between 5 and
17 years of age, worked in 2007 (ENOE, 2007),
from which 66.9% are boys and 33.1% are girls.
Approximately 30.5% were between the ages of 5
and 13 and the remaining 69.5% were between 14
and 17 years of age. At the interior of the Republic
Guerrero reported the highest child labor activity rate (20%) and the Federal District the lowest
(6.1%).
In regards to violence, in Mexico social inequities,
poverty and other factors have contributed to the
increase of violence in many areas, (households,
schools, communities, and in workplaces), besides
school violence, which has been linked to high rates
of school desertion (Pinheiro, 2006).
There is a significant and negative correlation
between the household income and the probability
that a child works. In other words, as the household
income decreases the probability that a child works
increases. Furthermore, if the child works there is
an increase in the probability of living with between
one and four deprivations. Furthermore, there is
also a strong and negative correlation between child
work and school attendance.
In the last years, violence and insecurity in Mexico
have increased and, and many victims are boys,
girls and adolescents. According to the National Report on Violence and Health, 2006, 2 children under
14 years of age die each day as a result of violence
in Mexico.
The impact of violence on the population is multiple. Violence is associated with situations of
posttraumatic or chronic stress, with cardiovascular,
digestive disorders as well as mental health disorders such as depression, anxiety or insomnia,
among others. Whether it is at work, home at school
or at social and public life, the impact of violence
generates diverse social expenditures; with respect
to only the work aspect, The World Health Organization distinguishes direct, indirect and intangible
The situation of vulnerability and lack of protection that unaccompanied migrant boys and girls
suffer is evident. (North Border Child Immigrants:
Legislation and Processes, Unicef-DIF 2004). Statistics from the National Immigration Institute (INM,
2008) show that, in 2008 around 32 thousand boys
and girls younger than 18 years of age immigrated
67
costs from violence that include the healthy years
of life lost by a incapacity or death related with
violent events, labor absenteeism, school truancy,
accidents, diverse illnesses, and the reduction in
creativity and productivity from individuals that live
situations of violence (SSA, 2006).
for protection of children’s rights, currently the
integral protection mechanisms which allow to fully
guarantee these rights to all the boys, girls and
adolescent in the country are still insufficient.
A first step towards making recommendations and
developing a strategy to improve the fulfillment of
the rights of the children would be the development
of more statistical information that allows determining the current state of the children’s rights. During
the elaboration of this report it was evident that,
there is insufficient information available on many
subjects that are essential to contextualize childhood poverty. As an example, according to the last
observations done in Mexico by the Committee on
Children Rights, there is little information violence
against children – of any kind, physical, psychological, sexual or negligence, and in any field, at home,
at school, at the community, at the institutions- the
number of adoptions nationally and internationally;
the number of children in public institutions; the
number of children not registered nationally and by
state as well as the reasons for not being registered
according to the different disaggregations: the number of orphan children and street children, and the
number of children living in vulnerable conditions
from which one or both parents have died.
According to the Health Ministry, in 2006 there were
223 specialized services of attention to victims of
violence in this institution. For the cases of extreme
violence where the lives of women, and/or her
children are in danger, they have established agreements for providing shelter services with 25 organizations from the civil society and public institutions
that offer these services.
The numbers related to violence show that the mortality rate for homicides in boys from 0 to 4 years
of age is 1.6 for every 100,000 inhabitants, while in
boys from 5 to 14 it is 1.1. In the case of girls from
0 to 4 years of age it is also 1.6 and in girls from 5
to 14 it is 0.7. The mortality rate for homicides is 0.9
in boys from 5 to 14 years and 9.4 in men from 15
to 29. In the case of women, this rate is 0.5 for girls
between 5 and 14 years of age and 2.2 for women
between 15 and 29 years (SSA, 2006).
Even though statistics are scarce on the magnitude
of this problem, in Mexico there is also violence
carried out by teachers and school personnel (for
example, the 2006 National Report on Violence and
Health show that in 2003 16% of children between
6 and 9 years said that they were beaten at school).
Regarding domestic violence, the National Report
on Violence and Health show that in 2003 28% of
boys between 6 and 9 years old had been beaten at
home. In regards to institutional violence (defined
as the violence practiced by State institutions, their
organisms and their agents), in Mexico there were
3,975 cases of boys and girls institutionalized due to
protection reasons in 2004, but there is no available information of violence in such institutions.
Likewise, nearly 4.427 boys, girls and adolescents
were deprived of their liberty by a conflict with the
criminal law (United Nations, 2006).
In addition, to strength the protection of the childhood rights it is necessary to have further collaboration of the different agencies and institutions in
charge of monitoring the main principles (education,
health, nourishment…) of human development. In
light of this situation it is clear the necessity to keep
working in the generation of better laws and policies
that monitor the integral and universal fulfillment of
the rights of boys, girls and adolescents in Mexico,
in particular those that are unprotected due to their
labor situation, sexual exploitation, presence of
VIH/SIDA, lack of identity documents or any other
circumstance that risks their full development.
3.4 Education
Fundamental laws, policies and programs
The Mexican Education System is structured pursuant to provisions in the Political Constitution of the
Mexican United States and the Law of Education.
Within the first one, the 3rd Article establishes the
State’s obligation to provide basic, non religious and
free and mandatory education to all the individuals. In the second one it is further specified that the
Basic elements and alliances for a strategy
The topics that have been reviewed in the previous
sections show that although Mexico has ratified
many international instruments in matter of human
rights and specifically in matter of childhood rights,
and that the country has a national legal framework
68
State is obligated to supply sufficient education
services so that all of the people may go through
preschool, primary and secondary (junior high)
education, which correspond to the basic mandatory
education in Mexico.
proportion of the population attending basic education school (preschool and primary and secondary
school) is undertaken by the general modality. There
is also the modality of indigenous education and the
communitarian courses developed by the National
Council for Education (CONAFE).30 One out of each
three general primary schools is multi-grade, while
two out of every three indigenous schools are multigrade, that is, their teachers serve more than one
grade simultaneously(INEE, 2007).31
Throughout the past fifteen years, the country
has been through a series of reforms in matter
of education. In 1992 a National Agreement for
Modernization of Basic Education (ANMEBN) was
signed, which among its purposes was to decentralize education services. To this effect, the Federal
level transferred onto the 31 States the means
and responsibility to operate the basic education
systems (preschool, primary and secondary), being
it the Federal level’s responsibility to train teachers,
develop the curriculum and carry out evaluations.28
In 1993 compulsory schooling was extended to
secondary education. Later on, in 2002, a constitutional reform was approved making preschool
education mandatory for all children from 3 to 5
years old and establishing time-frames to fulfill
this provision: for five year olds during schoolterm 2004-2005, four year olds during school-term
2005-2006 and three year olds during school-term
2008-200929.
For its part, secondary schools include general
schools, technical schools and tele secondary
schools. One out of each five telesecondary
schools is multi-grade. This modality began in
1968 as an effort to elevate the educational coverage in isolated rural communities and marginalized communities. Telesecondary schools have a
teacher per grade and are characterized for using
differentiated didactical resources for each one of
the three grades which include, mainly, television
programs that are broadcast through a satellite net on a determined schedule and learning
guidelines for the students. Telesecondary schools
represent 20% of total secondary schools and
the number of these schools significantly varies among the states. Technical schools, in turn,
respond to the need of the students to acquire
specific knowledge (with more emphasis on
technological skills) that allows them to rapidly
incorporate to the labor force.
The Education Act divides education into three
areas: basic education, high school, and university.
Basic education consists of three levels, which
includes 3 years of preschool education, 6 years of
primary education and 3 years of secondary school
or junior high. High school includes senior high
school level (general or technical), and is carried out
in two or three years (between 15 and 17 years old).
Finally, “university” consists of college or university
and postgraduate degrees.
With respect to high school education, there is the
modality of technical professional and baccalaureate, within which general, technological or telehigh
schools can be found.
The majority of schools in Mexico are public, though
private institutions do cover close to 9% of children
in primary and secondary schools. Close to 75% of
senior high schools are financed with public funds
(Reimers and Knaul, 2007).
The establishment of mandatory preschool education resulted in a rapid growth of enrollment in this
level. In 2005, 98% of the 5 years old children, 81%
of four years old children and 25% of three years old
children were enrolled into preschool.
The Education Law also establishes that education
authorities are responsible for encouraging more
equal education and also the achievement of equality in the opportunities of access and permanence
within the education services. In 2005, the Law was
reformed and established that the annual amount
which the State-Federation, federal entities and mu-
Each level of education has different types of provision; furthermore there are several types of primary,
secondary, high schools, and colleges. The largest
28 The Federal District (D.F.) is different from the rest of the States because it is the sole Federal Entity
where education services continue to be federal. In this frame, the D.F. has created its own education
services and offers free benefits to education centers and students: books, school lunches, uniforms,
improvements to infrastructure. In this manner, not only federal education services coexist in the D.F.
with some local services within the entity, but from the government it has been sought to gradually
generate an education option for all of its territory. Source: “ Descentralizacion y Reforma Educativa en
la Ciudad de Mexico” (Decentralization and Education Reform in Mexico City) (2008). Federal District
Government’s Education Department.
29 It is important to mention that in 2008 it was determined to grant a larger term to make preschool
education compulsory as of the age of three.
30 Communitarian courses offer preschool and primary education to children who live in rural communities. These are multi-grade and are serviced not by teachers but by communitarian instructors.
31 In principle, multi-grade schools were created due to the low rates of enrollment, the small size of
the communities and their high level of isolation.
69
nicipalities- must assign to expenditures in public
education cannot be less than eight percent of the
country’s gross domestic product.
states and delays in its implementation.
We now address some of the main education programs that seek to improve the quality and access
to education for the population in poverty. In the
first place, within this Report some of the education
scholarships to basic and high school education
are mentioned, being the Oportunidades Program
the most important. In addition to the education
grants provided, other notable programs include the
School Quality Program and that the most outstanding programs, because of the effort they represent
to improve educational offer and a program which
allows pregnant adolescent girls- to continue studying (Program of Scholarship Award for Youths and
Pregnant Mothers).
The Sectorial Education Plan (PSE) 2007-2012 –
drafted based on the PND-, establishes the objectives and goals in matter of education in Mexico.
Among these objectives are: 1) to elevate the
quality of education, 2) extend education opportunities to reduce disparities among social
groups and promote equity, 3) offer an integral
education that forms good citizens, 4) offer quality
education services to educate persons with a high
sense of social responsibility, and 5) encourage a
school and institutional operation that strengthens
participation of school centers in the process of
making decisions, that makes the different agents
co-responsible, promotes security, transparency,
and accountability.
First the Oportunidades Program, in coordination
with the Public Education Ministry, grants scholarships to 2.5 million children in primary level (1.27
million boys and 1.23 million girls), 1.7 million
youths in junior high and 789 thousand youths in
senior high that live in extreme poverty (Oportunidades bimonthly indicators, November-December
2008). This Program gives out monthly grants
beginning in third grade and all the way to the last
grade of senior high school education, with slightly
higher grants for girls than boys being in junior
high. This design feature is due to the fact that at
this level women begin to have higher levels of
dropout than men, though other evidences show
that men tend to repeat more grades than women
and as a consequence the levels of schooling
between men and women in the Program are not
significantly different. It is important to mention
that to be able to participate in the program, the
community must have a health center and a school
close by. The program has numerous evaluation
studies that have shown that the program increases school attendance, reduces repeat of grades and
in general causes children and youth to achieve a
higher level of education (Parker, Rubalcava and
Teruel, 2008).
Furthermore, it is important to point out that since
2006 a National Evaluation of Academic Achievement in School Centers (ENLACE) has been applied,
which is a test that the Public Education Ministry
applies to public and private schools throughout the
country. It is applied to all girls and boys enrolled in
school from first to sixth grade at the primary level
and youths of first, second and third grades of secondary school (junior high) as per the official study
plans and programs on subjects of Spanish, Mathematics and Civic and Ethical Formation. It is also
applied to twelfth graders to evaluate knowledge
and basic skills acquired in reading comprehension
and math (Enlace 2009). The results are delivered to
parents and also to the schools (and at the school
level can also be consulted by Internet).
The Public Education Ministry has also proposed a
new strategy called “Alliance for Quality on Education”, in which Federal Government, SEP, SHCP,
SEDESOL, SSA and the National Union of Education Workers (SNTE) participate. Among the main
actions promoted, there are: modernizing of the
school centers, professionalizing of teachers and
education authorities (in this item, the intention is
that the access and promotion of all new teachers
be granted through a national teacher evaluation),
integral wellbeing and development of the students
and the evaluation of all the participants within the
educational process. It is further intended to grant
incentives to teachers and students based on the
results of standardized achievement tests. This last
item has turned out to be a controversial aspect of
the reform that has resulted in its rejection by some
On the other hand, the National Scholarships Program for Retention of High School Students, begun
in 2007, delivers grants to students in conditions of
patrimonial poverty and with an academic merit,
located in rural and/or urban areas with a very high
margination in order to promote continuing their
education at this level.
The Quality Schools Program (PEC) seeks to improve the quality of the education through actions
70
Table 3.4.1 School attendance and correlates (by individual, households and geographic dimensions)
Net primary school attendance rate*
Mexico, 2002
(MICS Indicator No. 55)
87.30
Total
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
87.26
Age group 1
86.68
Age group 2
92.08
Age group 3
92.59
Age group 4
89.82
Age group 5
74.29
Female
87.35
Age group 1
88.87
Age group 2
92.16
Age group 3
92.96
Age group 4
89.56
Age group 5
71.64
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
81.85
3-4 members
88.75
5-6 members
87.70
7+
85.63
Women’s education
None
82.80
Primary
87.34
Secondary+
91.19
Gender of the head of the household
Male
87.86
Female
84.61
Wealth index quintiles
Q1 (poorest)
86.58
Q2
90.09
Q3
90.46
Q4
92.94
Q5
91.61
Ethnicity/language/religion*
Group 1: Indigenous
90.57
Group 2: Not Indigenous
86.55
Work (among hholds with children)
Both parents working
94.20
None of the parents are working
96.47
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
91.42
At least one child under 15 working
84.60
Illness and disability in the household
Adult(s) with chronic illness
90.95
71
(Continued from previous page)
Net primary school attendance rate*
(MICS Indicator No. 55)
87.30
Mexico, 2002
Total
Child/children with disability
79.22
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive categories)
Single parent
84.61
Orphan child in household
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
83.87
Elder (70+) person in household
90.32
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan)
92.63
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla, Morelos).
83.82
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato).
86.80
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa, Sonora).
85.92
Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon)
87.35
Residence
Urban
85.72
Rural
91.18
* Net primary school attendance rate define as children between 6 to 15 years that attending the school
Wealth index quintile define as the cost of the assets that have the household
Single parent define as a woman that is the head of the household
Definitions: Orphan children are considered those for whom one or both biological parents are dead (MICS HL9=2 or HL11=2)
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
that give more responsibility and capacity for decision making to school principals, teachers and parents. Evaluations of this program have found that
the failure rates of students of beneficiary schools
is 0.31% less than those students of not beneficiary
schools (CIDE, 2006).
education in the modalities of regular schooling
system, adult education or in any other modality
available in Mexico. In 2007 there were 2 thousand
women with scholarships in this program.
More recent programs that have been implemented include the Program of Full Time Schools
and the Program of Safe Schools. The Full Time
Schools Program began its operation in 2008 and
extends the school day (until reaching 1,200 hours
of classes per year). It is aimed at basic education
public schools, preferably those that serve populations in urban marginalized, indigenous or migrating, areas; and those which present low education results. On the other hand, the Safe School
Program (PES), created in 2007, gives economic
support to schools to improve the security of the
students, teachers, principals, parents and the
community.
Furthermore, the Program of Compensatory Actions
to Reduce Education Delays operated by National
Board for Education (CONAFE) forms part of the
programs of this institution aimed at the poor population that were created in 1993, both in Mexico and
other Latin American countries, financed by World
Bank until 2007. Specifically this program seeks to
improve access to education and the remaining in
school of children and youths of vulnerable and socially displaced sectors. To achieve this, the program
carries out actions such as: providing education
and administrative infrastructure; supply of didactic materials; training and counseling to mothers,
fathers and teachers; economic support to Parent
Associations to strengthen school operation, incentives to teachers and principals, and institutional
strengthening.
In matter of public expenditures, it is important to
note that the financing in the education sector has
been consistently increasing for the past fifteen
years, in 1990 it represented 3.7% of the GDP and in
2005 it represented 5.5% (Reimers and Knaul, 2007).
In 2007 this percentage was of 7.05% (Government
Report). None withstanding, it is important to mention that the assignment of the expenditures does
The Program of Scholarships for Youths and Pregnant Mothers supports young mothers and pregnant youth to continue and conclude their basic
72
Table C
Individuals between 6 and 14 years old by age group and expenditures per capita
MXFLS-1 (ENNViH)
Age group and Expense per capita group
12-14 years old
6 to 14 years old
Years of
schooling
% that repeated
a school year
Cognitive test
% Enrolled in
school
Group 1
5.13
49.23
-
84.83
Group 2
5.61
33.74
-
87.71
Group 3
5.96
29.12
-
93.97
Group 4
6.21
19.23
-
93.79
Group 5
6.29
18.69
-
95.83
Group 1
2.74
27.68
9.47
88.54
Group 2
3.06
19.61
10.63
90.43
Group 3
3.38
16.72
11.11
94.42
Group 4
3.51
11.97
11.48
94.77
Group 5
3.6
12.12
11.99
95.87
Cognitive test is based on Ravens matrix. Source: Mexican Family Life Survey (MXFLS-1)
Table D
Information about the school where children between 6 and 14 years old assist to.
Age group and
School
School
Proportion of
School
School has
Expenditures per
has
has
computers
has clean
computers
capita group
electricity
toilets
per student
floors
TOTAL
Proportion
of books
per student
#
classrooms
Group 1
97.84
82.01
13.67
0.016
64.49
30.94
2.14
10.54
Group 2
94.4
86.4
17.6
0.023
73.33
40
1.44
10.64
96.85
92.91
24.41
0.026
82.26
49.61
1.46
12.17
99.19
95.93
34.96
0.027
78.86
54.47
1.53
12.66
6 – 7 years
Group 3
old
Group 4
12-14
years old
School
has a
library
Group 5
98.32
94.17
41.18
0.062
84.03
45
2.9
13.16
Group 1
98.4
82.75
22.36
0.037
73.08
43.45
3.18
10.22
Group 2
98.51
91.99
38.87
0.033
82.58
54.3
3.05
11.72
Group 3
99.13
95.34
52.19
0.035
82.01
58.31
2.93
13.89
Group 4
99.14
96.29
56.29
0.044
83.43
60.86
3.62
15.14
Group 5
99.12
97.66
58.19
0.053
88.56
63.45
4.95
14.73
Group 1
98.23
81.11
14.61
0.029
68.92
36.01
2.42
10.17
Group 2
97.49
90.2
26.69
0.026
77.63
47.93
2.22
11.27
Group 3
98.7
94.05
35.61
0.029
82.11
50.43
2.13
12.71
Group 4
99.01
94.83
41.14
0.036
81.31
54.46
2.64
13.59
Group 5
99.08
96.08
42.79
0.054
87.05
53.92
3.77
13.62
Source: Mexican Family Life Survey (MXFLS-1) 2002
not historically appear to have been equal. (Scott,
2008). The analysis that will be later on presented
shows disparities in the quality and supply of education services available to children by household
income levels.
is presented. Specifically, the proportion of children who attend primary and secondary school is
analyzed according to different individual and home
characteristics (Table 3.4.1, ENNViH 2002). Close to
87% of the children between 6 and 15 years old attend school, this percentage being practically equal
among boys and girls.
Child outcomes, disparities
and gender inequality
With regard to the mother’s schooling, close
to 82% of the children whose mothers have no
schooling were enrolled in school in 2002; 87%
In this section an analysis on school enrollment
73
Table 3.4.2 Child education: supply side and uptake variables by region 1990-2006
Major child education indicator: number of teachers per
1,000 students
1990
1995
2000
2005
2006
2007
Total
Major education supply indicator*
- number of teachers per 1,000 students
44.38
47.62
49.55
51.39
51.46
By region
Region 1: Northeast
Major education supply indicator*
- number of teachers per 1,000 students
50.7
48.26
51.73
51.02
51.74
51.39
51.4
Region 2: Northwest
Major education supply indicator*
- number of teachers per 1,000 students
46.89
49.50
50.55
52.50
52.03
52.1
Region 3: Center
Major education supply indicator*
- number of teachers per 1,000 students
43.81
47.52
49.06
51.22
51.59
51.7
Region 4: Center-West
Major education supply indicator*
- number of teachers per 1,000 students
45.60
48.09
51.00
54.04
54.02
Region 5: South-Southeast
Major education supply indicator*
- number of teachers per 1,000 students
54.0
41.66
44.58
47.06
49.69
50.00
48.2
Northeast region includes Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon and Coahuila; Northwest includes Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora, Sinaloa, Chihuahua and Durango. Center includes Distrito Federal, Queretaro, Hidalgo, Tlaxcala, Puebla, Morelos and Estado de Mexico. Center West includes Jalisco, Michoacan, Colima, Aguascalientes, Nayarit, Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi and Guanajuato;
and South-Southeast includes Campeche, Yucatan, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Guerrero and Veracruz.
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Primer Informe de Gobierno 2007
of the children whose mothers have only primary
education went to school, and 91% of the children
whose mothers have secondary education or more
went to school. The children of households located
within the highest wealth quintile are those who
had the largest percentage of school attendance
(91% of the last quintile, compared to the 86% of
the first ).
We now summarize some more detailed analysis on
education derived from Parker (2008). By income/
poverty groups it is found that, for each age group,
the poorest children present lower percentages of
enrollment to school. A notorious difference is found
in the group of 12 to 14 years old in 2002, in which
the poorest had a rate of enrollment of 84% compared to a rate of 95% for children of higher income
demonstrating differences overtime in school enrollment by wealth categories increase. (Table C).
D we present an analysis on the information of the
school to which children between 6 and 14 years
attend per age group and expenditures per capita
in 2002. With respect to school infrastructure,
indicators such as having electricity, schools with
lavatories, computers, clean floors and libraries,
the in all cases the results show that the poorest
children have access to schools in the worst conditions. For example, the proportion of computers
per student is far from being equitable among
the levels of income/poverty. The poorest children
attend schools where there is a fewer number of
computers per child. Additionally, while in the
highest quintiles there are almost four books per
student in the library(3.7), in the first income/poverty quintile the relationship of books per students
is of 2.4. The preceding statistics are suggestive
that government resources to education services
have not tended to favor the neediest groups.
We now turn to an analysis of the characteristics
of schools to which students have access. In Table
As another indicator to analyze children’s education
from the point of view of the supply (number of
74
teachers per 1,000 students) and by geographical
region, Table 3.4.2, dated on the First State of the
Nation Report 2007, shows that throughout the
years the coverage of teachers has been increasing
considerably in all the country, though this has been
occurring in an uneven manner. For example, while
in the Central-West area of the country there are 54
teachers per every 1,000 students (numbers 2007),
in the South-Southeast there are 48.
for indigenous primary schools. In Mathematics,
42% of the students in private schools had a good
performance, followed by 22% in general primary
schools, 8.5% in indigenous schools and 6.9% in
CONAFE schools (ENLACE, comparison 2006-2008).
In third grade secondary school, 47% of the student
in private schools had a good performance in Spanish, followed by 16.7% in general schools, 16.5% in
technical schools and 7% in telehigh schools. The
results in the math test are very similar.
Analysis on causality and correlation
The above section supports the hypothesis that in
matters of education, the most disfavored children
(measured by attendance to school) are those
who live in rural areas or in households where the
mother has no schooling degree (for example, while
83% of the children whose mothers have no education attend primary school, 91% of the children
whose mothers have secondary education or more
do). Likewise, in households with lower wealth
levels, children’s attendance to school is also lower
(while 87% of the children in the lowest wealth
quintile go to school, 92% of the children in the last
quintile of wealth do so). With respect to households
where the woman is head of the family or are supported by a single parent, the children have lower
school attendance; similarly in households with high
dependency ratios.
In general, in this Report we have been able to
see that, in spite of the fact that Mexico has made
important advances in matter of education, there are
still an important number of children between 5 and
14 years old who do not finish primary education at
the appropriate age (close to 3.1 million boys and
3.5 million girls in 2002, Table 1.1.3, ENNViH). The
rate of coverage in 2007 was almost universal at
the primary level, though in secondary level it was
of approximately 80% (78% for men and 82% for
women) and in preschool of 73% (72% for boys and
74% for girls, INEE 2007).
While 81% of the girls attended primary and secondary school at the right age, 77% of the boys did
so. Furthermore, 65% of girls finished last grade of
primary school at an appropriate age, versus 63% of
the boys. In general terms, according to data from
the ENNViH, 87% of the children between 6 and 15
years old attended primary and secondary school.
A correlation analysis (Table 3.5.3 of the Statistical
Appendix) shows that when a household lives in
extreme conditions of poverty, the probability that
the child never attends school or drops out in any
given time increases. Likewise, there is a positive
correlation between the fact that a child lives with at
least one deprivation and does not attend school or
has never attended school.
The analysis of education from the supply and
quality side also demonstrates that there are great
disparities in the quality of the public services available to children by the wealth of their household.
According to a number of indicators, (such as computers, libraries and number of classrooms among
other characteristics), it can be seen that the children
of lower income quintiles attend schools that are in
worse condition and worse equipped. In general,
these households are in rural areas of the country, in
the South-Southeast and in indigenous communities.
By gender, it is important to note that there are now
few differences in educational achievements by
gender. This is, there are practically no differences in
schooling levels between men and women. Though
previously there were important differences in the
schooling per gender, the differences have reduced
during the past thirty years (Parker and Pederzini,
2001).
It is also important to mention that there are great
disparities in the school performance of children
and teenagers when differentiating by type of
school. For example, in 2008, while 50% of the
students in private primary schools were graded as
having a “good” performance at the ENLACE test
in Spanish, this percentage was 25% for general
primary schools, 7.7% for CONAFE schools and 7.3%
From the supply side, there are important disparities
in the access to education. For example, the student teacher ratio (proxy of the resources destined
at school level) for children in the lowest income
quintile is of 23 students per classroom versus 19 for
students in the higher income quintile. There are also
75
notorious differences between schools in terms of
characteristics such as bathrooms, computers, clean
floors or library according to the expenditure group
per capita of the child’s household. (Parker, 2008).
The annual implementation of the ENLACE tests
represents an important advance in the measurement and developing a general diagnostic on school
performance in Mexico. Such information will allow
a broad vision of school achievement in the country
and monitoring school performance throughout
time, both at a school level and individually.
To face these and other differences, the Sectorial Plan
of Education has established a series of goals for
2012, among which are to increase: i) PISA scores on
tests of math and reading comprehension from an
average of 392 points (2006) to 435; ii) to increase the
proportion finishing secondary or junior high school
studies from 75.5% (2006) to 86.7%; iii) to increase the
percentage of indigenous boys and girls with schooling that finish their primary education at indigenous
education schools from 85.1% in 2006 to 88.1%; iv)
to increase education scholarships for students of
the Oportunidades basic education from 4’602,403
in 2006 to 5’000,000; and v) to increase scholarships
granted to young mothers and young pregnant
women to conclude their basic education from 1,975
scholarships in 2006 to 49,460, among others.
With regard to other policies, scholarship programs
such as Oportunidades and the National Scholarship
Program for the Retention of Middle High School
Education Students are useful tools to reduce disparities that exist in the rates of school enrollment
by household income, There are however obvious
remaining disparities with respect to school quality
by place of residence (rural/urban) and as by levels
of income. The poorest children attend schools of
lower quality in several dimensions, which probably reflects some historical disparities that exist
in public expenditures on education. Thus, a basic
principle of distribution of public expenditures
is that they should at least not be regressive and
preferably be progressively allocated.
It is important to remark that SEP has recently
introduced standardized tests applied annually to
all the school population (ENLACE). In particular,
in year 2007 tests were applied to children from
third grade to sixth grade at the primary level and
to third grade at the secondary level (ninth grade),
in the areas of mathematics and Spanish. In year
2008, tests were applied to the same grades and a
standardized test was also applied to twelfth grade
and also a science test was introduced (natural
sciences in the case of primary level and biology,
physics and chemistry to secondary level). This
third subject (sciences) will be rotated each year
to allow an integral evaluation (in 2009 civic and
ethical education will be evaluated, in 2010 history,
in 2011 geography and in 2012 sciences). In 2009
the coverage of the ENLACE test was expanded to
cover all grades of primary and secondary levels.
It is also important to mention that in certain cases
it may be more costly to supply rural areas with
schools with the same quality than in urban areas
because it is common that teachers prefers to
teach in an urban environment rather than a rural
one. Therefore, larger incentives should be given
(besides higher salaries such as in the cases where
SEP gives bonuses to the permanence of teachers
and the help the CONAFE schools give to teachers
who work at focused schools) to the teachers who
work in rural areas to encourage them to go teach
to these areas. In this sense, it is likely to not be sufficient to equalize expenditures on rural and urban
students, but that public expenditures may need to
be larger in rural areas than urban areas to attain
the same quality of services.
In Mexico, the enrollment rate for indigenous population tends to be considerably lower than that of the
urban medium class or non-indigenous groups (Yoshikawa et al, 2007). In rural areas, Parker, Rubalcava
and Teruel (2004) have shown that when indigenous
children speak Spanish (as first or second language),
they obtain schooling levels similar to those of their
non-indigenous mates. In fact, in Mexico there are
primary level schools that teach part of the classes
in the native language of the region, though there
is little information or evaluations on the impacts of
indigenous education in Mexico. Further research is
needed on indigenous education in Mexico.
Basic elements and alliances for a strategy
It is evident that there are a series of disparities in
education in Mexico and that the improvement of
the access to and the quality of education in the
country is a primordial aspect towards achieving
a higher levels of development and wellbeing. The
country’s performance in international tests has
shown that Mexico lags behind in school performance. For example, in 2006 57 countries took part
in the PISA test and Mexico had position 48 in Math,
48 in sciences and 42 in writing (INEE, 2007).
76
3.5 Social Protection
Despite the fact that the social security system in
Mexico has many different options, the proportion of the population that currently has a health
insurance (including IMSS; ISSSTE; Pemex, Sedena,
Secmar or from a private institution) is only 27%
(Parker, 2008).
National laws, policies and key programmes
There are three basic social security systems in
Mexico; the institutions in charge of them are: the
Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS) – attending workers from the private sector -; the State
Employees’ Social Security and Social Services
Institute (ISSSTE), attending workers from the
public sector – and the Popular Social Security
System - attending workers, generally working on
their own, who are not affiliated to any of the other
systems mentioned above. There are other social
security systems that benefit smaller sectors of
the population like Pemex (that attends the workers from this state company), from the Ministry of
Navy (Secmar), and from the Ministry of National
Defense (Sedena).
Child outcomes, disparities and gender inequality
We now turn to an analysis of social protection and
its correlation with individual indicators, as well as
household and geographic indicators. (Table 3.5.1,
ENNViH 2002). This table allows us to see that approximately 27% of the women were covered by a
health insurance in 2002 (from the IMSS; ISSSTE,
Pemex, Sedena or from a private institution), while
close to 13% of the individuals were covered by Oportunidades, the most important program, in Mexico,
for the human development of the population in extreme poverty. In total, close to 58% of the population
enjoyed a type of social protection (any type of social
security, cash or in-kind transfers, or government
transfers)32. By gender, coverage is very similar.
The IMSS is the main social security institution in
Mexico (in 2005 it had more than 47 millions of affiliates). The ISSSTE had in that same year a total of 20.5
millions of affiliates. In both institutions, affiliates and
their families receive benefits for illness and maternity; job accidents; retirement; severance due to age
or time working; disability; death; unemployment in
late life; as well as services like preventive medicine;
physical and mental rehabilitation; and attention for
the wellbeing and development of children. In turn,
the Popular Social Security System attends the population working on their own and excluded from social
security institutions, basically individuals working in
agriculture, small businesses, non-salary workers and
workers paid on a honorary basis; it offers the beneficiary population a system of retirement savings,
subsidies for housing and medical services.
As the level of schooling of the mother increases,
the percentage of individuals covered by Oportunidades decreases (31% of the individuals from
households where the mother has no schooling
where covered against 4% of the individuals from
households where the mother has a secondary education o more). While the mother’s level of schooling increases the degree of health coverage from
the members of the household also increases (46%
of the households where the mother has a secondary education had a health insurance).
By wealth levels of the households, it could be seen
that 42% of the households from the last wealth
index quintile had health insurance while only 20%
of the households from the first wealth index quintile were covered. In turn, the poorest households
(from the first and second quintile) where the ones
more likely to have benefits from Oportunidades,
18% from the first wealth index quintile versus 4%
from the last quintile (Table 3.5.1, ENNViH 2002).
In 1997, the Mexican pension system made an
important change, switching from a universal
system to a funded system ( individual accounts),
in which individuals choose their own retirement
fund administrator (AFORES) (most of the AFORES
are related to the banks that manage the retirement
accounts). The workers must have had jobs affiliated to the IMSS for at least 24 years to have access
to the minimum pension guaranteed. The self-employed can affiliate to the IMMS in order to obtain a
health insurance and to open a retirement account.
The benefits from the health insurance cover all the
levels. The system is financed by payroll contributions from the individuals and from companies, and
the Federal Government gives some subsidies that
stem from general taxes (Parker y Scott, 2008).
As it is expected, this table shows that a high
percentage of the indigenous population (39%)
is covered by Oportunidades. With respect to the
not indigenous population, only 9% are Oportuni-
32 While only 27% of the population has medical insurance, 58% has social protection as this heading
includes the supports of the Government trough different social programs, such as Oportunidades.
77
Table 3.5.1 Access to social protection and its correlates by individual, households and geographic dimensions
% of respondent
women covered by
health insurance* (age
15 and above)
% of households
or population
covered by program
Oportunidades
% of households or population covered
by any form of social protection (social
insurance and/or cash transfers, inkind transfers from public authorities,
employers, or charities)***
27.42
13.32
57.76
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
Age group 1(0-14)
N. A.
17.81
54.12
Age group 2(15-24)
N. A.
14.97
61.59
Age group 3(25-44)
N. A.
12.28
60.23
Age group 4(45.64)
N. A.
15.11
61.16
Age group 5(65 +)
N. A.
15.86
59.87
Age group 1(0-14)
N. A.
17.45
53.82
Age group 2(15-24)
35.16
16
60.55
Age group 3(25-44)
40.81
14.05
58.02
Age group 4(45.64)
44.78
13.95
63.52
Age group 5(65 +)
43.65
14.56
58
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
41.23
8.45
51.7
3-4 members
32.63
9.02
61.21
5-6 members
16.87
15.07
60.3
7+
27.42
32.46
50.21
None
8.81
30.91
35.89
Primary
22.56
16.01
52.14
Secondary+
46.81
4.61
70.49
Male
27.07
13.53
58.6
Female
28.75
12.53
54.58
Q1 (poorest)
19.79
18.08
43.55
Q2
22.01
21.81
50.51
Q3
25.97
16.96
56.3
Q4
35.3
6.41
70.66
Q5
42.31
4.12
73.26
16.85
39.19
60.66
Mexico, 2002
Total incidence/prevalence
Female
Women’s education
Gender of the head of the
household
Wealth index quintiles
Ethnicity/language/religion
Group 1
78
(Continued from previous page)
% of respondent
women covered by
health insurance* (age
15 and above)
% of households
or population
covered by program
Oportunidades
% of households or population covered
by any form of social protection (social
insurance and/or cash transfers, inkind transfers from public authorities,
employers, or charities)***
29.44
9.04
40.47
Both parents working
8.94
9.74
64.76
None of the parents are working
8.17
19.72
45.46
No adult in primary working age
(18-54)
41.75
13.46
51.43
At least one child under 15
working
18.83
17.45
47.74
Illness and disability in the
household
Adult(s) with chronic illness
34.46
12.71
64.31
Child/children with disability
12.18
21.03
37.22
28.75
12.53
54.58
Orphan child in household
N/I
N/I
N/I
High dependency ratio
(4+children per adult)
7.08
36.42
29.9
32.19
14.79
56.26
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1
20.73
28.59
46.9
Region 2
27.37
8.36
57.48
Region 3
23.67
12.49
51.27
Region 4
39.5
8.35
79.95
Region 5
38.29
4.61
75.51
Residence
Urban
32.04
4.54
65.65
Rural
13.41
41.94
32.33
Mexico, 2002
Group 2
Work (among hholds with
children)
Family vulnerability (not mutually
exclusive categories)
Single parent
Elder (70+) person in household
N/I: Not information or Data. N/A: Not Applicable
*Health Insurance defined as a member of the household that had any type of health insurance (IMSS, ISSSTE, PEMEX, SEDENA, SECMAR or private)
The sub-national regions are: region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan)
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla, Morelos). Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato).
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa, Sonora). Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon)
Groups of ethnicity: Group 1: Indigenous. Group 2: Not Indigenous
Wealth index quintile define as the cost of the assets that have the household
Single parent define as a woman that is the head of the household
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
dades beneficiaries. On the other hand, only 17%
of the indigenous women are covered by a health
insurance.
with 21% from the South-Southeast region. However, the population from this region has the highest
coverage by the program Oportunidades (almost
28% of the inhabitants from the South-Southeast
region are attended by Oportunidades compared
with 5% from the Northeast region).
By region, 39% from the women in the Northeast region were covered by a health insurance, compared
79
Table 3.5.2 Social Protection: supply side and uptake variables by region 1990-2006
Major Social Protection indicator: number of medical
offices per potential 1,000 habitants
Total
- number of medical offices per 1,000 habitants
By region
Region 1: Northeast
- number of medical offices per 1,000 habitants
Region 2: Northwest
- number of medical offices per 1,000 habitants
Region 3: Center
- number of medical offices per 1,000 habitants
Region 4: Center-West
- number of medical offices per 1,000 habitants
Region 5: South-Southeast
- number of medical offices per 1,000 habitants
1990
1995
2000
2005
2006
2007
0.41
0.48
0.52
0.53
0.51
0.51
0.46
0.53
0.56
0.55
0.53
0.53
0.51
0.59
0.58
0.57
0.55
0.54
0.44
0.49
0.54
0.55
0.53
0.54
0.41
0.48
0.53
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.42
0.47
0.57
0.58
0.54
0.54
Northeast region includes Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Chihuahua and Durango and Coahuila; Northwest includes Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora and Sinaloa. Center includes Distrito Federal, Queretaro,
Hidalgo, Tlaxcala, Morelos and Estado de Mexico. Center West includes Jalisco, Michoacan, Colima, Aguascalientes, Nayarit, Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi and Guanajuato; and South-Southeast includes Puebla,
Campeche, Yucatan, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Guerrero and Veracruz.
Medical offices include those from SSA, IMSS-Oportunidades, State offices, IMSS, ISSSTE, PEMEX, SEDENA and SECMAR (it does not include private medical offices)
Source: Primer Informe de Gobierno 2007.
Using as a social protection indicator the number
of medical offices per 1,000 inhabitants, the Table
3.5.2 shows that, while in 1995 there were approximately 0.4 medical offices per 1.000 inhabitants, in
2007 this number change to 0.5. By geographical
region, we find that there are not large differences
in the number of medical offices per 1,000 inhabitants, even though this proportion is slightly higher
in the Center region (0.55 in 2007) than in the
Northeast region (0.53). It is important to highlight
that, in this case, the medical offices referred to the
ones from the Health Secretariat (rather than social
security institutions), IMSS-Oportunidades, universities, state owned, IMSS, PEMEX, SEDENA and
SECMAR, and private ones are excluded.
sus if the mother does not have any schooling. As
expected, women living in the highest wealth index
quintile are more likely to have health insurance, and
at the same time, less likely to be beneficiaries of the
program Oportunidades. The indigenous population
has a much lower probability of being covered by
social security than the non indigenous population.
On the other hand, the percentage of households covered by any form of social protection (social insurance,
cash and/or in-kind transfers) is very different depending
on the socio-economic characteristics of the households.
For example, households with many members (more
than seven), living in the lowest wealth index quintile or
that are indigenous are more likely to receive social assistance (as expected). In the same way, the households
with a high dependency rate, living in the South-Southeast region of the country or in rural areas are more
likely to be covered by some type of social program o
receive a subsidy that benefits them directly).
Analysis on causality and correlation
Social security coverage in Mexico is a major challenge
for the government given that the informal sector represents approximately 58% of the economically active
population (EAP), while the formal sector represents
38.4% and the unemployed represents 4% (Levy, 2007).
Building blocks and partners for a strategy
In this section we have demonstrated that the social
security systems in Mexico cover only a fraction of
the population, leaving the rest without insurance
and with the only real alternative to use services
offered by the Ministry of Health. It is evident that a
series of duplicities exist in the social security sys-
The analysis presented here in the report tables
shows that, in general, the percentage of women
with health insurance increases with age. Similarly,
this percentage varies considerably (is higher) if the
mother has primary or secondary education ver-
80
tem in Mexico and that Mexico would greatly benefit
from a universal system than from a fragmented social security system that excludes a large proportion
of the population. Furthermore, the formal sector is
not constant in time, rather workers go in and out
of formal jobs, providing further motivation for the
creation of a universal coverage system.
suffer these illnesses and the proportion of children
treated for these illnesses are lower.
This report has also analyze youth knowledge on
sexually transmitted diseases, contraceptives and
the use of those contraceptives. Although youth
overall are fairly well informed; there are differences
by gender, with women having lower knowledge in
general in these areas.
The “Seguro Popular” program was created to fill
the gap between the population with benefits from
the social security and the population without them,
and to offer a health insurance to this population.
However, there is evidence that, at least, in rural
areas (where at the beginning the degree of coverage was higher), the program has discouraged the
creation of jobs with formal benefits because the
Seguro Popular is essentially costless for workers
and firms, whereas IMSS has high payroll taxes associated with coverage. (Parker y Scott, 2008).
The percentage of children that are registered late
according to the total number of registered children
in 2005 was used to measure, indirectly, the degree
of child protection in Mexico. The late registration of
boys and girls can be related, to the lack of money
to pay for the procedure or to go to the civil register
or to the lack of civil register offices in the community where they live. The results also show that
schooling is an important factor, because when the
mother has no schooling the percentage of children
that are registered late is very high.
However, this does not mean that the Seguro Popular, which extends coverage and public financing of
the public health services for individuals without a
health insurance is not desirable. Rather that given
the fractured system of social security in Mexico,
such negative incentives effects described above
might be expected and perhaps should be compared to the large health and equity benefits that the
program likely has. And the overall objective should
be a universal health and social security system
independent of the type of sector of employment
and largely financed by general taxes.
Also, several indicators related to the education
of the children have shown that those who live in
rural areas, are indigenous or whose mothers have
no schooling are in less favorable conditions than
those who live in urban areas, are not indigenous or
live in wealthier households. A small but important
percentage of children age 6 to 14 work in Mexico
and they are at much higher risk for dropping out of
school than those who do not work.
In conclusion, it has been observed that the children
with most disadvantages in matters of nutrition, health,
education and child protection are those who live in
rural areas, are indigenous, live in the South zone
of the country, or live in households whose parents
have no schooling or do not work. We have noted that
access of these groups to quality services in the areas
of education and health is much inferior for lower
income children than higher income children. Thus, a
clear recommendation derived from this analysis is
that social spending should be progressive in order to
better equalize services available to the population.
Conclusions
Despite the important advances achieved in child
nutrition issues, there are many remaining challenges. An important percentage of children have
small size for their age (8%), being boys who
present higher stunting rates compared with girls.
Children are more likely to suffer nutrition problems
when the household has many members, has low
wealth, or when the mother has no schooling. Also,
indigenous households or with parents that do not
work, have a higher number of children that suffer
stunting, wasting and are underweight.
Another important conclusion relates to the lack of
information in the area of protection. There is no
historical information available by state that is pubic and can be accessed on violence, orphan hood
(number of orphan children or number of orphanages), child shelters or, number of adoptions (both
national and international). This represents a major
limitation in order to describe fully the situation of
children in Mexico with respect to child protection.
In matters of health, there remain important percentages of children that suffer illnesses like diarrhea and fever and that did not received adequate
treatment for these ills. Overall, households with
many members, with low wealth, in rural areas or
in the South have children who are more likely to
81
STUDY ON
POVERTY AND
DISPARITIES IN
CHILDHOOD:
THE CASE OF
MEXICO
Section Four:
Addressing Child Poverty
and Disparities
A Strategy for Results
Introduction
larger number of members have a greater probability of living in conditions of extreme poverty. Low
levels of schooling of the head of the family increase
the probability a households lives in conditions of
alimentary poverty.
An important proportion of Mexican population
is young (in 2007 there were 38.1 million boys
and girls aged 0 to 17 years old, representing
36% of the total population CONAPO), consequently the policies and strategies to be implemented during the coming years to improve the
country’s development will be highly related to
this population.
4.1 What must be done?
(Which “pillars” and policies
are in process, which gaps persist)
Mexican youth in many areas show improvements to their measured well being overtime.
However, there are still important challenges
that must be faced. For example, a high percentage (25%) of children lived in alimentation
poverty in 2005 (close to 10 million children
ENIGH 2005).
Being Mexico a country with a medium-high income
and with a relatively high GDP per capita (14,400 US
in 2008), it is alarming that still 8% of Mexican children live in households with one dollar or less per
day per capita (approximately 3.3 million children)
and that close to 9% of boys and girls still experience
some type of severe deprivation (approximately 3.6
million boys and girls). Furthermore, the differences
in the level of poverty between urban and rural areas
make clear that Mexico is a country with a high
degree of inequality inasmuch as opportunities and
provision of basic services for development.
The fact that a household lives in poverty conditions implies that the children who live within
the household will generally have less access to
education, health, or good nutrition. These deficiencies become greater when referring to rural areas
(for example, ENIGH 2005 shows that there were 2.3
million households living in conditions of alimentation poverty in rural areas, while this number is 1.2
million in urban areas) or indigenous communities.
Current policies must pay special attention to these
communities.
In spite of the fact that there have been important
advances in the eradication of extreme poverty,
there still are millions of persons who live in poverty
conditions and children who do not go to school,
who have no medical attention and thus cannot fully
develop their capacities.
In general, this report has shown that families with a
Furthermore, the households that suffer monetary
82
poverty tend to suffer deprivations in other areas;
namely, there is an important correlation between
monetary poverty in Mexico and the prevalence of
deprivations. Particularly, there are strong correlations between deprivations of shelter, sanitation,
water and information and poverty measures with
the monetary income of households.
obese and this has also lead to a higher incidence of
cardiovascular illnesses, among other diseases.
In terms of public policies, based on this report we
suggest two main recommendations. The first one
deals with the topic of the impact and distribution
of government expenditures. Here, there are several
suggestions. One the government should consider
the regressive effect of energetic subsidies, which
tend to benefit the higher income deciles and represent an important percentage of the federal budget.
This recommendation is also applicable to the case
of college education, which is highly regressive.
Even in lower levels such as primary and junior high
(or secondary education) there are great differences
in quality of education available for children of higher resources versus poorer children. This implies the
need to exert a progressive expenditures in favor of
disadvantaged groups (rural, poor and indigenous),
with the purpose of reducing the disparities in these
levels in terms of access to education and health
services (Scott, 2008).
During the past years there has been a reduction in
the percentage of children who live with one or two
deprivations, and there has been important progress in matters of access to water and sanitation
(specifically, the severe deprivation in sanitation fell
from 23% in 1994 to 5% in 2005, and that of water
from 18% to 2% in the same period, ENIGH). Nevertheless, currently almost half the children still live
with at least one deprivation and almost 22% with
two deprivations (ENIGH, 2005). In addition to this,
it is important to remark that, in general, it is small
children who have a larger probability of living with
two or more severe deprivations than older children.
In matter of public resources allocation, this research has shown evidence that education services
are of higher quality for wealthier children. Children
in lower income quintiles go to schools with the
worst conditions, and are often found in rural areas
of the country, in the South-Southeast area and in
indigenous communities.
The second recommendation to reduce existing disparities is to continue with the enforcement of social
programs specifically focused on the poor population. Oportunidades has been an excellent example
that has had clear positive impacts on its beneficiary
population. There remain however areas of potential
improvement, for example, the coverage in urban
areas is relatively low. In addition, there is a need
for specific analysis on the extent to which families
escape poverty with this program and are able to
maintain themselves out of poverty.
As a result, it is necessary to improve the quality
and coverage of the education system to reduce
the existing gaps between those who have greater
resources and those who, because of living in
marginalized areas, because of being indigenous, or
because of being located in rural communities, have
lower access to quality education services.
It is also important to implement impact evaluations
of other important social programs such as Popular
Health Insurance, Liconsa and of Diconsa, to verify
that the resources indeed get to the poorest population and to analyze their impact on the population.
The supply of quality health services also faces
tough challenges due to the high level of disparity
that exists between the services received by wealthier households and poorer households. The supply
of services does not cover all of the population,
particularly the population living in more marginalized areas. This research has shown that children
in poorer families get sick more often and are less
likely to receive adequate treatment than wealthier
households.
In as much as the pillars of childhood wellbeing
there are many challenges to confront. In education
and health matter, great advances have been made
in the coverage and the increase of schooling years
of children and youth, though there remain strong
inequalities in education and health. On the other
hand, in matters of child protection and social
protection there are also many challenges, arising
from violence, child work, the lack of identity right
and other aspects remain an obstacle for children
to adequately fully exert their rights. In this area we
recommend the implementation of a much more
complete information system to that which already
On the other hand, to attend to the emerging health
issues, there is a great need for strategies directed
at the current epidemic of obesity in Mexico, all
groups including childhood have shown great
increases in the proportion of those overweight or
83
exists so as to enable a much more detailed diagnosis on the situation of the rights of the children.
In the area of social security, the separation between the formal population with access to medical
services and the informal sector population that is
attended by the Secretariat of Health is notorious.
This demonstrates that, evidently, it is quite inefficient to have several health systems simultaneously in operation. In spite of the fact the Popular
Insurance seeks to provide health insurance to
the population without social security, there is
evidence that it promotes informality (Parker and
Scott, 2008). This point also supports the idea of
constructing a universal system of health services.
4.2 How to make this happen
(proposals, synergies, associates)
Building blocks and partnerships
for a strategy for children and development
In the next paragraphs we summarize our recommendations on each one of the five main topics.
Within the area of child nutrition, there is currently
a situation of dual nutritional problems, in which an
important population of children continue to suffer
malnutrition according to indicators of stunting,
wasting and being underweight. On the other hand,
today Mexico is one of the countries with the highest rates of obesity, and obesity among children is
growing at a very fast pace. Thus, we recommend
a strategy that ensures that the children who live in
poor homes have sufficient resources to purchase
a sufficient, balanced and nutritious diet. On the
other hand, we also recommend implementing an
integral strategy to combat the tendencies of the
growing child obesity problem. These strategies
could include promoting exercise and implementing taxes on processed food and/or with high levels
of sugar, besides other regulatory measures for the
production and commercialization of food.
In the education area, we have shown that there are
important inequalities in education achievements and
in access to education services by region and income
group. A main priority is to reverse historical inequalities in the assignment of resources and ensure that
the schools to which the poor population has access
to are of similar quality as the rest of the population.
Finally, the area of child protection is still a little
developed area in Mexico. Hence the first step to
develop a strategy in this area is to have a more
complete information system that allows analyzing
in depth the current situation on child protection
and the violation of the rights of the children.
Conclusions
This research offers a diagnostic on the different
dimensions of child poverty in Mexico. The research
has demonstrated that while social indicators in
the majority of t areas have continued improving
throughout time, there is still a relatively high rate
of child poverty, as measured by deprivations studied, and in particular likely higher than would have
been expected given Mexico’s GDP.
The health area also faces a dual situation where infectious diseases continue to be important causes of
child mortality in poor areas, though the incidence
of chronic diseases is also rapidly growing. The
former implies that a strategy is needed that takes
care of the needs of the poor population and that
a national strategy is also implemented to reduce
obesity as well as better prepare the health system
to confront a growing number of chronic diseases
associated with obesity.
In addition, there is evidence that the government’s
expenditures in some in some areas is not particularly oriented to the poorest sectors of population,
so that some areas of government expenditure may
even exacerbate inequality. An example is the subsidy in gasoline, which in the year of 2007 was 48,304
million pesos, an amount 1.15 times larger than
the expense of the Oportunidades Program, which
constitutes the main strategy in matter of social
development and combat to poverty. While only 1.5%
of the benefit of the subsidy of gasoline is received
by the population of the lowest wealth quintile, the
highest wealth decile (Scott, 2008) receives 35% of
this benefit.
Furthermore, in this research it has been shown that
the under five child mortality and also the proportion of persons who live in alimentary poverty
conditions is larger in the South-Southeast area of
the country and lesser in the Northeast area. These
results imply that, due to the fact that there is an
important correlation between these two variables,
better focused strategies are needed to the areas
that require better services (both in matter of coverage and of quality) to confront child mortality and
alimentation poverty.
84
Although this report documents an important advance on the levels of schooling over time, there are
many children and youths who do not finish basic
compulsory education. Some of this deficit likely
reflects low quality of schooling as well as high
poverty conditions of the population in these areas.
(Parker et al. 2007). As a consequence of this, the
low quality of schools not only may increase school
desertion but promote early incorporation into the
labor force. Although child work is illegal for those
under the age of 14, laws are not enforced with
respect to child labor.
at least, are not regressive, such as the case of the
current subsidies to gasoline.
In second place, the social programs that are well
designed and seek to reduce intergenerational
poverty –such as the case of Oportunidades- should
enter a new stage that explicitly seeks the improvement of the quality of the services beneficiaries receive, mainly in terms of health and education; and
also continued design of actions oriented towards
families that are not beneficiaries of Oportunidades
or other social programs to encourage the further
reduction of poverty.
Additionally, in certain areas of child wellbeing, the
availability of information is quite limited or inexistent. For example, the number of children who live
on the streets, the number of children who live in
public care institutions, homes or foster homes and
the number of children who are victims of violence,
are areas on which there is very little available
information. An additional example is related to the
dimension of the VHI/AIDS epidemics among teenagers and youths in Mexico, where there are no
good available statistics. The implementation of a
much more complete information system than the
existing one would be a clear advancement with
respect to promoting children’s rights in Mexico.
Another large and important program, is the Popular Health Insurance, which seeks to expand the
medical insurance among the population that has
no social security. Currently there are few evaluations over its impacts on health. However, this
should be an important future research topic, especially because of the size of the informal economy in
the country.
There remain a significant percentage of children
who suffer malnutrition measured according to
traditional measures (stunting, wasting, underweight). Nevertheless, the problem of obesity now
affects a much larger proportion of children and
evidence show that the proportion of children with
overweight or obesity is significantly increasing,
particularly among the poor population. Clearly, the
high rates of obesity are sure to lead to an increase
on chronic diseases among children, such as high
blood pressure and diabetes, which would reduce
life expectancy for children and implies considerable
financial challenges in terms of public health. Thus,
it is urgent that a national strategy is developed to
combat both child and adults obesity, as well as its
main causes.
Finally, in the following paragraphs we revisit the
main recommendations in matter of public policies
derived from this Report:
Due to the high inequalities that exists in Mexico in
matter of income, expenditures, health and education, a basic principle is that the government’s
expenditures should at a minimum not worsen the
existing disparities. Hence a first recommendation is
that, both the government’s expenditures as well as
taxes are oriented towards the benefit of the poor or
85
Acronyms List
ANMEB
National Agreement for the Modernization of
Education (Acuerdo Nacional para la Modernizacion de la Educacion Basica)
BM
World Bank (Banco Mundial)
DOF
Official Gazette of the Federation (Diario
Oficial de la Federacion)
CAIC Program for the attention of minors of early
age: through communitarian centers for child
assistance. (Programa de atencion a menores
de edad temprana: a traves de centros de
asistencia infantil comunitarios)
ENN
National Poll on Nutrition (Encuesta Nacional
de Nutricion)
ENNViH
Poll on Home’s Standard of Living (Encuesta
Sobre el Nivel de Vida de los Hogares)
FONAES
National Fund of Supports for Companies in
“Solidaridad” (Solidarity) (Fondo Nacional de
Apoyos para Empresas en Solidaridad)
FPGC
Fund of Protection against Catastrophic
Expenses (Fondo de Proteccion contra Gastos
Catastroficos)
IDH
Human Development Index (Indice de Desarrollo Humano)
IIN
Inter-American Children’s Institute (Instituto
Interamericano del Niño, la Niña y Adolescentes)
CAUSES
Universal Health Services Catalogue (Catalogo Universal de Servicios de Salud)
CEPAL
Economic Commission for Latin America and
the Caribbean, ECLAC (Comision Economica
para America Latina y el Caribe)
IED
CDI
National Board for Development of Indigenous People (Comision Nacional para el
Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indigenas)
Foreign Direct Investment (Inversion Extranjera Directa)
IETU
Sole Rate Business Tax (Impuesto Empresarial
a Tasa Unica)
Federal Energy Company (Comision Federal
de Electricidad)
IFPRI
International Food Policy Research Institute
IMSS
Mexican Social Security Institute (Instituto
Mexicano del Seguro Social)
INALI
National Institute of Indigenous Languages
(Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indigenas)
INEE
National Institute of Education Evaluation
(Instituto Nacional de Evaluacion de la Educacion
INEGI
National Institute for Statistics and Geography (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y
Geografia)
National Commission for Evaluation (Consejo
Nacional de Evaluacion de la Politica de
Desarrollo Social)
INM
National Migration Institute (Instituto Nacional de Migracion)
CNDH
Human Rights National Board (Comision
Nacional de Derechos Humanos)
INMUJERESNational Women Institute (Instituto Nacional
de las Mujeres)
EIASA Integral Strategy of Social Alimentary Assistance (Estrategia Integral de Asistencia Social
Alimentaria)
ISSSTE
State Employees’ Social Security and Social
Services Institute (Instituto de Seguridad y
Servicios Sociales de los Trabajadores del
Estado)
ENIGH
National Poll on Household Income and
Expenses (Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y
Gastos de los Hogares)
LFC
Electricity Company, Light and Force of the
Center (Luz y Fuerza del Centro)
LFPRH
Federal Act of Budget and Fiscal Responsibility (Ley Federal de Presupuesto y Responsabilidad Hacendaria)
CFE
COIA
National Board for Childhood and Teenagers (Consejo Nacional para la Infancia y la
Adolescencia)
COMAR
Mexican Board for Help to Refugees (Comision Mexicana de Ayuda a Refugiados)
CONAFE
National Board for Education Support (Consejo Nacional de Fomento Educativo)
CONASIDA Control of AIDS (Control del Sindrome de la
Inmunodeficiencia Adquirida)
CONEVAL
ENSANUT
National Poll on Health and Nutrition (Encuesta Nacional de Salud y Nutricion)
86
LGE
Education Act (Ley General de Educacion)
LGDS
Social Development Act (Ley General de
Desarrollo Social)
LGS
Health Act (Ley General de Salud)
NOM
Mexican Official Norm (Norma Oficial Mexicana)
PND
OCDE
Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development, OCDE (Organizacion
para la Cooperacion y Desarrollo Economico)
PRONAFIDE Nacional Program for Development Financing
2008-2012 (Programa Nacional de Financiamiento del Desarrollo 2008-2012)
MDO's
Millennium’s Development Objectives (Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio)
OPI
Officers of Protection to Childhood (Oficiales
de Proteccion a la Infancia)
OPEP
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries (Organizacion de Paises Exportadores de Petroleo)
DIF
National System for Integral Family Development (Sistema Nacional para el Desarrollo
Integral de la Familia)
PAIDEA
Program for the Prevention and Integral Attention of Pregnancy in Teenagers (Programa
para la Prevencion y Atencion Integral del
Embarazo en Adolescentes)
PAL
Nourishment Support Program (Programa de
Apoyo Alimentario)
PAZAP Alimentary Program on Areas of Priority Attention
(Programa de Apoyo a Zonas
Prioritarias)
PAZM
PEC
PROPADETIUM Program for Prevention, Attention,
Discouragement and Eradication of
Urban Marginal Child Work (Programa
para la prevencion, atencion, desaliento
y erradicacion del trabajo infantil urbano
marginal)
National Development Plan (Plan Nacional de
Desarrollo)
PROSESA Health Sectorial Program
2007-2012
(Programa Sectorial de Salud 2007-2012)
Alimentary Program for Marginalized Zones
(Programa Alimentario para Zonas Marginadas)
Quality Schools Program (Programa Escuelas
de Calidad)
PSDS Social Development Sectorial Program (Programa Sectorial de Desarrollo Social)
PSE
Education Sectorial Program 2007-2012(Programa Sectorial de Educacion 2007-2012)
ROP
Operating Rules (Reglas de Operacion)
SEDENA
National Defense Ministry (Secretaria de la
Defensa Nacional)
SEDESOL
Social Development Ministry (Secretaria de
Desarrollo Social)
SEP
Public Education Ministry (Secretaria de
Educacion Publica)
SEMAR
Navy Ministry (Secretaria de Marina)
SHCP
Finance Ministry (Secretaria de Hacienda y
Credito Publico)
SINAIS
National System for Health Information
(Sistema Nacional de Informacion en Salud)
SNDIF
National System for Integral Family Development (Sistema Nacional para el Desarrollo
Integral de la Familia)
SNS National Health System (Sistema Nacional de
Salud)
SNTE
National Union of Education Workers (Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Educacion)
PEMEX
Mexican Oil Company (Petroleos Mexicanos)
PGR
Republic’s General Proctorship (Procuraduria
General de la Republica)
PIB
Gross Domestic Product (Producto Interno
Bruto)
STPS
Labor Ministry (Secretaria de Trabajo y Prevision Social)
PISA
International Project for the Production of Students Performance Indicators
(Proyecto Internacional para la Produccion
de Indicadores de Rendimiento de los
Alumnos)
SSA
Health Ministry (Secretaria de Salud)
SSP
Public Security Ministry (Secretaria de Seguridad Publica)
SMNG
Medical Insurance for A New Generation
(Seguro Medico para una Nueva Generacion)
WTI
West Texas International
PREVERP Psychosocial risk prevention Program
(Programa de prevencion de riesgos psicosociales )
87
References
Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo 2008. “BID estima
flujos de remesas a America Latina y el Caribe para 2008”.
Convencion sobre los Derechos del Niño. Ratificada por
Mexico en 1990.
Banco de Mexico. Abril 2008. Informe Anual 2007.
Cortes, Fernando; Hernandez, Daniel; Szekely, Miguel
y Vera, Hadid (2002). Evolucion y Caracteristicas de la
Pobreza en Mexico en la ultima decada del siglo XX.
Documentos de investigacion 2. Secretaria de Desarrollo
Social.
Banco de Mexico. Informe sobre Inflacion. Julio-Septiembre 2008.
Banco de Mexico. Informe sobre Inflacion. OctubreDiciembre 2007.
Cuentas en salud reproductiva y equidad de genero.
Estimacion 2005 y evolucion del gasto 2003-2005, INSP.
Pagina 34.
Banco de Mexico. Informe sobre Inflacion. OctubreDiciembre 2008.
DIF Nacional. http://dif.sip.gob.mx/
Banco de Mexico. Septiembre 2008. Politica Monetaria.
Informe sobre el Primer semestre de 2008.
DIF/UNICEF. Analisis de los anuarios estadisticos 20012007 de la red de albergues de transito de niñas, niños y
adolescentes migrantes. 2009.
Banco de Mexico. Informe sobre Inflacion. Enero-Marzo
2009.
Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares
(ENIGH), 1992, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2005.
Banco Mundial (2004) “La Pobreza en Mexico: una Evaluacion de las condiciones, las Tendencias y la Estrategia del
Gobierno”.
Encuesta Nacional sobre Ocupacion y Empleo (ENOE),
2007. “Resultados del modulo de trabajo infantil 2007”.
Banco Mundial (2009). “Indicadores del desarrollo mundial
seleccionados”.
Encuesta Nacional de Salud y Nutricion 2006 (ENSANUT).
INSP, SSA.
Barros, Rodrigo (2007) “Effects of the Seguro Popular on
Child Mortality”.
Encuesta Nacional de Logro Academico en Centros Escolares (ENLACE). http://www.enlace.sep.gob.mx/
Cattaneo, Matias D., Galiani, Sebastian, Gertler, Paul J.,
Martinez, Sebastian y Titiunik, Rocio (2009). “Housing,
health and happiness”. American Economic Journal.
Evaluacion de Consistencia del Programa de Abasto Social de
Leche a cargo de Liconsa, 2007. BetaKorosi Consultoria S.C.
Gabinete de Desarrollo Humano y Social/Comision Intersecretarial de Desarrollo Social.”Los MDO's del Milenio en
Mexico: Informe de Avance 2006”.
Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economicas (CIDE),
2007. “Informe Final de la Evaluacion de Consistencia y
Resultados de las Acciones Compensatorias para Abatir el
Rezago en Educacion Inicial y Basica”. Consejo Nacional de
Fomento Educativo (CONAFE).
Indicadores de Desarrollo Humano y Genero en Mexico
200-2005, UNDP Mexico, 2009.
Centro de Informacion Bancaria y Economica, La Habana,
Resumen Informativo junio 2008.
Informe de America Latina en el marco del Estudio Mundial de las Naciones Unidas (2006). “La violencia contra los
niños, niñas y adolescentes: 2006”.
Cepal-Instituto de Estudios Latinoamericanos. 2009.
http://www.ielat.es/inicio/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=2%3Ageneral&id=108%3Aestadistic
as-sociales-cepal&Itemid=29
Instituto de Seguridad y Servicios Sociales de los Trabajadores del Estado. www.issste.gob.mx
Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indigenas 2005. “Catalogo
de las lenguas indigenas nacionales: Variantes lingüisticas
de Mexico con sus autodenominaciones y referencias
geoestadisticas.
COIA (2006), “Un Mexico Apropiado para la Infancia y la
Adolescencia: Programa de Accion 2002-2010”.
CONAPO. 2004. Aprovechar las oportunidades que brinda
el bono demografico http://www.conapo.gob.mx/micros/
infavance/2004/04.pdf
Instituto Nacional de Salud Publica. Evaluacion Externa de
Impacto del Programa Oportunidades, 2005.
CONEVAL, Informe de Evaluacion de la Politica de Desarrollo Social en Mexico, 2008.
Instituto Nacional de Salud Publica. Impacto del Programa
Oportunidades en Nutricion y alimentacion en zonas
urbanas de Mexico, 2005.
Constitucion Politica de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos,
5 de febrero de 1917. Ultima reforma 26 septiembre de
2008.
Instituto Nacional de Salud Publica, Centro de Investiga-
88
cion en Nutricion y Salud; Evaluacion del estado de nutricion de niños menores de 5 años y sus madres, y gasto
en alimentos de familias de comunidades marginadas en
Mexico. Analisis comparativo de la entrega de despensas y
transferencias en efectivo 2003-2005; 2006.
Montaño Fernandez, Sergio (2006). “El reto del financiamiento de la educacion”.
Instituto Nacional para la Evaluacion de la Educacion
(INEE). 2006. “Indicadores del Sistema Educativo Nacional
2006”. Pagina 134.
OCDE (2008). “Panorama de la Educacion 2008: Nota
Informativa de la OCDE para Mexico”.
Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-031-SSA2-1999, para la
atencion a la salud del niño, 1999.
Oficina del Alto Comsisionado de las Naciones Unidas
para los Derechos Humanos. (2006.) Preguntas Frecuentes.
Naciones Unidas. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FAQsp.pdf
Instituto Nacional para la Evaluacion de la Educacion (INEE,
2007). “Indicadores del Sistema Educativo Nacional 2007”.
Instituto Nacional para la Evaluacion de la Educacion
(INEE). 2007. “PISA 2006 en Mexico”.
Organizacion Internacional para las Migraciones (2007),
www.iom.ch/jahia
Instituto Nacional para la Evaluacion de la Educacion
(INEE). 2008. “ENLACE: comparacion 2006-2008”.
Parker, Susan (2008). “Pobreza y Educacion en Mexico”.
UNDP.
Instituto Nacional para la Evaluacion de la Educacion
(INEE). 2008. ¿Avanza o retrocede la calidad educativa?,
Tendencias y Perspectivas de la Educacion Basica en
Mexico. Informe Anual 2008.
Parker, Susan (2008). “Salud y Nutricion en Mexico”. UNDP.
Parker, Susan y Pederzini, Carla (2001). “Gender Differences by Education in Mexico” En The Economics of Gender
in Mexico: Work, Family, State, and Market. Editado por
Elizabeth Katz y Maria Correia. Banco Mundial. Washington DC.
INEGI (2004). “El Trabajo Infantil en Mexico 1995-2002”.
Reimers, Fernando M. y Knaul, Felicia (2007). “Children's
Issues in Mexico”.The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Children's Issues Worldwide.
Parker, Susan; Rubalcava, Luis y Teruel, Graciela (2007).
“Quality of Education in Latin America and the Caribbean
Region: The Mexican Case. Banco Interamericano de
Desarrollo.
Levy, Santiago (2007). “GOOD INTENTIONS, BAD OUTCOMES: Social Policy, Informality and Economic Growth in
Mexico”. Brookings Institution.
Parker, Susan; Rubalcava, Luis y Teruel, Graciela (2008).
“Health in Mexico: Perceptions, Knowledge” and Obesity.
Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.
Ley de Asistencia Social. Septiembre 2, 2004. Diario Oficial
de la Federacion.
Ley de Planeacion, 1983. Diario Oficial de la Federacion.
Ultima modificacion en 2003.
Parker, Susan; Rubalcava, Luis y Teruel, Graciela (2008).
“Working Conditions and Mental Health in Mexico:
evidence from MxFLS”. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.
Ley General de Desarrollo Social 20 de enero de 2004.
Diario Oficial de la Federacion.
Parker, Susan. “Evaluating Conditional Schooling-Health
Transfer Programs (PROGRESA Program)” (con Luis Rubalcava y Graciela Teruel). 2008. Handbook of Development
Economics, Volumen 4, editado por T. Paul Schultz y John
Strauss. Ley General de Educacion. Julio 13, 1993. Ultimas modificaciones en Julio, 2008. Diario Oficial de la Federacion.
Ley General de Salud, Febrero 7, 1984. Ultimas reformas en
Julio 14, 2008. Diario Oficial de la Federacion.
Ley del Seguro Social, Diciembre 21, 1995. Ultima reforma
en Enero 16, 2009. Diario Oficial de la Federacion.
Parker, Susan y Scott John (2008). “An Evaluation of the
Mexican Seguro Popular program:Work and Formal sector
Participation”. Banco Mundial.
Ley para la Proteccion de los Derechos de Niños, Niñas y
Adolescentes.
Parker, Susan y Quijano, Ursula (2008). “Work and WellBeing”. OCDE.
Liconsa S.A. de C.V. http://www.liconsa.gob.mx/liconsa/
Pinheiro, Paulo Sergio. (2006). “World Report on Violence
Against Children”. United Nations.
Marco Juridico de los Derechos de los Niños. Informacion
proporcionada por el Sistema Nacional para el Desarrollo
Integral de la Familia. DIF.
UNDP (2008). “Indice de Desarrollo Humano Municipal en
Mexico 2000-2005”.
89
Segundo Informe de Gobierno 2008. Anexo Estadistico.
Paginas 243, 245, 363.
Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX). www.pemex.gob.mx
Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2007-2012.
Senado de la Republica (2006). “La Seguridad Social en
Mexico”.
Politica Social del Gobierno Federal. Vivir Mejor. http://
www.presidencia.gob.mx/vivirmejor/
Presidencia, 31 de marzo de 2008. http://www.presidencia.
gob.mx/programas/?contenido=34623
SHCP, Informe sobre la Situacion Economica, las Finanzas
Publicas y la Deuda Publica, Cuarto Trimestre 2005, 2006 y
2007.
Primer Informe de Gobierno 2007, pagina 204. Anexo estadistico (Gasto federal de los principales programas para la
superacion de la pobreza).
SHCP. Enero 2008. Informes sobre la Situacion Economica,
las Finanzas Publicas y la Deuda Publica, Segundo, Tercer y
Cuarto Trimestre 2008.
Primer Informe de Gobierno 2007, pagina 276. Anexo
estadistico, pagina 16.
SHCP. Abril 2009. Informes sobre la Situacion Economica,
las Finanzas Publicas y la Deuda Publica. Acciones y Resultados al Primer Trimestre de 2009.
Programa Sectorial de Educacion 2007-2012.
Sistema Integral para el Desarrollo Integral de la Familia.
http://dif.sip.gob.mx/
Programa Sectorial de Salud 2007-2012. Secretaria de Salud.
Subsecretaria de Educacion Media Superior, SEP (2008).
“Construye-T: Programa de Apoyo a las y los Jovenes
de Educacion Media Superior para el Desarrollo de su
Proyecto de Vida y la Prevencion en Situaciones de riesgo”.
PRONAFIDE 2008-2012.
Prueba ENLACE www.enlace.sep.gob.mx
Ravallion, Martin (2005). “Pro-Poor Growth”. Development
Research Group. World Bank.
The Economist Newspaper: Profile Books, 2008. “The
Economist pocket word in figures 2008”. London.
Reglas de Operacion 2008. Programa de Desarrollo Humano Oportunidades.
UNDP, Human Development Report 2007/2008.
UNICEF, DIF, CIESAS (2001). “Infancia Robada: Niñas y
Niños Victimas de Explotacion Sexual en Mexico”.
Rivera, Juan A., Muñoz-Hernandez, Onofre, Rosas Peralta,
Martin, Aguilar Salinas, Carlos, Popkin, Barry, Willet,
Walter. (2008) “Consumo de bebidas para una vida saludable: recomendaciones para la poblacion mexicana”
UNICEF (2008). “La infancia y el VIH/SIDA. Colocando a la
niñez y la adolescencia en el centro de la respuesta al VIH/
SIDA”. Mexico.
Rubalcava, Luis y Teruel, Graciela (2006). “Guia de Usuario
de la Encuesta Nacional sobre Niveles de Vida de los
Hogares Primera Ronda”.
UNICEF (Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia).
http://www.unicef.org/mexico/spanish/index.html
Rubalcava, Luis y Teruel, Graciela (2008). “Guia de Usuario
de la Encuesta Nacional sobre Niveles de Vida de los
Hogares Segunda Ronda”.
UNICEF, DIF (2004). “Niñez Migrante en la Frontera Norte:
Legislacion y Procesos”.
UNICEF (2007). “Global Study on Child Poverty and Disparities 2007-2008, Guide”.
Schultz, Paul T. (2004). “School subsidies for the poor:
evaluating the Mexican Progresa poverty program”. Journal of Development Economics.
Yoshikawa, Hirokazu; McCartney, Kathleen; Myers,
Roberts; Bub, Kristen L.; Lugo-Gil, Julieta; Ramos, Maria
A.; Knaul, Felicia (2007). “Early childhood education in
Mexico: expansion, quality improvement and curricular
reform”. Unicef. Innocenti Research Center.
Scott, John (2008). “Redistributive Constraints under High
Inequality: The Case of Mexico”.
Scott, John (2008). “Gasto Publico y Desarrollo Humano en
Mexico: Analisis de Incidencia y Equidad”. UNDP.
World Bank List of economies (Julio, 2008).
Secretaria de Educacion del Gobierno del Distrito Federal. (2008). Descentralizacion y Reforma Educativa en la
Ciudad de Mexico”.
World Bank (2003). “Inequality in America Latina and the
Caribbean: breaking with history?
Secretaria de Salud (2006). Indicadores Demograficos y
Socioeconomicos.
World Bank (2004). World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People.
Secretaria de Salud (2006). “Informe Nacional sobre
Violencia y Salud”.
World Bank (2006). World Development Report 2006:
Equity and Development.
Sedesol. Programa Sectorial de Desarrollo Social 2007-2012.
90
91
Household
Income
Table 1.
2. What is the
name of the
national key
policy, law,
ministerial
decree or
direction in this
sphere?
The PND, in line with the strategy “Live Better”, represents
all of the Federal Government actions that seek to create
conditions of economical growth and of prosperity for
all Mexicans in such a manner that a sustainable human
development may be achieved. One of the main actions of
this strategy seeks to continue developing the capacities
of the Mexican people, especially that of girls and boys,
by guaranteeing access to education, health, nourishment
and a worthy dwelling. The Sector Program of Social
Development (PSDS) has four main objectives that are
in line to the PND and the population’s and childhood’s
1) Strategy
wellbeing. These are: 1) Develop the basic capacities of
“Live Better”. 2)
persons in poverty conditions; 2) abate the backdrop faced
Opportunities
by vulnerable social groups through the strategies of
(Oportunidades) social assistance that allows them to develop; 3) reduce
Human
the regional disparities through territorial ordainment and
Development
social infrastructure that allows the integration of socially
Program. 3)
excluded areas; and 4) improve the quality of life in the
Boys, Girls and
cities, emphasizing on social groups in poverty conditions,
Adolescents
through the provision of the social infrastructure and
Protection Act. 4) worthy dwelling, and also to consolidate efficient cities,
Action Program safe and competitive. The PSDS establishes as one of
2002-2010
its main goals the reduction of nourishment poverty in
30% for 2012 (in 2006 14.4 million people lived in these
conditions and it is a wish that by 2012 only 10.1 million
are burdened by it). For its part, Oportunidades seeks to
support families who live in extreme poverty conditions, so
as to increase the capacities of their members and widen
up their alternatives to achieve better levels of wellbeing,
through the improvement of the options in education,
health, nourishment, besides contributing to the bonding of
new services and development programs that propitiate the
improvement of their socio-economical conditions and of
quality of life.
1. Which is the
national key
document/plan
that establishes
the purposes
and strategy in
this sphere?
1) National
Development
Plan 20072012. 2) Sector
Program
for Social
Development
2007-2012.
3) Operation
Rules 2008,
Opportunities
(Oportunidades)
Human
Development
Program
3. Objectives of Policies. What is exactly the purpose
of achievement of the policy/law with regard to the
dimension of child poverty?
Annex 1. Policy and Statistics Tables
Live Better is a strategy that takes
into consideration the current social
programs and complements them
with new actions which, overall,
seek to reach the goals proposed
by the PND, the Sector Programs
and the MDO's. In line with PND’s
axis on equality of opportunities,
the purposes of Live Better and the
PDN are centered on: significantly
reducing the number of Mexicans
in poverty conditions with policies
that overcome an assistance focus,
so that the persons may acquire
capacities and generate work
opportunities; support the poorest
population to increase their income
and improve their quality of life,
encouraging and supporting the
generation of productive projects.
In like manner, Oportunidades,
in line with the goals of the PND,
seeks to break the intergenerational
cycle of poverty in such a manner
that present generations may have
a better quality of life than that
of those who preceded them. On
the other hand, the PSDS takes as
point of reference the Vision Mexico
2030 and it includes the objectives,
strategies and lines of actions of
the government offices and federal
organisms that belong to this sector.
4. How does this policy objective
fit in with the purposes of other
sectors or with the National
Development Strategy in general?
SEDESOL
/ National
Coordination
of the
Oportunidades
Human
Development
Program
5. Which is the
State organism
in charge of the
execution phase?
1. Which is the
national key
document/plan
that establishes
the purposes
and strategy in
this sphere?
(Continued from previous page)
2. What is the
name of the
national key
policy, law,
ministerial
decree or
direction in this
sphere?
Child
Nutrition
1) National
Development
Plan 20072012. 2) Health
Sectorial
Program 20072012.
3. Objectives of Policies. What is exactly the
purpose of achievement of the policy/law with
regard to the dimension of child poverty?
Even though the Health Act does not have a
chapter on nutrition, this law represents the most
important decree in matter of health and thus on
nutrition. In it are established the objectives of the
Health National System, which seeks to supply
health services to all the people and improve
1) Health Act
the quality of the same, so that the wellbeing
1984. Last
and development of families is impelled (and
modification on hence that of childhood) and thus the incidence
July 4, 2008.
on poverty is prevented. On the other hand, the
2) Mexican
objectives, strategies and lines of action in matter
Official Norm
of health and children’s health are expressed in
NOM-031the Sectorial 2007-2012 (PROSESA), which is in
SSA2-1999, for
charge of defining –taking as starting point the
child’s health
Vision Mexico 2030 and the PND- the performance
attention, 1999.
of the government offices and the federal
3) Boys, Girls
organisms that pertain to the National Health
and Adolescents System, such as the SSA, IMSS, ISSSTE, DIF,
Protection Act. 4) SEDENA, SEMAR and PEMEX. In like manner, the
Action Program NOM for attention to child’s health establishes the
2002-2010
criteria, strategies, activities and procedures that
give attention to children in this country, such as:
vaccination, prevention, treatment and control of
diarrheic diseases, and acute breathing infections,
as well as actions for the vigilance of the state of
nutrition, growth and development of children
under five years old.
4. How does this policy objective fit in with the
purposes of other sectors or with the National
Development Strategy in general?
5. Which is
the State
organism in
charge of the
execution
phase?
Within its axis of equality of opportunities, the
PND establishes several objectives that seek to
increase the wellbeing of the Mexican people. In
this line, the PND establishes as main objectives
to reduce extreme poverty and secure equality of
opportunities and the enlargement of capacities
so that all Mexicans significantly improve their
quality of life and have nourishment, health,
education, worthy housing guaranteed, and an
appropriate environment for their development
as provided by the Constitution. Inasmuch as
the nourishment subject, PDN establishes the
SSA, DIF
importance of bringing to the communities
more actions on education, health, and nutrition
–among other things- to socially excluded
villages. Social programs such as Oportunidades
(within its nourishment component) and
School Breakfasts, have contributed to reduce
malnutrition indexes of the poorest population so
that, within the PND 2007-2012, the importance
to continue consolidating these type of programs
has been established, so that special attention
is given to socially excluded towns and social
breaches continue to be reduced.
92
93
The PND delimitates objectives with a high entailment to child
protection policies. Specifically, the axis of equality of opportunities
establishes the importance of developing a public policy aimed at the
family, with the purpose of reducing social vulnerability. Furthermore,
it seeks to promote healthy and integral development of Mexican
childhood guaranteeing full respect to their rights, the attention to
their needs for health, nourishment, education and housing, and
promoting full development of their capacities. The strategy “Live
Better” establishes two branches under which child protection in
Mexico takes its guidance. The first one, the Action Program 2002-2010, DIF, SSA
which summarizes the strategy of Federal government to improve
educational conditions, of health and protection of children’s rights,
and the second one, the COIA, formed by the Ministries of SSA,
SEDESOL, STPS, as well as ISSSTE and SNDIF. Inasmuch as social
programs that promote childhood protection, the most important are
the Program “From Street to Life”, the PROPADETIUM, the PAIDEA
and the Program for Diffusion of Childhood’s Rights, among others.
However, currently COIA is practically inactive and the last report on
the Action Program 2001-2010 was made in 2006.
The Boys, Girls and Teenagers
Rights Protection Act (2000), along
with several statements and other
State and federal instruments, forms
part of the national policy in favor
of child protection. Its main purpose
1) The Boys, Girls resides in securing a full and
and Teenagers
integral development, which implies
Rights Protection the opportunity to have a physical,
Act. May 29,
mental, emotional, and social
2000.
formation, and morally in conditions
2) Health Act.
of equality. Hence, it is the labor of
February 7, 1984. the Federation, the Federal District,
3) Social
the States, the municipalities and
Assistance Act.
the private and social sector, to
September 2,
seek to and implement policies
2004
and strategies that guarantee the
improvement of the social condition
of girls, boys and teenagers and
which impel a culture of protection
of childhood’s rights, based on the
contents of the Convention on the
rights of the child.
1) National
Development
Plan 2007Children’s
2012. 2) Health
Health
Sectorial
Program 20072012.
1) National
Development
Plan 20072012. 2) An
Appropriate
Child
Mexico for
Protection
Childhood and
Adolescence
2006. Action
Program 20022010.
4. How does this policy objective fit in with the purposes of other
sectors or with the National Development Strategy in general?
5. Which is
the State
organism in
charge of the
execution
phase?
Each one of PROSESA’s purposes is integrally related to the 10 national
objectives of PND. Some of these are: i) improve health conditions of the
people (for example, increase the expectations of life at birth 1.5 years);
ii) reduce health breaches or inequalities with focused interventions on
vulnerable groups and socially excluded communities (reduce to half
the rate of maternal mortality in the 100 municipalities with less index
of human development); iii) supply quality and safe health services
(for example, certify 100% of the health units that provide services to
SSA
the Health Social Protection System); iv) avoid impoverishment of the
people due to health reasons; and v) guarantee that health contributes
to the combat of poverty and the country’s social development (the main
goal is to reduce 20% the prevalence of malnutrition on children under 5
years at the 100 municipalities with less human development index). The
advance on these objectives has been possible thanks to programs such
as Oportunidades, the Popular Insurance and SMNG, among others.
3. Objectives of Policies. What
is exactly the purpose of
achievement of the policy/law
with regard to the dimension of
child poverty?
PROSESA, on line with PND
is in charge of defining the
performance of the government
1) Health Act
offices and federal organisms
1984. Last
that pertain to the National Health
modification on
System. Each one of its objectives
July 4, 2008. 2)
is integrally related to the ten
Boys, Girls and
national objectives of PND. The
Adolescents
National Health Act is presented
Protection Act. 3)
as a document that regulates the
Action Program
right to protection of health had by
2002-2010
all Mexicans and establishes the
purposes and main agents related
to protection of health.
(Continued from previous page)
2. What is the
1. Which is the
name of the
national key
national key
document/plan
policy, law,
that establishes
ministerial
the purposes
decree or
and strategy in
direction in this
this sphere?
sphere?
(Continued from previous page)
2. What is the
name of the
national key
policy, law,
ministerial
decree or
direction in this
sphere?
1. Which is the
national key
document/plan
that establishes
the purposes
and strategy in
this sphere?
1) National
Development
Plan 2007-2012.
Children’s
2) Sectorial
Education
Education
Program 20072012.
3. Objectives of Policies. What
is exactly the purpose of
4. How does this policy objective fit in with the purposes of other
achievement of the policy/law with
sectors or with the National Development Strategy in general?
regard to the dimension of child
poverty?
5. Which is
the State
organism
in charge
of the
execution
phase?
The Sectorial Education Plan establishes six objectives with regard
to the reduction of child poverty, which are: 1) increase the quality of
education, 2) Extend education opportunities to reduce disparities
So that childhood poverty can be
among social groups and impel equity, 3) offer an integral education
faced, the Education Act establishes that equilibrates formation in citizen values and development of
that the education authorities
competences, 4) offer quality education services to form persons
are responsible for promoting a
with a high sense of social responsibility, and 5) promote school and
major educational equity, as well
institutional operation that strengthens the participation of school
1) Education Act,
as the achievement of equality
centers in the process of decisions taking, makes the several agent
July 13, 1993 (last
of opportunities of access and
co-responsible, promotes security, transparency, and the rendering of
modifications
permanence in educational
accounts. Furthermore, among the main goals proposed by PSE for
in July, 2008).
services. The said measures
2012 there are to increase: i) grading of PISA tests on mathematics
2) Boys, Girls
are aimed, preferably, at those
and reading comprehension from 392 (2006) to 435; ii) percentage of SEP
and Adolescents
groups and regions with most
public school updated teachers from 17.8 in 2006 to 87.9%; iii) junior
Protection Act.
educational backdrop or that face
high school termination rate of 75.5% (2006) to 86.7%; iv) percentage
3) Action
economical and social conditions of of native boys and girls that conclude their primary education in
Program 2002disadvantage. In turn, the Sectorial indigenous education schools from 85.1% in 2006 to 88.1%; v)
2010
Education Plan, formulated based
education scholarships for students in the Oportunidades basic
on the PND and the Vision 2030,
education from 4’602,403 in 2006 to 5’000,000; and vi) scholarships
establishes the main objectives and granted to young mothers and young pregnant women to conclude
goals in matter of education of the their basic education from 1,975 grants in 2006 to 49,460 among
Mexican people.
others. To achieve this, there are programs being carried out such
as Oportunidades, Quality Schools, Scholarships for youths and
Pregnant Mothers and the Preschool and Primary Education Program
for Boys and Girls of Migrating Agricultural Workers Families
94
Table 2. Public Spending and Development Supports
Millions of Pesos as of 2002
Total Public Spending (Millions of
Pesos)
Public spending in cash transfers
and household income generation
programs (Millions of pesos)
Public spending in child nutrition
(Millions of pesos)***
2005
17,127
266
2006
19,077
270
2007
20,205
Information Source
SHCP. Report on Economic
Situation, Public Finances and
Public Debt, Fourth Quarter 2005
and 2006
299
Report on Economic Situation,
Public Finances and Public Debt,
Fourth Quarter 2005, 2006 and
2007. Federal Spending Budget
2005, 2006 and 2007. Second State
to the Nation Report 2008. Statistic
Appendix.
Report on Economic Situation,
Public Finances and Public Debt,
Fourth Quarter 2005, 2006 and
2007. First State to the Nation
Report 2007. Statistic Appendix.
Page 204
31
41
35
Public spending in health (Millions of
pesos)
1,960
2,091
1,732
First State to the Nation Report
2007. Page 56
Second State to the Nation Report
2008. Page 104
Public spending in education (Millions
of pesos)
2,813
3,020
3,148
First State to the Nation Report
2007. Page 56
Second State to the Nation Report
2008. Page 104
Support from General Budget (Millions
of pesos)
NA
NA
NA
OAD in cash transfers and household
income generation programs (Millions
of pesos)
NA
NA
NA
OAD in child nutrition (Millions of
pesos)
NA
NA
NA
10
8
NA
Third Basic Health Care Project:
proposed amendment to loan.
World Bank. 2006
NA
Basic Education Development
Project in Support of the Third
Phase of the Basic Education
Development Program. World Bank
2005, 2006
Gross Official Assistance for
Development (OAD)
(Millions of pesos)
OAD in health (Millions of pesos)
OAD in education (Millions of pesos)
14
17
**Budgeted expenditures
***”Oportunidades” educational component was not included in this row in order to avoid duplications of amounts.
NA: Not available
Public spending in cash transfers and income generation programs refers to the budget of “Oportunidades” and Senior Adults program s
Public spending in child nutrition refers to Diconsa, Liconsa and Scholar Breakfasts budget.
Public spending in health and education refers to programmable spending of the Public Sector Budget
95
Table 3. Household Income –Key and Relevant Budget Allocation
Millions of pesos
as of 2002
Cash for human
development
programs
Cash for labor
programs
Price subsidies, tax
exemptions
Social pensions
(seniority and
disability )
Total
spending
in 2005
261
221
1,644
1,552
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2005
1.52
1.29
9.60
9.06
Total
spending
in 2006
267
320
2,103
1,705
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2006
1.40
1.68
11.02
8.94
Total
spending
in 2007
297
205
2,448
1,888
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2007
Data Source
1.47
Report on Economic
Situation, Public
Finances and Public
Debt, Fourth Quarter
2005, 2006 and 2007.
Second State to the
Nation Report 2008.
Statistic Appendix.
1.02
Report on Economic
Situation, Public
Finances and Public
Debt, Fourth Quarter
2005, 2006 and 2007
12.12
Report on Economic
Situation, Public
Finances and Public
Debt, Fourth Quarter
2005, 2006 and 2007
9.34
Report on Economic
Situation, Public
Finances and Public
Debt, Fourth Quarter
2005, 2006 and 2007
Motherhood
and fatherhood
benefits
161
0.94
NA
NA
NA
NA
Accounts on
reproductive health and
gender equity. 2005
Estimation and spending
evolution 2003-2005,
INSP. Page 34
Child and families
allocations
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
0.03
3
0.01
53
0.26
Federal Expenditure
Budget 2005, 2006 and
2007
Other – support
programs for
senior adults
Note: Information on social programs refers to budgeted spending, while subsidies, pension, motherhood and fatherhood benefits and child and families allocations information refers to the actual exercised
spending.
Public spending for human development programs refers to “Oportunidades” Program budget.
Public spending for labor programs in 2005 includes: Program for Temporary Employment, Priority Groups and Regions, Productive Re-conversion Program, National Support Fund for Companies in “Solidaridad”
(Solidarity) (FONAES), and Productive Options. For 2006 and 2007 it includes Agri-Food and Fishing Chains, Priority Groups and Regions, Productive Re-conversion, FONAES and Productive Options
Subsidies of prices and tax exemptions are targeted to social development, economic growth and government actions. They include gasoline subsidies; Luz y Fuerza (light) to support electric energy costs; decentralization and relocation agreements in federal entities encompassed in the Alliance for the Countryside Program; subsidies to the States destined to support education at medium high, high school and superior
levels; Scholarship Program and CONAFE Financing; highly specialized hospitals equipment for the health sector, between others.
Social pensions (seniority and disability) include those granted by IMSS, ISSSTE, CFE, LFC and PEMEX.
Motherhood and fatherhood benefits include hospital and ambulatory assistance from public and private sector.
Others: in 2005 and 2006 refers to the Senior Adult Program in Rural Areas; in 2007 it refers to the Attention Program for Adults of 70 years and on in Rural Areas.
NA: No information available
96
Table 4. Childhood Results in Nutrition –Key Budget Allocations
Millions of pesos
as of 2002
Total
spending
in 2005
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2005
Total
spending
in 2006
Current
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2006
Total
spending
in 2007
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2007
Data Source
Communitarian
services targeted to
nutrition and health
(growth promotion,
supplementary
food)
5.42
0.03
11.00
0.06
16.50
0.08
First State to the Nation
Report 2007, page 204.
Statistic Appendix
(Public Expenditure
on Poverty Reduction
Programs). Second
State to the Nation
Report 2008. Statistic
Appendix (Food
Support Programs,
page 245). Report on
Economic Situation,
Public Finances and
Public Debt, Fourth
Quarter 2005, 2006 and
2007.
Consultancy on
breast feeding
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.12
First State to the Nation
Report 2007, page 204.
Statistic Appendix.
Report on Economic
Situation, Public
Finances and Public
Debt, Fourth Quarter
2005, 2006 and 2007.
0.57
Sixth State to the
Nation Report 2006,
page 37
Federal Finance
Ministry Account 2007.
Public Spending Policy.
Nutrition services
at institutions
(severe
undernourishment
treatment)
Procurement of
micronutrients
supplements
19.26
83.10
0.11
0.49
23.74
0.12
88.88
0.47
24.66
114.19
Selective food
assistance
8.23
0.05
10.25
0.05
21.38
0.11
Report on Economic
Situation, Public
Finances and Public
Debt, Fourth Quarter
2005, 2006 and 2007.
Second State to the
Nation Report 2008.
Statistic Appendix Food
Support Programs,
page 245).
Others –Enumerate
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA: No information available
Communitarian services targeted to nutrition and health (growth promotion, supplementary food) refers to Liconsa Program
Nutrition services at institutions (severe undernourishment treatment) refers to Scholar Breakfasts Program
Procurement of micronutrients supplements refers to the food component of Oportunidades
Selective food assistance refers to Rural Supply Program and Food Support Program
97
Table 5. Childhood Results in Health – Key Budget Allocations
Total
spending
in 2005
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2005
Total
spending
in 2006
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2006
Total
spending
in 2007
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2007
Primary
facilities for
health care
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Immunization
programs
0.03
0.0002
8.99
0.05
6.41
0.03
Federal Expenditure
Budget, Subdivision 12.
2005, 2006 and 2007
Prenatal
attention
programs
3.84
0.02
3.86
0.02
3.79
0.02
Federal Expenditure
Budget, Subdivision 12.
2005, 2006 and 2007
Neonatal
attention
programs
10.52
0.06
9.64
0.05
9.76
0.05
Federal Expenditure
Budget, Subdivision 12.
2005, 2006 and 2007
Reproductive
health and
support for
mothers
2.38
0.01
4.59
0.02
2.83
0.01
Federal Expenditure
Budget, Subdivision 12.
2005, 2006 and 2007
Others –
Enumerate
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Millions of
pesos as of
2002
Data Source
Expenditure in immunization programs includes the budgeted expenditure in vaccines programs and the procurement of consumables for those programs.
Expenditure in prenatal attention programs correspond to the budgeted expenditure of the National Institute of Perinatology Isidro Espinosa de los Reyes each year.
Expenditure in neonatal attention includes both the budgeted expenditure of the National Institute of Perinatology Isidro Espinosa de los Reyes and the National Pediatrics Institute.
Expenditure in reproductive health and support for mothers corresponds to the budgeted expenditure of the National Center of Gender Equity and Reproductive Health.
Table 6. Childhood Results in Infancy Protection – Key Budget Allocations
Millions of
pesos as of
2002
Total
spending
in 2005
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2005
Birth inscription
NA
NA
Alternative
Care (daycare,
adoption
services,
child care in
institutions)
NA
NA
Total
spending
in 2006
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2006
Total
spending
in 2007
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2007
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.03
Second State to the
Nation Report 2008.
Statistic Appendix
(Expenditure in the main
programs for poverty
reduction, page 243).
NA
NA
5.95
Data Source
Family Support
Services *
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.95
0.03
Second State to the
Nation Report 2008.
Statistic Appendix
(Expenditure in the main
programs for poverty
reduction, page 243).
Child Protection
Services
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Justice for
minors
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Others –
Enumerate
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
* Family support services might include social assistance services, nurseries, education in first childhood and extracurricular activities, advisory and related services, education for fatherhood and motherhood.
Note: Real expenditure. NA: No information available
Family support services refer to the Daycare and Child Houses Program.
Alternative Care refers to the Daycare and Chile Houses Program
98
Table 7. Childhood Results in Education – Key Budget Allocations
Millions of pesos
as of 2002
Total
spending
in 2005
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2005
Total
spending
in 2006
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2006
Total
spending
in 2007
Total
spending
as % of
government
spending in
2007
Data Source
406
2.37
445
2.33
468
2.32
First State to the Nation
Report 2007, page 276.
Statistic Appendix, page
16
6.10
First State to the Nation
Report 2007, page 276.
Statistic Appendix, page
16
3.98
First State to the Nation
Report 2007, page 276.
Statistic Appendix, page
16
Pre-school
teaching
Elementary
teaching
1,199
Lower secondary
teaching
7.00
760
1,246
4.44
6.53
794
1,233
4.16
804
Higher secondary
teaching (general
and technological
high school)
590
3.45
625
3.28
430
2.13
First State to the Nation
Report 2007, page 276.
Statistic Appendix, page
16
Others –
Enumerate
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Note: Real expenditure. NA: No information available
Graph 1.1.1a: The Population Pyramid in 2005
(Table 1.1.1.)
Graph 1.1.1b: Population change 1995-2005
(Table 1.1.1)
1.50
70+
Age Group
50-69
Male
25-49
Female
1.00
20-24
15-19
0.50
10-19
5-9
0
0-4
40% 30%
20%
10%
Male
0
10%
20%
30%
40%
-0.50
Female
Source: INEGI I y II Conteo de Población y Vivienda, 1995, 2005.
0.6
Female
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4 Age
0-4
5-9
10-14 15-19
20-24
25-49 50-69
5-9
10-14 15-19
20-24
25-49
Source: INEGI I y II Conteo de Población y Vivienda, 1995, 2005.
Graph 1.1.1c: Projected population change 2005-2015
(Table 1.1.1)
Male
Age
0-4
70+
Source: INEGI I y II Conteo de Población y Vivienda, 1995, 2005.
99
50-69
70+
hholds
with such
children
or youth
girls or
women
of this
age
ii.
boys or
men of
this age
iv.
girls or
women
of this
age
v.
boys or
men of
this age
not in this category
iii.
Percentage of
Table 1.1.3 Estimated numbers of children affected by deprivations targeted by the MDG's
Mexico, 2002
i.
in this category
Percentage of
vii.
girls aged
boys
0-17
aged 0-17
vi.
in these households
Households
Total number of
boys
girls aged
aged 0-17
0-17
viii.
ix.
x.
in the sample or national
estimate
4.02
80.99 13,617,823 17,814,041 17,198,541
A. Nutrition poor
98.39
80.30
72.06
8,629,027 12,233,536 11,483,349
97.41
45.25
70.21
90.89 11,782,147 16,345,095 15,791,770
7. Number of 1 year-olds immunized against measles
6. Children died between ages one and five (MDG 4,
Indicator 13 proxy)
5. Children died under age one (MDG 4, Indicator 12)
N/I
83.58
N/I
N/I
79.14
N/I
82.13
N/I
N/I
72.32
79.30
N/I
84.51
N/I
N/I
27.93
20.86
N/I
17.87
N/I
N/I
27.68
20.70
N/I
15.49
N/I
N/I
72.07
79.14
N/I
80.46
N/I
N/I
72.32 16,759,458 20,434,136 19,526,898
79.30 16,759,458 20,434,136 19,526,898
N/I
81.56
N/I
N/I
N/I
3,220,172
N/I
N/I
N/I
4,981,002
N/I
N/I
N/I
4,352,078
N/I
N/I
4.78
45.32
37.56
91.53
1.61
54.75
34.54
22.54
2.59
54.68
62.44
19.29
2.90
70.93
65.46
77.46
1. Underweight children under five years of age
(MDG 1 Indicator 4)
2. Enrolled in primary education (MDG 2 and 3
Indicator 6 and 9)
72.81
80.71
B. Education poor
3. Completing the final year of primary education in
proper age (MDG 2, Indicator 7 proxy)
90.02
8. 15-24 years with comprehensive correct
knowledge of HIV/AIDS (MDG Goal 7 Indicator 30)
82.45
72.07
9,049,835 12,582,482 12,079,474
4. Attending primary and secondary school in proper
age (MDG 3, Indicator 9)
9. Households and/or children with sustainable
access to an improved water source (MDG Goal 7
Indicator 30)
77.41
C. Health poor
10. Households and/or children with access to
improved sanitation (MDG Goal 7 Indicator 31)
N/I: No information or Data.
Enrolled in primary education define as a child that attending primary school between 5 and 14 years old..
Completing the year of primary education in proper age define as a child between 12 - 17 years old that finished the primary school at 12 years old.
Attending primary and secondary school in proper age define as a child between 6-15 years old that the difference between their age and their education + 6 is equal or less than 1
Improved water source define as children using water from an improved source.
Improved sanitation define as child living with access to a toilet facility
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002 (MxFLS-1)
100
Table 1.1.4 Females by age in household surveys
Mexico, 2002
Total
Percentage distribution of females in the survey
0-2
3-4
5-9
10-14
15-17
18-24
25-49
50-
5.51
3.91
10.98
11.72
6.30
12.24
33.20
16.14
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
0.41
0.47
0.63
1.33
3.39
7.80
25.58
60.38
3-4 members
5.56
4.14
9.49
8.07
4.67
12.67
38.56
16.85
5-6 members
5.76
4.23
13.91
14.48
7.11
11.55
33.89
9.06
7+
6.96
4.34
12.81
17.17
8.73
14.28
26.64
9.08
None
4.82
3.06
9.15
11.63
6.25
10.3
24.5
30.3
Primary
4.85
3.6
10.36
12.59
7.11
12.76
31.68
17.06
Secondary+
6.21
4.53
12.53
10.89
5.34
12.45
38.64
9.41
Male
6.03
4.28
11.63
12.23
6.55
12.37
33.71
13.20
Female
3.56
2.52
8.55
9.79
5.37
11.76
31.30
27.15
Q1 (poorest)
7.31
4.33
13.85
10.81
7.00
12.13
31.13
13.43
Q2
6.31
5.43
11.46
13.83
6.15
12.71
31.60
12.52
Q3
5.34
4.76
12.06
12.65
5.49
12.78
32.48
14.45
Q4
4.88
3.50
10.28
11.83
6.02
11.90
35.70
15.89
Q5
3.75
2.25
8.15
9.78
6.29
12.62
35.28
21.89
Group 1: Indigenous
5.96
3.66
13.01
13.27
8.03
11.54
29.39
15.13
Group 2: Not Indigenous
5.42
3.95
10.59
11.42
5.97
12.38
33.93
16.34
Both parents working
4.87
3.63
14.03
16.04
8.00
10.95
36.75
5.73
None of the parents are working
4.97
2.06
12.76
15.92
8.53
10.00
30.30
15.44
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
2.40
0.67
7.37
15.45
20.13
0.00
0.00
53.97
At least one child under 15 working
3.65
3.35
11.87
25.49
10.21
8.39
29.92
7.11
Women’s education*
Gender of the head of the household
Wealth index quintiles
Ethnicity/language/religion
Work (among hholds with children)
Illness and disability in the household
Adult(s) with chronic illness
4.51
3.28
9.46
10.52
6.31
12.53
32.21
21.18
Child/children with disability
8.73
10.37
20.36
9.99
6.18
4.44
33.73
6.21
3.56
2.52
8.55
9.79
5.37
11.76
31.30
27.15
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive categories)
Single parent
Orphan child in household
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
5.60
5.81
23.92
24.36
12.11
1.28
26.55
0.37
Elder (70+) person in household
2.43
1.41
4.97
6.85
3.91
6.66
24.24
49.52
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan)
5.33
3.69
11.45
12.39
6.31
12.77
31.53
16.53
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla,
Morelos).
5.33
4.13
10.80
10.92
6.47
11.76
34.07
16.52
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco,
Guanajuato).
5.81
3.72
11.68
13.07
6.64
12.06
31.49
15.54
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa,
Sonora).
5.07
3.47
9.55
11.16
6.85
14.10
34.08
15.71
Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon)
5.96
4.30
10.27
10.52
4.93
11.79
36.35
15.88
Urban
5.47
3.83
10.53
11.10
5.99
12.50
34.82
15.75
Rural
5.62
4.14
12.35
13.59
7.23
11.45
28.28
17.34
Residence
N/I: no information or Data. Groups of ethnicity: Group 1: Indigenous. Group 2: Not Indigenous
*The variable women’s education contain the education from the partner or the household head when is women.
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
101
Table 1.1.5 Males in the survey
Mexico, 2002
Percentage distribution of males in the survey
Total
Household dimension
Household size
0-2
3-4
5-9
10-14
15-17
18-24
25-49
50-
6.13
4.16
11.65
12.24
6.38
12.10
31.85
15.49
Less than 3
0.76
0.02
1.25
1.58
1.56
11.59
33.75
49.49
3-4 members
5.59
4.27
10.79
8.85
4.96
11.65
36.76
17.13
5-6 members
6.51
4.72
12.68
15.63
7.55
11.07
32.31
9.54
7+
8.16
4.52
14.89
15.85
8.38
14.47
23.19
10.54
None
5.06
4.05
9.23
13.21
7.13
11.81
24.02
25.5
Primary
6.46
4.57
12.46
12.26
5.47
10.71
34.81
13.27
Secondary+
7.37
4.97
14.67
12.62
5.02
10.34
37.52
7.49
Male
5.82
4.00
11.10
11.54
5.97
11.57
33.12
16.88
Female
8.34
5.26
15.59
17.18
9.32
15.83
22.84
5.65
Q1 (poorest)
9.04
4.80
13.18
13.48
5.99
12.64
29.04
11.83
Q2
7.05
5.08
12.58
12.37
7.24
11.60
32.02
12.07
Q3
6.64
4.93
12.51
13.10
6.17
10.33
32.10
14.22
Q4
5.09
4.11
11.46
12.13
6.84
10.73
33.36
16.28
Q5
3.41
2.39
8.37
10.84
6.00
14.45
32.79
21.74
Group 1: Indigenous
6.65
4.62
13.86
14.40
7.70
10.84
27.29
14.63
Group 2: Not Indigenous
6.03
4.07
11.24
11.84
6.13
12.34
32.71
15.65
Both parents working
6.61
4.88
14.00
14.15
7.53
9.11
36.28
7.45
None of the parents are working
0.21
0.19
0.49
0.82
0.50
0.57
1.22
0.87
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
0.00
1.64
5.58
24.23
13.59
0.00
0.00
54.95
At least one child under 15 working
5.57
2.23
12.47
30.17
6.40
9.53
25.59
8.04
Mother’s education
Gender of the head of the household
Wealth index quintiles
Ethnicity/language/religion
Work (among hholds with children)
Illness and disability in the household
Adult(s) with chronic illness
4.95
3.48
10.12
12.00
6.52
12.36
30.72
19.85
Child/children with disability
9.78
5.31
27.86
16.71
5.62
2.95
22.22
9.54
8.34
5.26
15.59
17.18
9.32
15.83
22.84
5.65
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive categories)
Single parent
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
Elder (70+) person in household
Orphan child in household
4.05
2.44
8.12
8.32
4.77
8.05
23.27
40.99
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
12.91
7.14
28.32
31.68
14.52
1.62
3.81
0.00
Geographic dimension
Region
6.94
4.05
13.25
12.71
6.20
10.53
30.19
16.13
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla, Morelos).
6.11
4.07
11.11
11.32
6.33
13.95
32.37
14.74
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato).
6.37
4.59
11.82
13.17
6.70
11.42
30.84
15.10
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa, Sonora).
4.32
4.19
10.26
11.80
6.85
12.25
32.76
17.56
Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon)
5.51
3.84
10.83
12.38
6.02
11.39
34.43
15.59
Urban
6.07
4.09
11.06
11.50
6.07
12.77
33.75
14.69
Rural
6.29
4.37
13.46
14.51
7.34
10.04
26.06
17.93
Region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan)
Residence
N/I: no information or Data. *The variable women’s education contain the education from the partner or the household head when is women. REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
102
Graph 1.2.1a: Population growth (Table 1.2.1)
Millions of individuals
3.0
Argentina
Bolivia
2.5
Brasil
2.0
Chile
1.5
Colombia
1.0
Ecuador
Guatemala
0.5
Jamaica
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
0
México
Nicaragua
Source: CepalStat, Estadísticas de América Latina y el Caribe
Graph 1.2.1b: GDP per capita (Table 1.2.1)
10000
Argentina
Dollars at 2000 prices
9000
Bolivia
8000
Brasil
7000
Chile
6000
5000
Colombia
4000
Ecuador
3000
Guatemala
2000
Jamaica
1000
0
México
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
Nicaragua
Source: CepalStat, Estadísticas de América Latina y el Caribe
Graph 1.2.1c: GDP per capita (Table 1.2.1)
15
Argentina
Bolivia
10
Growth %
Brasil
5
Chile
0
Colombia
Ecuador
-5
Guatemala
-10
Jamaica
México
-15
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Source: CepalStat, Estadísticas de América Latina y el Caribe
103
Nicaragua
Graph 1.2.1d: GDP of Mexico (Table 1.2.1)
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
GDP 1990=100 (millions of pesos)
Source: Banxico, INEGI
Graph 1.2.2: Total Fertility Rate (Table 1.2.2)
Argentina
Children per woman
6.0
Bolivia
5.0
Brasil
4.0
Chile
3.0
Colombia
Ecuador
2.0
Guatemala
1.0
Jamaica
México
0
1990
1995
2000
2007
Nicaragua
Source: CepalStat, Estadísticas de América Latina y el Caribe
Graph 1.2.3: The structure of the economy in 2005 (Table 1.2.3.)
70
60
50
40
30
Share (%)
in total GDP
20
10
0
Agriculture
Mining, electricity, water,
gas and construction
Manufacturing
Services
Other
Share (%)
in total
employment
Source: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI), Primer Informe FCH, 2007
104
Table 1.2.4: Income inequality
Country
Gini index of household
income/consumption
Ratio between last
and first decile
Ratio between last
and first decile
Ratio between last
and first decile
2006
2000
1992
2006
2000
1992
49.6
53.5
52.9
26.1
36.1
31.3
Note: Show actual year(s) if different from indicated.
REFERENCE/SOURCE: CONEVAL, Informe de Evaluacion de la Politica de Desarrollo Social en Mexico, 2008.
Table 1.2.5: Introducing sub-national dimensions of development
Population, 1,000s
Country
Change over
2005
1990
1990
States
HDI scores (or similar socioeconomic indicator)
Change over
2004
1990
1990
Aguascalientes
1,065
719.7
48.0%
0.8271
0.8079
2.4%
Baja California
2,845
1,661
71.3%
0.8391
0.8517
-1.5%
Baja California Sur
512.2
317.8
61.2%
0.8332
0.8402
-0.8%
Campeche
754.7
535.2
41.0%
0.8263
0.7859
5.1%
Coahuila
2495.2
1972.3
26.5%
0.8356
0.8169
2.3%
Colima
568
428.5
32.6%
0.8097
0.7969
1.6%
Chiapas
4293.5
3210.5
33.7%
0.7185
0.6558
9.6%
Chihuahua
3241.4
2441.9
32.7%
0.8340
0.8403
-0.7%
Distrito Federal
8720.9
8235.7
5.9%
0.8837
0.9118
-3.1%
Durango
1509.1
1349.4
11.8%
0.8045
0.7791
3.3%
Guanajuato
4893.8
3982.6
22.9%
0.7782
0.7367
5.6%
Guerrero
3115.2
2620.6
18.9%
0.7390
0.6887
7.3%
Hidalgo
2345.5
1888.4
24.2%
0.7645
0.7309
4.6%
Jalisco
6752.1
5302.7
27.3%
0.8056
0.8043
0.2%
Mexico
14007.5
9815.8
42.7%
0.7871
0.7957
-1.1%
Michoacan
3966.1
3548.2
11.8%
0.7575
0.7123
6.3%
Morelos
1612.9
1195.1
35.0%
0.8011
0.7868
1.8%
Nayarit
949.7
824.6
15.2%
0.7749
0.7502
3.3%
Nuevo Leon
4199.3
3098.7
35.5%
0.8513
0.8693
-2.1%
Oaxaca
3506.8
3019.6
16.1%
0.7336
0.6695
9.6%
Puebla
5383.1
4126.1
30.5%
0.7674
0.7261
5.7%
Queretaro
1598.1
1051.2
52.0%
0.8087
0.7818
3.4%
Quintana Roo
1135.3
493.3
130.1%
0.8296
0.8285
0.1%
San Luis Potosi
2410.4
2003.2
20.3%
0.7850
0.7515
4.5%
Sinaloa
2608.4
2204.1
18.3%
0.7959
0.7790
2.2%
Sonora
2394.9
1823.6
31.3%
0.8253
0.8315
-0.7%
Tabasco
1990
1501.7
32.5%
0.7800
0.7596
2.7%
Tamaulipas
3024.2
2249.6
34.4%
0.8246
0.8128
1.5%
Tlaxcala
1068.2
761.3
40.3%
0.7746
0.7418
4.4%
Veracruz
7110.2
6228.2
14.2%
0.7573
0.7286
3.9%
Yucatan
1818.9
1362.9
33.5%
0.7831
0.7488
4.6%
Zacatecas
1367.7
1276.3
7.2%
0.7720
0.7397
4.4%
HDI is defined by three basic variables 1) life expectancy, 2) proportion of adults literate and 3) per capita income.
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Esquivel Hernandez Gerardo, Lopez Calva Luis F. & Velez Grajales Roberto (2003). Crecimiento economico, desarrollo humano y desigualdad regional en Mexico 1950-2000. Sexto Informe
de Gobierno, 2006. Informe sobre Desarrollo Humano Mexico 2006-2007, Migracion y desarrollo humano. UNDP.
105
Table 1.3.3 Total and private social expenditures
Mexico
Social expenditures in 2005 (millions of pesos of 2002)
Total health expenditures
1,646.9
of which private
5.63
Total education expenditures
2,953.2
of which private
21.72
Total primary and lower secondary education expenditures
-
of which private
-
Total water and sanitation expenditures
87.7
Of which private
N/I
Note: Actual (disbursed) data presented. N/I: no information available at that desegregation level.
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Sexto Informe de Gobierno Fox 2006, pagina 7. Mexican Family Life Survey (for private expenditures), 2002.
Graph 1.3.1a: Total public revenues and expenditures
in Mexico as % of GDP (Table 1.3.1)
Graph 1.3.1b: Public revenues and expenditures
in Mexico as % of GDP (Table 131)
5
25.0
4
20.0
3
%
2
15.0
1
10.0
0
1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
5.0
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Revenues from taxes on international trade
2006
Health public expediture
Health currente expenditures
Total public revenues
Source: Sexto Informe de Gobierno 2006, Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público
Source: Sexto Informe de Gobierno 2006, Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público
Graph 1.3.2: Expenditures per child (pesos)
(Table 1.3.2.)
Program of the
South-South East
Region (and Plan
Puebla Panamá)
1.3
0.7
4.0
Program of the
Center-West Region
Program of the
Northeast Region
4.6
Program of the
Center Region
Source: Informe sobre la Situación Económica,
las Finanzas Públicas y la Deuda Pública, 2005. ENIGH 2005
106
2.1
Table 1.3.4: Financing from abroad (million pesos of 2002)
Mexico
1995
2000
Balance of payments
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Trade balance
1,242.46
-880.84
-940.79
-741.83
-596.64
-910.42
-724.65
-566.72
Debt service
528.96
530.86
398.62
275.56
241.86
228.48
287.56
470.94
Remittances
643.75
694.44
870.21
953.85
1,409.18
1,728.66
1,937.43
2,193.81
1,669.75
1,896.76
2,888.68
2,240.69
1,722.22
2,370.63
2,085.10
1,786.25
for general budget support
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
for health (less HIV/AIDS)
N/I
N/I
N/I
2.11
5.97
8.31
8.85
7.02
for HIV/AIDS
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
for education
69.23
N/I
29.35
N/I
N/I
21.70
11.97
14.71
for water and sanitation
14.02
N/I
N/I
N/I
0.62
N/I
35.87
N/I
for general budget support
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
for health (less HIV/AIDS)
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
for HIV/AIDS
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
for education
1.04
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
for water and sanitation
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
0.96
N/I
9,515.71
9,479.56
9,645.88
9,596.10
9,798.45
Foreign Direct Investment
Aid disbursed (ODA/OA) of which
(millions of dollars)
Aid allocated but not disbursed/used
(ODA/OA) of which (millions of dollars)
Memorandum items:
GDP* (millions of pesos 1990=100)
20,031.67 10,325.70 9,642.57
Total government revenue (current
millions of pesos)
Net aid allocated (ODA/OA)
7,490.65
9,678.46
9,841.50
537.11
0.00
303.32
9,871.38 10,812.84 11,579.58 12,382.93 13,186.90
22.65
71.19
370.11
283.58
259.09
N/I: no information available. Note: Actual (disbursed) data. REFERENCE/SOURCE: Primer Informe de Gobierno, 2007. Anexo estadistico. Pagina 49. Banco de Mexico. BID. Banco Mundial (Basic Education Development Project in Support of the Third Phase of the Basic Education Development Program). United Nations
Table 2.1.1 Trends in income/consumption poverty since 1990
1992
1994
2002
2005
- by national poverty line 1 (food poverty)
19.3
18.5
19.0
17.2
- by national poverty line 2 (poverty of capacities)
27.2
27.0
26.0
23.7
- by national poverty line 3 (poverty of patrimony)
51.2
50.4
50.4
47.7
- by international poverty line
5.7
6.2
5.9
5.0
- by national poverty line 1 (food poverty)
16.4
29.1
15.6
14.1
- by national poverty line 2 (poverty of capacities)
23.1
23.2
21.4
19.5
- by national poverty line 3 (poverty of patrimony)
44.5
43.6
42.4
39.6
- by international poverty line
4.6
5.0
4.4
3.8
- by national poverty line 1 (food poverty)
27.1
27.2
26.5
24.7
- by national poverty line 2 (poverty of capacities)
36.9
37.8
34.9
32.7
- by national poverty line 3 (poverty of patrimony)
61.8
61.6
60.2
57.5
- by international poverty line
9.3
10.4
8.8
8.2
Poverty headcount among households with children 0-17 (%)
Poverty headcount among all households (%)
Number of children in poverty (%)
National poverty line 1 (local currency)
Urban
167,955.3*
193.4
494.8
584.3
Rural
124,750.5*
142.8
672.3
790.7
Number of households with children (million)
14.6
15.1
17.4
17.7
Total number of households (million)
18.5
19.7
24.5
25.7
Total number of children (million)
41.1
41.1
41.2
41.0
Average household size
4.7
4.6
4.1
4.0
Average household size among families with children
5.3
5.2
4.9
4.8
National poverty 1 refers to the alimentation poverty threshold of the household (incapacity of acquiring a basic food basket even though all income available was used for that purpose). National poverty line 2 refers
to those households that have less income per capita than the necessary for acquiring basic alimentation, health and education. National poverty line 3 refers to those households that have less income per capita
than the necessary for acquiring basic alimentation, clothing, dwelling, health, education and transportation. REFERENCE/SOURCE: Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2002,2005, CONEVAL.
107
Table 2.1.2 Correlates of income/consumption poverty among
households with children (most recent survey, national or international measure)
Poverty headcount
rate (%)
Poverty gap (income/consumption
shortfall as % of poverty line)
40.82
0.231
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
40.96
0.234
Age group 1 (0-14)
46.74
0.264
Age group 2 (15-24)
37.17
0.214
Age group 3 (25-44)
36.45
0.211
Age group 4 (45-64)
35.71
0.184
Age group 5 (65- )
42.17
0.331
Female
40.69
0.228
Age group 1 (0-14)
44.3
0.248
Age group 2 (15-24)
38.39
0.209
Age group 3 (25-44)
38.11
0.217
Age group 4 (45-64)
37.9
0.187
43.24
0.347
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
36.13
0.184
3-4 members
31.53
0.188
5-6 members
38.97
0.227
7+
54.45
0.283
None
53.09
0.365
Primary
48.01
0.229
27.8
0.165
Male
39.49
0.212
Female
48.1
0.250
Q1 (poorest)
53.69
0.347
Q2
47.06
0.226
Q3
42.14
0.197
Q4
23.2
0.131
Q5
19.35
0.112
61.3
0.376
36.66
0.195
Mexico, 2002
All households with children (0-17)
Age group 5 (65- )
Education of the head of the household
Secondary+
Gender of the head of the household
Wealth index quintiles
Ethnicity/language/religion
Group 1: Indigenous
Group 2: Not Indigenous
108
(Continued from previous page)
Poverty headcount
rate (%)
Poverty gap (income/consumption
shortfall as % of poverty line)
Both parents working
24.76
0.110
None of the parents are working
47.55
0.219
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
44.88
0.232
At least one child under 15 working
39.77
0.176
Access to land in rural areas
55.15
0.249
Adult(s) with chronic illness
33.31
0.206
Child/children with disability
62.28
0.245
48.1
0.250
N/I
N/I
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
71.53
0.440
Elder (70+) person in household
43.94
0.234
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan)
59.32
0.257
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla, Morelos).
30.79
0.170
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato).
42.17
0.261
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa, Sonora).
37.09
0.237
Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon)
32.72
0.168
Urban
34.33
0.176
Rural
59.6
0.283
Mexico, 2002
Work (not mutually exclusive categories)
Illness and disability in the household
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive categories)
Single parent
Orphan child in household
Residence
National poverty line is in rural areas $494.78 and in urban areas $672.27
Wealth index quintile define as the cost of the assets that have the household
Single parent define as a woman that is the head of the household
The poverty gap ratio is the sum of the income gap ratios for the population below the poverty line, divided by the total population where z is the poverty line, yi is the income of individual i, q is the number of
poor people and n is the size of the population
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
Definitions and sources: Orphan children are considered those for whom one or both biological parents are dead (MICS HL9=2 or HL11=2). DHS asks also on foster status which is not available from MICS. A
vulnerable child is defined as a child who lives in a household where parents have been chronically ill or adult death after a chronic illness or any adult household member has been sick for 3 of 12 months preceding
the survey. Children with disability are available from the MICS for 2-9 year olds only (if Mexico has elected to have a disability module).
109
Table 2.1.3 Odds ratios for the probability of income/consumption
poverty by individual, household and geographic dimensions
Odds ratio of living under the poverty line
among households
among all households
with children
Mexico, 2002
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
Age group 1 (0-14)
Age group 2 (15-24)
Age group 3 (25-44)
Age group 4 (45-64)
Age group 5 (65- )
dropped
dropped
0.76
0.76
[0.059]**
[0.059]**
0.83
0.83
[0.048]**
[0.048]**
0.808
0.808
[0.080]*
[0.080]*
0.792
0.792
[0.137]
[0.137]
dropped
dropped
Female
Age group 1 (0-14)
Age group 2 (15-24)
Age group 3 (25-44)
Age group 4 (45-64)
Age group 5 (65- )
0.738
0.738
[0.052]**
[0.052]**
0.894
0.894
[0.047]*
[0.047]*
0.634
0.634
[0.066]**
[0.066]**
0.954
0.954
[0.170]
[0.170]
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
3-4 members
5-6 members
7+
dropped
dropped
1.681
1.681
[0.533]
[0.533]
2.316
2.316
[0.735]**
[0.735]**
3.378
3.378
[1.075]**
[1.075]**
Education of the head of the household
None
Primary
Secondary+
Gender of the head of the household
Male
Female
Wealth index quintiles
Q1 (poorest)
Q2
110
1.498
1.498
[0.099]**
[0.099]**
1.391
1.391
[0.059]**
[0.059]**
dropped
dropped
0.852
0.852
[0.048]**
[0.048]**
dropped
dropped
4.971
4.971
[0.349]**
[0.349]**
3.24
3.24
[0.219]**
[0.219]**
(Continued from previous page)
Q3
Q4
Q5
2.442
2.442
[0.164]**
[0.164]**
1.386
1.386
[0.098]**
[0.098]**
dropped
dropped
dropped
dropped
0.608
0.608
[0.033]**
[0.033]**
Ethnicity/language/religion
Group 1: Indigenous
Group 2: Not Indigenous
Work (not mutually exclusive categories)
Both parents working
None of the parents are working
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
At least one child under 15 working
Access to land in rural areas
0.55
0.55
[0.026]**
[0.026]**
1.345
1.345
[0.156]*
[0.156]*
1.084
1.084
[0.941]
[0.941]
0.897
0.897
[0.063]
[0.063]
1.548
1.548
[0.078]**
[0.078]**
0.694
0.694
[0.026]**
[0.026]**
Illness and disability in the household
Adult(s) with chronic illness
Child/children with disability
1.1
1.1
[0.186]
[0.186]
dropped
dropped
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive categories)
Single parent
Orphan child in household
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
Elder (70+) person in household
N/I
N/I
1.721
1.721
[0.201]**
[0.201]**
1.238
1.238
[0.089]**
[0.089]**
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan)
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla, Morelos).
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato).
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa, Sonora).
Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon)
1.608
1.608
[0.101]**
[0.101]**
0.759
0.759
[0.046]**
[0.046]**
1.395
1.395
[0.084]**
[0.084]**
1.225
1.225
[0.075]**
[0.075]**
dropped
dropped
dropped
dropped
Residence
Urban
Rural
N/I: no information or Data
Definitions: Orphan children are considered those for whom one or both biological parents are dead (MICS HL9=2 or HL11=2)
* significant at 5%; ** significant at 1%
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
111
1.73
1.73
[0.070]**
[0.070]**
Table 2.1.4 Child poverty as multiple deprivations
Number of children in
relevant age cohort,
(estimates in 1,000s)
Of which experiencing
‘severe’ deprivation, %
1. Shelter
39,961
26.77
41.33
2. Sanitation
39,961
7.52
20.29
3. Water
39,961
9.65
11.13
4. Information
34,081
11.61
29.18
5. Food
39,961
3.14
12.89
6. Education
25,616
12.38
11.95
7. Health
39,961
24.89
39.36
Mexico
Of which experiencing
‘less severe’ deprivation,
%
a) Incidence (prevalence) of deprivation
Total
b) The incidence of the most frequent combinations of deprivations
The most frequent case of any
deprivation: Shelter
39,961
26.77
41.33
Two most frequent combinations Shelter
& health
39,961
7.67
17.74
Two second most frequent combinations
Health & Information
39,961
2.86
10.98
Three most frequent combinations:
Shelter, Health & Information
39,961
1.94
6.49
Three second most frequent
combinations: Health, Information &
Education
39,961
0.34
0.85
The most frequent associate of food:
Food & Shelter
39,961
1.83
8.18
The most frequent associate of
education: Education & Shelter
39,961
2.53
3.36
The most frequent associate of health:
Health & Shelter
39,961
7.67
17.74
Only one (any) deprivation
39,961
32.65
30.45
Two of any deprivations
39,961
14.33
23.56
Three of any deprivations
39,961
5.95
12.69
Four of any deprivations
39,961
2.15
6.83
Five of any deprivations
39,961
0.33
2.29
Six of any deprivations
39,961
0.06
0.51
Seven of any deprivations
39,961
0
0.01
c) The incidence of multiple deprivations
Note: ‘Severe’ deprivations as per original Bristol measures; ‘less severe’ deprivations use standards which reflect upon those in the official MDG indicators as in italics per below.
1. Shelter
Severe: Children living in a dwelling with 5 or more people per room or with no floor material (mud floor or other.
Less severe: Children living in dwellings with 4 or more people per room or living in a house with no flooring (mud floor) or inadequate roofing
2. Sanitation facilities
Severe: Children with no access to a toilet facility of any kind.
Less severe: Children using unimproved sanitation facilities. Unimproved sanitation facilities are: pour flush latrines; covered pit latrines; open pit latrines; and buckets.
4. Information
Severe: Children (aged 3-17 years) with no access to a television or internet or don’t read.
Less severe: Children (aged 3-17 years) and adults with no access to television or internet.
5. Food
Severe: Children who are more than three standard deviations below the international reference population for stunting (height for age) or bmi for age
Less severe: Children who are more than two standard deviations below the international reference population for stunting (height for age) or bmi for age.
6. Education
Severe: Children (aged 7-17) of schooling age who have never been to school or who are not currently attending school.
Less severe: Children (aged 7-17) of schooling age not currently attending school or who did not complete their primary education.
7. Health
Severe: Children who did not receive immunization against any diseases or who did not visit to the doctor for a recent illness involving an acute respiratory infection or diarrhea.
Less severe: Children who have not been immunized by two years of age. If the child has not received eight of the following vaccinations they are defined as deprived: bcg, dpt1, dpt2, dpt3, polio0, polio1, polio2,
polio3, measles or who did not visit to a doctor for a recent illness involving an acute respiratory infection or diarrhea.
N/I: no information or Data - REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
112
Table 2.1.5 Change in the incidence/prevalence of severe deprivations over the last decade among children
2005
1994
Number of children
in relevant age
cohort, (estimates
in 1,000s)
Of which
experiencing
‘severe’ deprivation,
%
Number of children
in relevant age
cohort, (estimates
in 1,000s)
Of which
experiencing
‘severe’ deprivation,
%
1. Shelter
38,785
24.41
39,030
26.12
2. Sanitation
38,785
5.13
39,030
23.3
3. Water
38,785
2.05
39,030
17.95
4. Information
33,170
6.65
32,943
15.38
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
24,722
13.18
24,046
18.91
7. Health*
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
38,785
9.45
39,030
22.58
Mexico
5. Food*
6. Education
Two severe deprivations*
N/A: not applicable. N/I: no information obtained.
* Note: Information is not available in the ENIGH
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 1994, 2005.
Table 2.1.6 Percentages of severe child deprivations (by individual, households and geographic dimensions)
At least one severe
deprivation
(%)
At least two severe deprivations
(%)
55.48
22.83
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Mexico, 2002
Total
Male
54.63
23.01
Age group 1 (0-2)
52.70
18.86
Age group 2 (3-4)
56.09
22.51
Age group 3 (5-9)
51.68
22.37
Age group 4 (10-14)
53.98
22.55
Age group 5 (15-17)
62.19
29.37
Female
56.29
22.66
Age group 1 (0-2)
53.24
20.64
Age group 2 (3-4)
53.48
19.98
Age group 3 (5-9)
54.25
21.01
Age group 4 (10-14)
55.32
22.66
Age group 5 (15-17)
66.04
28.95
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
68.90
17.74
3-4 members
40.26
10.70
5-6 members
56.80
21.42
7+
68.35
37.05
Women’s education
None
113
79.05
51.37
(Continued from previous page)
At least one severe
deprivation
(%)
At least two severe deprivations
(%)
Primary
64.65
29.54
Secondary+
38.88
8.00
Male
55.04
22.71
Female
57.67
23.41
Q1 (poorest)
69.30
35.59
Q2
67.50
32.46
Q3
58.97
22.17
Q4
41.70
9.86
Q5
37.95
8.35
Group 1: Indigenous
75.37
48.42
Group 2: Not Indigenous
51.01
17.08
Both parents working
51.70
17.37
None of the parents are working
58.24
28.07
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
57.78
30.03
At least one child under 15 working
67.51
31.31
Adult(s) with chronic illness
55.28
20.82
Child/children with disability
14.45
7.58
57.67
23.41
N/I
N/I
Mexico, 2002
Gender of the head of the household
Wealth index quintiles
Ethnicity/language/religion
Work (among hholds with children)
Illness and disability in the household
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive categories)
Single parent
Orphan child in household
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
76.48
44.74
Elder (70+) person in household
57.61
24.57
Region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan)
74.68
44.37
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla, Morelos).
50.93
16.88
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato).
55.50
20.68
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa, Sonora).
46.74
12.81
Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon)
36.41
7.65
Urban
47.80
13.74
Rural
75.37
46.40
Geographic dimension
Region
Residence
The variable women’s education contain the education of the children’s mother
Definitions: Orphan children are considered those for whom one or both biological parents are dead (MICS HL9=2 or HL11=2)
N/I: no information or Data
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
114
Table 2.1.7 Odds ratios for the probability that children will or will not experience deprivations
Odds ratio of children having
not even ‘less severe’
at least two ‘severe’
deprivations
deprivations
Mexico, 2002
Total (average)
0.219
0.228
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
Age group 1 (0-2)
Age group 2 (3-4)
Age group 3 (5-9)
Age group 4
(10-14)
Age group 5(15-17)
Female
Age group 1 (0-2)
Age group 2 (3-4)
Age group 3 (5-9)
Age group 4
(10-14)
Age group 5(15-17)
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
3-4 members
5-6 members
7+
Women’s education
None
0.824
0.58
[0.142]
[0.081]**
0.955
0.709
[0.165]
[0.102]*
0.91
0.568
[0.128]
[0.063]**
0.997
0.519
[0.150]
[0.062]**
dropped
dropped
1.266
0.616
[0.206]
[0.086]**
0.931
0.544
[0.159]
[0.081]**
0.864
0.537
[0.122]
[0.060]**
1.017
0.612
[0.153]
[0.071]**
dropped
dropped
dropped
dropped
0.505
1.305
[0.249]
[1.074]
0.504
3.731
[0.249]
[3.068]
0.314
4.663
[0.156]*
[3.836]
0.495
1.851
[0.102]**
[0.170]**
Primary
dropped
dropped
Secondary+
Gender of the head of the household
Male
Female
Wealth index quintiles
Q1 (poorest)
115
1.822
0.54
[0.140]**
[0.040]**
1.162
0.968
[0.127]
[0.092]
dropped
dropped
0.28
3.593
[0.033]**
[0.445]**
(Continued from previous page)
Q2
Q3
Q4
0.348
2.868
[0.038]**
[0.353]**
0.534
1.568
[0.053]**
[0.198]**
0.778
1.037
[0.073]**
[0.144]
Q5
dropped
dropped
Ethnicity/language/religion
0.712
1.823
[0.089]**
[0.138]**
Group 2: Not Indigenous
dropped
dropped
Group 1: Indigenous
Work (among hholds with children)
Both parents working
None of the parents are working
0.979
0.918
[0.078]
[0.076]
0.509
1.375
[0.165]*
[0.263]
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
dropped
dropped
0.812
1.331
[0.116]
[0.130]**
At least one child under 15 working
Illness and disability in the household
Adult(s) with chronic illness
Child/children with disability
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive categories)
Single parent
Orphan child in household
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
Elder (70+) person in household
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan)
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla, Morelos).
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato).
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa, Sonora).
Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon)
Residence
1.173
0.832
[0.079]*
[0.051]**
0.718
1.459
[0.244]
[0.342]
dropped
dropped
N/I
N/I
0.684
1.919
[0.166]
[0.271]**
0.847
0.911
[0.130]
[0.112]
0.634
3.365
[0.070]**
[0.371]**
0.789
1.508
[0.080]*
[0.162]**
0.874
1.664
[0.089]
[0.175]**
0.641
1.297
[0.067]**
[0.151]*
dropped
dropped
2.602
0.39
[0.199]**
[0.025]**
Rural
dropped
dropped
Urban
The variable women’s education contain the education of the children’s mother
Definitions: Orphan children are considered those for whom one or both biological parents are dead (MICS HL9=2 or HL11=2)
N/I: no information or Data0
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
116
Table 2.1.8 Percentage of prevalence of seven severe deprivations by region and residence
Mexico
Shelter
Sanitation
Water
Information
Food
Education
Health
Region 1: South-Southeast
(Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan)
48.80
13.59
21.76
21.50
5.59
6.51
29.02
Region 2: Center (Distrito
Federal, Mexico, Puebla,
Morelos).
19.55
6.58
7.01
5.28
2.41
8.81
24.62
Region 3: Center-West
(Michoacan, Jalisco,
Guanajuato).
25.87
7.10
7.91
7.54
3.14
9.98
24.96
Region 4: Northwest (Baja
California Sur, Sinaloa,
Sonora).
16.97
3.41
2.92
6.52
0.73
5.55
26.24
Region 5: Northeast
(Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo
Leon)
11.39
1.86
1.04
6.29
1.84
5.99
17.08
Urban
18.59
4.64
4.56
4.87
2.27
7.24
23.66
Rural
47.98
14.98
22.87
22.97
5.40
9.73
28.08
Region
Residence
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
117
[0.002]***
[0.002]***
[0.013] [0.013]***
0.315
[0.013]***
[0.001]***
0.005
[0.002]***
Water
0.085
Sanitation
0.078
[0.006]***
Shelter
[0.005]***
0.051
Education
Health
0.007
Food
0.003
[0.009]
Information
[0.008]
0.02
0.027
0.024
[0.007]*** [0.003]***
0.034
0.332
[0.009]**
0.14
0.021
0.258
[0.009]***
0.094
0.083
[0.005]***
0.88
0.347
[0.005]***
0.91
0.978
[0.025]
0.056
0.168
0.094
0.037
0.03
[0.007]*** [0.003]***
[0.004]***
0.372
0.872
0.27
0.76
[0.066]*** [0.069]***
0.043
[0.096]*** [0.123]***
0.05
0.091
0.059
[0.008]*** [0.008]***
0.065
[0.014]*** [0.014]***
0.051
0.072
0.036
[0.012]*** [0.013]***
0.073
[0.011]*** [0.012]***
0.07
1
1
[0.013]
0.014
[0.023]*** [0.022]***
[0.010]*** [0.005]***
0.009
0.021
[0.007]*** [0.003]***
[0.008]
0.011
1
[0.008]*** [0.008]***
[0.007]*** [0.004]***
[0.001]*** [0.007]***
0.931
0.543
[0.052]***
[0.006]*** [0.003]***
0.736
0.074
[0.046]***
[0.084]
0.037
0.515
[0.041]***
[0.073]***
[0.126]***
0.131
1
0.136
[0.011]*** [0.005]***
0.031
0.191
0.15
1
0.059
[0.008]***
[0.008]***
0.214
0.014
[0.009]***
0.047
0.306
[0.001] [0.013]***
[0.007]***
0.092
0.07
[0.019]***
[0.008]***
0.029
1
[0.001]*** [0.012]***
0.074
0.038
[0.014]***
[0.001]*** [0.014]***
0.022
0.01
0.046
[0.006]***
0.005
[0.005]***
[0.001]*** [0.009]***
[0.010]*** [0.005]***
0.265
0.052
[0.013]***
0.007
0.086
[0.002]*** [0.022]***
1
0.096
1
0.409
0.256
[0.001]*** [0.008]***
0.054
0.004
0.255
0.294
[0.006]***
Last three
deprivations
[0.012]***
0.035
[0.010]***
0.004
0.017
[0.008]***
[0.095]*** [0.042]***
[0.007]*** [0.071]***
0.005
0.001
0.245
[0.006]***
First four
deprivations
0.602
(F,E, H)
0.081
[0.001] [0.009]***
(Sh, S, W, I)
0.009
Two
deprivations
0.214
[0.001]***
Bottom
asset
quintile
(Q1)
0.159
[0.008]***
0.007
1
[0.008]***
0.179
0.168
1
[0.001]***
0.22
[0.009]***
0.164
[0.009]***
[0.001]***
0.758
[0.068]***
[0.015]***
0.014
0.079
[0.068]*** [0.068]***
[0.124]***
1
[0.008]*** [0.008]***
0.767
0.518
[0.119]
0.535
[0.122]***
0.012
0.003
0.542
0.215
0.277
[0.005]***
0.01
[0.001]***
[0.005]***
0.044
[0.009]***
[0.001]***
0.633
[0.001]*** [0.014]***
0.112
[0.007]***
0.31
0.129
[0.014]*** [0.013]***
0.627
0.026
[0.002]***
0.206
0.101
0.582
[0.011]***
[0.012]*** [0.011]***
0.529
0.009
[0.003]
0.235
0.186
0.143
[0.012]*** [0.012]***
0.124
0.422
[0.021]***
0.007
[0.008]**
0.004
0.157
0.047
[0.021]*** [0.021]***
[0.008]
0.001
[0.008]*** [0.008]***
0.237
1
0.399
Household
income
(1.08$ a
day per
person in
ppps)
Table 2.1.9 Correlation between different indicators for child poverty/disparity
Mexico
Hh. inc.
Asset Q1
Two depr
First four
Last three
Shelter
Sanitation
Water
Inform.
Food
Education
Health
Correlation is significant at 10% level (*), 5% level **, or 1% level***.
Correlation obtain with OLS regressions
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
118
Table 2.1.10 Combined child poverty incidence
Mexico, 2002
All children (0-17)
% of children in relevant category
who are experiencing
who are experiencing
severe deprivation of
less severe deprivation of
Who live in households
human need
human need
under the 1$ day/person
ppp-s threshold
while their households live above the 1$ day/person
ppp-s threshold
22.89
16.04
19.45
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
23.13
15.92
19.88
Age group 1 (0-2)
20.98
14.47
18.6
Age group 2 (3-4)
23.84
17.37
20.16
Age group 3 (5-9)
24.76
16.85
21.57
Age group 4 (10-14)
23.76
16.06
20.69
Age group 5 (15-17)
20.57
14.41
16.29
Female
22.65
16.15
19.04
Age group 1 (0-2)
24
17.43
19.84
Age group 2 (3-4)
21.2
16.15
19.31
Age group 3 (5-9)
24.56
16.73
20.55
Age group 4 (10-14)
22.85
16.32
18.71
Age group 5 (15-17)
18.68
13.72
16.16
Less than 3
11.99
8.32
9.97
3-4 members
13.95
7.58
11.39
5-6 members
22.1
14.2
16.72
7+
33.31
27.29
31.58
None
37.38
32.68
36.12
Primary
29.92
22.49
26.57
Secondary+
11.37
5.14
7.68
Male
21.18
15.05
18.06
Female
31.42
21
26.42
Q1 (poorest)
33.63
27.35
31.1
Q2
27.55
23.21
26.02
Q3
17.77
11.63
15.09
Q4
12.26
5.97
8.71
Q5
9.12
5.13
7.57
Household dimension
Household size
Women’s education
Gender of the head of the household
Wealth index quintiles
Ethnicity/language/religion
119
(Continued from previous page)
Mexico, 2002
% of children in relevant category
who are experiencing
who are experiencing
severe deprivation of
less severe deprivation of
Who live in households
human need
human need
under the 1$ day/person
ppp-s threshold
while their households live above the 1$ day/person
ppp-s threshold
Group 1
39.39
35.03
38.49
Group 2
19.18
11.77
15.17
Both parents working
9.26
7.04
8.64
None of the parents are working
34.6
28.06
34.29
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
24.71
16
22.55
At least one child under 15 working
18.26
13.71
16.36
Adult(s) with chronic illness
15.29
11.77
14.07
Child/children with disability
58.68
36.35
53.83
31.42
21
26.42
N/I
N/I
N/I
High dependency ratio (4+children per
adult)
54.08
41.53
45.56
Elder (70+) person in household
29.89
20.72
27.72
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1
36.73
31.7
34.99
Region 2
12.63
7.51
10.07
Region 3
27.61
18.77
23.87
Region 4
18
9.77
13.18
Region 5
16.66
6.73
9.31
Residence
Urban
15.78
8.7
11.81
Rural
41.31
35.06
39.26
Work (among hholds with children)
Illness and disability in the household
Family vulnerability (not mutually
exclusive categories)
Single parent
Orphan child in household
N/I: Not information or Data. N/A: Not Applicable
The sub-national regions are: region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan). Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla, Morelos). Region 3: Center-Western (Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato).
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa, Sonora). Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon)
Groups of ethnicity: Group 1: Indigenous. Group 2: Not Indigenous
Exchange rate using at second quarter of 2002. $9.25
National poverty line is in rural areas $494.78 and in urban areas $672.27
Wealth index quintile define as the cost of the assets that have the household
Single parent define as a woman that is the head of the household
See definition for ‘severe’ and ‘less severe’ under Table 2.1.4
Definitions: Orphan children are considered those for whom one or both biological parents are dead (MICS HL9=2 or HL11=2)
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
120
Table 2.1.11 Children in public care or adopted
Mexico
1990
Total number adoptions
1995
N/I
N/I
2000
N/I
2007
3101
N/I: No information obtained.
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Sistema Nacional para el Desarrollo Integral de la Familia, 2008
Table 2.2.1 Change in U5MR by wealth quintile and gender
Mexico
1990
Total
1995
Total
2000
Total
2005
Total
2006
Total
2007
Total
U5MR
44.2
33.7
28.5
19.6
19.0
18.4
REFERENCE/SOURCE: CONAPO
Alternative of Table 2.2.1 Proportion of infant deaths by decile
2000
Decile
Infant deaths (%)
1
21.3
2
14.2
3
11.2
4
8.8
5
8.7
6
7.6
7
7.6
8
7.1
9
7.3
10
6.3
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Scott, J. 2006, “Desigualdad de la Salud y de la Atencion de la Salud en Mexico”, Serie de Documentos de Trabajo 4, Innovacion en el Financiamiento de la Salud, Funsalud-INSP.
121
Table 2.2.2 Under 5 and infant mortality rates and their correlates
Mexico 2006
Infant mortality rate
Under 5 mortality rate
15.7
18.4
Male
14.0
16.6
Age group 1
N/I
N/I
Age group 2
N/I
N/I
Age group 3
N/I
N/I
Age group 4
N/I
N/I
Age group 5
N/I
N/I
Female
10.8
13.0
Age group 1
N/I
N/I
Age group 2
N/I
N/I
Age group 3
N/I
N/I
Age group 4
N/I
N/I
Age group 5
N/I
N/I
Household size
N/I
N/I
Less than 3
N/I
N/I
3-4 members
N/I
N/I
5-6 members
N/I
N/I
7+
N/I
N/I
None
N/I
N/I
Primary
N/I
N/I
Secondary+
N/I
N/I
Male
N/I
N/I
Female
N/I
N/I
Wealth index quintiles
N/I
N/I
Q1 (poorest)
N/I
N/I
Q2
N/I
N/I
Q3
N/I
N/I
Q4
N/I
N/I
Q5
N/I
N/I
Group 1
N/I
N/I
Group 2
N/I
N/I
Group 3
N/I
N/I
Total (2007)
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Household dimension
Women’s education*
Gender of the head of the household
Ethnicity/language/religion
122
(Continued from previous page)
Work (among hholds with children)
N/I
N/I
Both parents working
N/I
N/I
None of the parents are working
N/I
N/I
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
N/I
N/I
At least one child under 15 working
N/I
N/I
Illness and disability in the household
N/I
N/I
Adult(s) with chronic illness
N/I
N/I
Child/children with disability
N/I
N/I
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive categories)
N/I
N/I
Single parent
N/I
N/I
Orphan child in household
N/I
N/I
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
N/I
N/I
Elder (70+) person in household
N/I
N/I
Northeast
13.6
18.7
Northwest
13.5
19.3
Center
15.3
20.8
Center West
16.0
22.0
South and South East
18.7
26.1
Residence
N/I
N/I
Urban
N/I
N/I
Rural
N/I
N/I
Geographic dimension
Region
N/I: no information available.
Northeast region includes Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Chihuahua and Durango and Coahuila; Northwest includes Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora and Sinaloa. Center includes Distrito Federal, Queretaro,
Hidalgo, Tlaxcala, Morelos and Estado de Mexico. Center West includes Jalisco, Michoacan, Colima, Aguascalientes, Nayarit, Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi and Guanajuato; and South-Southeast includes Puebla,
Campeche, Yucatan, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Guerrero and Veracruz.
Mortality rate according to mother´s education cannot be constructed because information regarding the education of the mother according to the number of deaths of children younger than one year old is not
available.
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Total infant mortality rate and under five mortality rate come from CONAPO 2007. Infant mortality rate and under five mortality rate according to gender and to region come from Situacion
de Salud en Mexico 2006, Indicadores Basicos, Secretaria de Salud
Table 2.2.3: Relationship between U5MR and income/consumption poverty at sub-national level
U5MR (Table 24.a)
Number of people under the hhold
income/consumption poverty threshold
Proportion
Northeast
19.64
1,313,590
7.5
Northwest
20.13
759,469
4.3
Center
21.68
3,499,902
20.0
Center West
23.05
3,766,894
21.6
South and South East
27.36
8,170,108
46.7
Mexico 2005
Note: Poverty Threshold refers to alimentation poverty
Northeast region includes Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Chihuahua and Durango and Coahuila; Northwest includes Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora and Sinaloa. Center includes Distrito Federal, Queretaro,
Hidalgo, Tlaxcala, Morelos and Estado de Mexico. Center West includes Jalisco, Michoacan, Colima, Aguascalientes, Nayarit, Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi and Guanajuato; and South-Southeast includes Puebla,
Campeche, Yucatan, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Guerrero and Veracruz.
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2005, Situacion de Salud en Mexico 2005, Indicadores Basicos, Secretaria de Salud
123
Table 3.1.1 Child nutrition outcome and its correlates
(by individual, households and geographic dimensions in 2005 or most recent year)
Mexico
Stunting
Wasting
Underweight
Total incidence/prevalence
11.46
1.18
2.11
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
12.55
1
1.61
Age group 1 (0)
9.28
3
4
Age group 2 (1)
17.84
2
1.21
Age group 3 (2)
14.90
1.13
2.16
Age group 4 (3)
12.71
0.7
0.94
Age group 5 (4-5)
7.82
0.42
1.01
Female
10.4
1
3
Age group 1 (0)
10.55
0.97
0.56
Age group 2 (1)
6.56
2.37
2.67
Age group 3 (2)
9.48
0.37
5.78
Age group 4 (3)
11.53
0.82
2.02
Age group 5 (4-5)
12.5
1.13
2.06
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
0.00
0.00
0.00
3-4 members
7.64
0.97
1.02
5-6 members
9.6
1.22
2.23
19.05
1.42
3.38
None
20.91
3.21
4.68
Primary
16.18
1.43
3.29
Secondary+
6.63
0.75
0.91
Male
11.55
1.04
2.21
Female
10.98
1.96
1.57
Q1 (poorest)
13.14
0.94
5.09
Q2
15.1
1.54
1.47
Q3
9.94
1.94
1.25
Q4
10.37
0.81
1.15
Q5
3.56
0.89
0.2
Group 1: Indigenous
23.41
1.59
3.59
Group 2: not indigenous
9.14
1.1
1.8
7+
Women’s education
Gender of the head of the household
Wealth index quintiles
Ethnicity/language/religion
Work (among hholds with children)
124
(Continued from previous page)
Mexico
Stunting
Wasting
Underweight
11.46
1.18
2.11
Both parents working
9.07
0.72
1.56
None of the parents are working
22.62
3.35
2.9
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
0.00
0.00
0.00
At least one child under 15 working
18.72
2.32
7.32
Adult(s) with chronic illness
8.35
1.35
2.07
Child/children with disability
4.18
0.00
8.5
10.98
1.96
1.57
N/I
N/I
N/I
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
19.49
1.6
4.39
Elder (70+) person in household
10.49
2.31
1.69
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1
18.95
1.33
2.1
Region 2
12.72
1.16
2.48
Region 3
6.25
1.62
2.25
Region 4
4.72
0.78
0.85
Region 5
9.02
0.4
1.62
Residence
Urban
9.3
1
1.62
Rural
17.3
1.7
3.52
Total incidence/prevalence
Illness and disability in the household
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive
categories)
Single parent
Orphan child in household
The sub-national regions are: region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan).
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla, Morelos).
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato).
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa, Sonora).
Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon)
Wealth index quintile define as the cost of the assets that have the household
Single parent define as a woman that is the head of the household
Stunting define as children who are under -2sd and -3sd from height for age
wasting define as children who are under -2sd and -3sd from weight for height
underweight define as children who are under -2sd and -3sd from weight for age
Definitions: Orphan children are considered those for whom one or both biological parents are dead (MICS HL9=2 or HL11=2)
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
125
Table B
Table C
Health indicators for children
age five or less, by region
Stunting
Overweight
North
7.0%
5.0%
Center
11.0%
5.5%
Mexico City
12.0%
4.9%
South
18.0%
5.4%
National
12.7%
5.40%
Age
Source: National Survey of Health and Nutrition (ENSANUT 2006)
Health indicators for children
between 5 and 11 years old in 2006
Stunting
Overweight
Obesity
Men Women Men Women
Men Women
5
15.3
12.8
12.9
12.6
4.8
6
11.9
7
9
8
8
5.5
9
7.6
9.2
10
10.9
11.5
17
11
10.1
9.1
21.2
Total
10.4
9.5
16.5
18.1
8.6
7.5
14.5
13.7
9.8
7
10.8
13.4
16.1
7.8
10
13.9
17.5
12.3
8.9
21.2
23.2
11
8.5
20
8.6
10.3
21.8
11.3
7.7
9.4
8.7
Source: National Survey of Health and Nutrition (ENSANUT 2006)
Table 3.1.2 Child nutrition: supply side and uptake variables by region
Number of children in nutritional control with Oportunidades per thousand children with malnutrition between
1-4 years old
2006
Total
Major nutrition supply indicator*
- supply/delivery indicator* (e.g. unit number/per capita)
605
By region
Region 1: Northeast
Major nutrition supply indicator*
- supply/delivery indicator* (e.g. unit number/per capita)
319
Region 2: Northwest
Major nutrition supply indicator*
- supply/delivery indicator* (e.g. unit number/per capita)
163
Region 3: Center
Major nutrition supply indicator*
- supply/delivery indicator* (e.g. unit number/per capita)
529
Region 4: Center-West
Major nutrition supply indicator*
- supply/delivery indicator* (e.g. unit number/per capita)
608
Region 5: South-Southeast
Major nutrition supply indicator*
- supply/delivery indicator* (e.g. unit number/per capita)
825
N/A: not applicable because Oportunidades did not exist in those years. N/I: no information obtained
Northeast region includes Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Chihuahua and Durango and Coahuila; Northwest includes Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora and Sinaloa. Center includes Distrito Federal, Queretaro,
Hidalgo, Tlaxcala, Morelos and Estado de Mexico. Center West includes Jalisco, Michoacan, Colima, Aguascalientes, Nayarit, Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi and Guanajuato; and South-Southeast includes Puebla,
Campeche, Yucatan, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Guerrero and Veracruz.
Source: Primer Informe de Gobierno 2007
Note: Table has not been created for every year because information regarding the number of children that have malnutrition in 1995, 2000 and 2005 has not been obtained yet.
*Here countries will need to propose/select some context-specific direct interventions e.g.
- Community based nutrition and health services (growth promotion, supplementary feeding)
- Breastfeeding counseling
- Facility-based nutrition services (treatment of severe malnutrition, antenatal care)
- Micronutrient supplementation and fortification
- Targeted food aid
- IEC/nutrition education/behavior change programmes
- Advocacy on nutrition
- Women’s nutrition interventions
- Nutritional surveillance
This table might be constructed by using nutritional indicators from Oportunidades program for each state of Mexico. Information is still being gathered
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Base de datos de Oportunidades, Encuesta Nacional de Salud y Nutricion (ENSANUT 2006)
126
Table 3.2.1 Young child health outcomes, related care and correlates
(by individual, households and geographic dimensions)
Child diarrhea*
% Received ORT or
increased fluids, and
continued feeding
(MICS Indicator No.
35)
Child fever**
12.50
43.00
18.20
48.54
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
13.70
44.70
18.60
48.76
Age group 1 (0)
17.50
67.51
21.60
55.41
Age group 2 (1)
21.40
42.07
21.50
52.50
Age group 3 (2)
17.80
40.66
20.00
54.99
Age group 4 (3)
6.30
31.05
14.40
34.80
Age group 5 (4)
5.60
23.36
16.00
40.13
Female
11.30
40.97
17.70
48.31
Age group 1 (0)
10.30
35.31
15.20
56.67
Age group 2 (1)
20.20
44.89
20.00
52.29
Age group 3 (2)
13.80
40.62
25.60
45.94
Age group 4 (3)
8.30
46.80
16.00
48.53
Age group 5 (4)
3.90
23.44
11.30
38.11
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
2.90
0.00
26.20
30.35
3-4 members
12.00
51.18
19.30
57.90
5-6 members
10.90
33.61
15.70
42.16
7+
15.40
43.95
19.80
44.37
None
17.80
54.06
24.40
37.84
Primary
13.70
41.17
18.50
39.90
Secondary+
11.20
42.99
17.30
58.26
Male
12.90
44.08
17.70
51.43
Female
10.20
35.25
20.50
34.31
Q1 (poorest)
17.80
46.28
23.90
44.22
Q2
12.50
35.71
16.40
49.50
Q3
10.90
43.26
14.70
46.46
Q4
10.40
39.56
16.00
54.83
Q5
9.90
50.27
23.20
54.00
18.70
35.86
23.70
34.91
Mexico, 2002
Total incidence
Women’s education
Gender of the head of the household
Wealth index quintiles
Ethnicity/language/religion
Group 1: Indigenous
% children
aged 0-4
127
%children
aged 0-4
% Antibiotic
treatment of
suspected
pneumonia (MICS
Indicator No 22)
(Continued from previous page)
Child diarrhea*
% Received ORT or
increased fluids, and
continued feeding
(MICS Indicator No.
35)
Child fever**
11.20
45.40
17.00
52.38
Both parents working
10.50
39.32
20.40
54.93
None of the parents are working
15.30
23.57
11.90
48.40
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
22.20
0.00
47.20
52.93
At least one child under 15 working
11.60
20.35
21.60
38.68
Adult(s) with chronic illness
14.60
43.30
21.70
50.90
Child/children with disability
0.00
0.00
18.10
60.74
10.20
0.35
20.50
34.31
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
High dependency ratio (4+children per
adult)
11.00
0.34
17.80
23.76
Elder (70+) person in household
15.80
0.59
23.40
52.11
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca,
Veracruz, Yucatan)
17.30
39.20
21.80
39.34
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico,
Puebla, Morelos).
10.90
49.54
16.80
59.56
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco,
Guanajuato).
12.60
44.64
19.30
48.49
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur,
Sinaloa, Sonora).
13.70
37.50
16.80
35.26
Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango,
Nuevo Leon)
7.40
35.46
14.00
49.65
Urban
10.70
47.47
16.80
53.08
Rural
17.60
35.07
22.10
38.52
Mexico, 2002
Group 2: Not Indigenous
Work (among hholds with children)
Illness and disability in the household
Family vulnerability (not mutually
exclusive categories)
Single parent
Orphan child in household
Residence
% children
aged 0-4
Notes:
N/I: Not information or Data
N/A: Not Applicable
* Child had diarrhea in the last 4 weeks
** Child had fever in the last 4 weeks
Wealth index quintile define as the cost of the assets that have the household
Single parent define as a woman that is the head of the household
Definitions: Orphan children are considered those for whom one or both biological parents are dead (MICS HL9=2 or HL11=2)
Note: The values in column 3rd & 6th are the children that visited to the doctor & received some medications.
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
128
%children
aged 0-4
% Antibiotic
treatment of
suspected
pneumonia (MICS
Indicator No 22)
Table 3.2.2 Adolescent health outcomes, care and correlates (by individual, households and geographic dimensions)
Mexico, 2005
Currently
uses any
contraceptive
method
Comprehensive
knowledge about
any contraceptive
method
Comprehensive
knowledge about any
Sexual Transmission
Disease (STDs)
Comprehensive
knowledge about
contraceptive methods
that prevent STDs
64.2%
91.2%
86.9%
73.4%
Total incidence
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
69.9%
97.2%
91.1%
74.7%
Age group 1: 12-14 years old
55.1%
99.6%
65.4%
97.6%
Age group 2: 15-19 years old
70.4%
87.8%
87.0%
98.6%
Age group 3: 20-24 years old
66.2%
97.6%
92.9%
98.5%
Age group 4: 25-29 years old
65.0%
96.3%
88.5%
97.7%
Female
55.4%
83.4%
83.2%
72.3%
Age group 1
22.0%
53.0%
69.0%
98.3%
Age group 2
53.9%
74.1%
80.7%
98.2%
Age group 3
59.6%
91.5%
87.2%
96.7%
Age group 4
62.9%
92.7%
88.4%
97.8%
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
33.2%
66.2%
66.8%
61.3%
3-4 members
68.1%
92.9%
90.6%
76.8%
5-6 members
70.4%
97.1%
95.9%
79.4%
7+
60.8%
98.4%
71.0%
60.0%
35.6%
4.4%
3.3%
0.4%
Primary
41.0%
82.9%
73.6%
15.6%
Secondary+
68.3%
97.0%
89.8%
31.3%
Women’s education
None
Gender of the head of the
household
Male
85.1%
77.2%
75.5%
75.5%
Female
14.9%
22.8%
24.5%
24.5%
Socio-economic level
Medium-high
78.2%
96.6%
75.5%
75.9%
Medium
62.0%
94.0%
92.7%
90.6%
Medium-low
71.9%
95.9%
92.1%
89.1%
Low
47.6%
80.6%
76.4%
75.4%
Very low
41.9%
89.4%
92.9%
90.4%
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1: Northeast
58.3%
95.8%
91.5%
70.9%
Region 2: Northwest
77.3%
77.4%
86.1%
69.0%
Region 3: Center
63.2%
90.5%
83.8%
71.6%
Region 4: Center-West
73.4%
94.2%
88.6%
81.3%
Region 5: South-Southeast
50.1%
90.5%
88.7%
69.5%
Residence
Urban
64.4%
92.6%
87.3%
74.0%
Semi-urban
61.0%
74.0%
77.0%
63.3%
Rural
83.6%
100.0%
97.3%
84.9%
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Encuesta Nacional de la Juventud 2005
Note: Weighted results
129
Alternative of Table 3.2.2 Adolescent health outcomes, care and correlates
(by individual, households and geographic dimensions in 2005 or most recent year)
Mexico
New detected cases of HIV among individuals from 25 to 44 years old
Year
Total
Men
Women
1990
3,719
3,198
521
1995
5,533
4,807
726
2000
8,510
7,006
1,504
2001
8,357
6,823
1,534
2002
8,172
6,626
1,546
2003
8,513
7,107
1,406
2004
8,439
7,045
1,394
2005
8,255
6,891
1,364
2006
7,969
6,598
1,371
2007
7,592
6,287
1,305
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Primer Informe de Gobierno 2007.
Table 3.2.3 Child and youth health: supply side and uptake variables by region 1990-2006
Major health supply indicator: Number of doctors per
1,000 habitants
Total
- number of doctors per 1,000 habitants
By region
Region 1: Northeast
- number of doctors per 1,000 habitants
Region 2: Northwest
- number of doctors per 1,000 habitants
Region 3: Center
- number of doctors per 1,000 habitants
Region 4: Central West
- number of doctors per 1,000 habitants
Region 5: South-South East
- number of doctors per 1,000 habitants
1990
1995
2000
2005
2006
2007
0.96
1.20
1.28
1.37
1.42
1.48
1.02
1.39
1.51
1.50
1.62
1.72
1.00
1.20
1.32
1.51
1.54
1.62
1.00
1.20
1.32
1.51
1.54
1.62
0.80
1.01
1.17
1.46
1.52
1.64
0.79
0.98
1.19
1.28
1.37
1.43
Northeast region includes Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Chihuahua and Durango and Coahuila; Northwest includes Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora and Sinaloa. Center includes Distrito Federal, Queretaro,
Hidalgo, Tlaxcala, Morelos and Estado de Mexico. Center West includes Jalisco, Michoacan, Colima, Aguascalientes, Nayarit, Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi and Guanajuato; and South-Southeast includes Puebla,
Campeche, Yucatan, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Guerrero and Veracruz.
Source: Primer Informe de Gobierno 2007
130
Table 3.3.1 Birth registration and its correlates (individual, HH and geog. Dimensions)
Mexico, 2005
Total incidence/prevalence
% of children registered
Of which: due to high
late/total number of
cost, travel or not want
children registered in
to pay late fee
2005
Number children aged
0-59 months (2002)
42.54
N/I
9,766,615
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
41.36
N/I
4,841,875
Female
43.71
N/I
4,924,740
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
N/I
N/I
68,569
3-4 members
N/I
N/I
3,448,640
5-6 members
N/I
N/I
3,541,126
7+
N/I
N/I
2,708,280
None
77.71
563,863
Incomplete primary
60.72
4,032,884
Complete primary
46.93
4,032,884
Secondary
33.19
N/I
4,847,723
High school
25.87
N/I
4,847,723
Professional
19.13
N/I
4,847,723
Male
N/I
N/I
8,307,530
Female
N/I
N/I
1,459,085
Q1 (poorest)
N/I
N/I
2,550,762
Q2
N/I
N/I
2,222,020
Q3
N/I
N/I
1,793,050
Q4
N/I
N/I
1,488,218
Q5
N/I
N/I
1,186,788
Group 1
N/I
N/I
1,634,030
Group 2
N/I
N/I
8,132,585
Both parents working
N/I
N/I
1,661,783
None of the parents are working
N/I
N/I
100,077
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
N/I
N/I
23,887
At least one child under 15 working
N/I
N/I
447,509
N/I
N/I
3,715,699
Women’s education
Gender of the head of the household
Wealth index quintiles
Ethnicity/language/religion
Work (among hholds with children)
Illness and disability in the household
Adult(s) with chronic illness
131
(Continued from previous page)
Mexico, 2005
Child/children with disability
% of children registered
Of which: due to high
late/total number of
cost, travel or not want
children registered in
to pay late fee
2005
Number children aged
0-59 months (2002)
N/I
N/I
93,908
Single parent
N/I
N/I
1,459,085
Orphan child in household
N/I
N/I
N/I
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
N/I
N/I
261,825
Elder (70+) person in household
558,990
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1: Northeast
34.41
N/I
1,311,618
Region 2: Northwest
33.63
N/I
684,496
Region 3: Center
34.71
N/I
3,189,840
Region 4: Center-West
30.39
2,309,960
Region 5: South-Southeast
61.72
2,270,701
Urban
N/I
N/I
7,276,842
Rural
N/I
N/I
2,489,773
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive
categories)
Residence
Note: due to the lack of information regarding the number of children whose birth is not registered, this table displays information about the number of children that were registered late (from one to eight years
late) according to the total number of children registered.
Countries could add further rows on sub-national regions and ethnic/language/religion groups. A somewhat different version of this table is included in the MICS Guide tabulations (Table CP.1) which could be
used alternatively here.
The breakdowns are for a standard table on child outcome correlates. Not all categories will be applicable for all outcome measures from all types of surveys. For example, data on age and gender may not be applicable to IMR and U5MR from MICS. Age groups will change according to outcome or process measure (e.g. malnutrition to children under 5 (0-3 months, 4-6 months, 7-12 months, 13-23 months, 24 months-35
months, 36 months+) and national legislation (e.g. on school attendance, use relevant ages for primary and secondary schooling).
Definitions: Orphan children are considered those for whom one or both biological parents are dead (MICS HL9=2 or HL11=2)
N/I: No information available
REFERENCE/SOURCE: INEGI, Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
132
Table 3.3.2 Orphanhood, child vulnerability and their correlates
(by individual, households and geographic dimensions)
% Vulnerable
children
of which: one or
both parents dead
(orphans)
Number of children
aged 0-17 years
41.27
N/I
39,961,034
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
41.68
N/I
19,526,898
Age group 1(0-2)
36.87
N/I
2,949,916
Age group 2(3-4)
38.16
N/I
2,001,231
Age group 3(5-9)
39.59
N/I
5,610,310
Age group 4(10-14)
44.71
N/I
5,893,468
Age group 5(15-17)
46.59
N/I
3,071,973
Female
40.87
N/I
20,434,136
Age group 1(0-2)
37.72
N/I
2,929,701
Age group 2(3-4)
38.67
N/I
2,078,426
Age group 3(5-9)
39.70
N/I
5,842,239
Age group 4(10-14)
41.35
N/I
6,233,066
Age group 5(15-17)
46.17
N/I
3,350,704
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
23.16
N/I
471,769
3-4 members
39.65
N/I
11,753,454
5-6 members
42.68
N/I
15,958,845
7+
41.69
N/I
11,776,966
None
39.52
N/I
3,768,184
Primary
39.44
N/I
17,808,063
Secondary+
43.64
N/I
15,666,506
Male
41.75
N/I
33,299,187
Female
38.83
N/I
6,661,847
Q1 (poorest)
37.15
N/I
9,186,066
Q2
42.02
N/I
8,137,545
Q3
44.92
N/I
7,332,664
Q4
42.15
N/I
6,528,072
Q5
54.67
N/I
6,221,163
Group 1: Indigenous
38.34
N/I
7,336,662
Group 2: Not Indigenous
41.93
N/I
32,624,372
Mexico. 2002
Total incidence/prevalence
Women’s education
Gender of the head of the household
Wealth index quintiles
Ethnicity/language/religion
133
(Continued from previous page)
% Vulnerable
children
of which: one or
both parents dead
(orphans)
Number of children
aged 0-17 years
Both parents working
47.22
N/I
7,982,113
None of the parents are working
44.33
N/I
625,325
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
55.13
N/I
386,418
At least one child under 15 working
45.78
N/I
3,350,766
Adult(s) with chronic illness
100.00
N/I
16,490,875
Child/children with disability
6.47
N/I
1,532,442
38.83
N/I
6,661,847
N/I
N/I
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
19.92
N/I
1,340,274
Elder (70+) person in household
57.98
N/I
2,702,967
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan)
43.65
N/I
9,503,953
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla,
Morelos).
45.31
N/I
12,672,714
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato).
37.32
N/I
9,614,657
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa,
Sonora).
42.71
N/I
2,983,797
Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon)
33.49
N/I
5,185,913
Urban
42.72
N/I
28,836,014
Rural
37.50
N/I
11,125,020
Mexico. 2002
Work (among hholds with children)
Illness and disability in the household
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive categories)
Single parent
Orphan or fostered child in household
Residence
Notes:
N/I: Not information or Data
N/A: Not Applicable
Wealth index quintile define as the cost of the assets that have the household
Single parent define as a woman that is the head of the household
Definitions: Orphan children are considered those for whom one or both biological parents are dead (MICS HL9=2 or HL11=2)
Vulnerable child is define as a child who lives in a household where parents or some adult has a chronic disease
Chronic disease is defined as diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, cancer, rheumatism, gastric ulcer or migraine.
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
134
Table 3.3.3 Child labor and its correlates (by individual, households and geographic dimensions)
Total child labor
(MICS indicator 71,
children aged 5-14
years)
of which: paid
work outside the
household
Number of children
aged 5-14 years
4.96
91.73
23,579,083
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
6.22
91.83
11,503,778
Age group 1(5-6)
0.25
100.00
2,196,779
Age group 2(7-8)
1.90
87.11
2,278,401
Age group 3(9-10)
3.42
84.02
2,306,887
Age group 4(11-12)
8.18
97.24
2,379,763
Age group 5(13-14)
16.80
91.11
2,341,948
Female
3.76
91.58
12,075,305
Age group 1(5-6)
0.04
100.00
2,189,161
Age group 2(7-8)
2.27
90.83
2,362,266
Age group 3(9-10)
1.62
71.44
2,601,665
Age group 4(11-12)
5.35
90.39
2,516,316
Age group 5(13-14)
9.27
96.26
2,405,897
Yes
4.61
90.32
20,659,559
No
15.59
97.86
1,401,026
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
6.99
100.00
193,174
3-4 members
3.32
93.92
6,578,518
5-6 members
5.29
88.84
9,782,063
7+
5.99
93.89
7,025,328
None
7.82
96.77
2,341,498
Primary
5.73
90.13
10,525,041
Secondary+
3.39
90.66
9,208,350
Male
5.12
91.64
19,567,822
Female
4.17
92.29
4,011,261
Q1 (poorest)
4.57
88.88
5,249,195
Q2
5.05
98.62
4,677,688
Q3
6.17
96.62
4,413,742
Q4
3.97
85.43
3,918,714
Q5
5.91
94.89
3,770,167
Mexico, 2002
Total incidence/prevalence
School participation
Women’s education
Gender of the head of the household
Wealth index quintiles
135
(Continued from previous page)
Total child labor
(MICS indicator 71,
children aged 5-14
years)
of which: paid
work outside the
household
Number of children
aged 5-14 years
Group 1
4.98
94.07
4,388,896
Group 2
4.96
91.19
19,190,187
Both parents working
8.08
89.29
5,027,265
None of the parents are working
2.45
100.00
387,614
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
4.63
100.00
217,072
At least one child under 15 working
99.57
91.73
1,174,803
Adult(s) with chronic illness
5.58
95.13
9,752,604
Child/children with disability
3.37
69.45
212,055
Single parent
4.17
92.29
4,011,261
Orphan child in household
N/I
N/I
N/I
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
8.98
92.45
875,998
Elder (70+) person in household
6.99
100.00
1,617,007
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1
2.74
88.17
5,750,350
Region 2
5.14
92.89
7,306,115
Region 3
8.25
91.41
5,728,871
Region 4
3.95
95.89
1,734,862
Region 5
3.10
91.65
3,058,885
Residence
Urban
4.94
91.13
16,834,768
Rural
5.00
93.22
6,744,315
Mexico, 2002
Ethnicity/language/religion
Work (among hholds with children)
Illness and disability in the household
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive
categories)
Notes:
N/I: Not information or Data
N/A: Not Applicable
The sub-national regions are: region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan).
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla, Morelos).
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato).
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa, Sonora).
Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon)
Groups of ethnicity: Group 1: Indigenous. Group 2: Not Indigenous
Exchange rate using at day October 14th. $12.00
National poverty line is in rural areas $494.78 and in urban areas $672.27
Wealth index quintile define as the cost of the assets that have the household
Single parent define as a woman that is the head of the household
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
136
Table 3.3.4 Early marriage and its correlates (by individual, household and geographic dimensions)
Percentage of women
aged 15-49 married
before age 15
Percentage of women
aged 15-49 married
before age 18
Number of women
aged 15-49
2.82
16.65
27,529,952
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
Age group 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Age group 2
N/A
N/A
N/A
Age group 3
N/A
N/A
N/A
Age group 4
N/A
N/A
N/A
Age group 5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Age group 1(15-20)
2.39
12.25
6,573,528
Age group 2(21-25)
1.81
13.09
3,947,756
Age group 3(26-30)
3.27
17.58
4,469,577
Age group 4(31-40)
2.99
19.80
7,343,479
Age group 5(41 +)
3.49
19.68
5,195,612
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
1.27
16.68
1,652,024
3-4 members
1.94
14.20
10,487,265
5-6 members
3.16
16.80
9,442,197
7+
4.26
20.73
5,948,466
None
1.25
6.60
1,967,909
Primary
0.91
3.69
5,643,228
Secondary+
1.12
2.36
2,176,438
Male
2.84
17.24
22,095,546
Female
2.72
14.27
5,434,406
Q1 (poorest)
3.45
21.72
5,446,582
Q2
3.98
20.17
4,975,966
Q3
4.03
19.96
4,635,969
Q4
1.87
14.23
4,763,976
Q5
1.78
11.14
5,727,110
Group 1: Indigenous
4.92
23.66
4,178,127
Group 2: Not Indigenous
2.44
15.40
23,351,825
Mexico, 2002
Total incidence/prevalence
Female
Women’s education
Gender of the head of the household
Wealth index quintiles
Ethnicity/language/religion
137
(Continued from previous page)
Percentage of women
aged 15-49 married
before age 15
Percentage of women
aged 15-49 married
before age 18
Number of women
aged 15-49
Both parents working
1.56
1.73
692,482
None of the parents are working
4.20
4.20
58,235
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
1.85
1.85
101,919
At least one child under 15 working
4.17
21.87
1,497,867
Adult(s) with chronic illness
2.66
16.15
12,514,757
Child/children with disability
6.01
37.03
117,855
2.72
14.27
5,434,406
N/I
N/I
N/I
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
5.61
27.34
374,492
Elder (70+) person in household
1.78
9.26
2,153,280
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz,
Yucatan)
4.11
20.71
6,111,100
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico,
Puebla, Morelos).
2.43
17.25
9,162,361
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco,
Guanajuato).
2.49
14.14
6,180,699
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur,
Sinaloa, Sonora).
2.79
12.89
2,310,480
Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango,
Nuevo Leon)
2.23
15.05
3,765,312
Urban
2.26
14.62
21,338,483
Rural
4.75
23.66
6,191,469
Mexico, 2002
Work (among hholds with children)
Illness and disability in the household
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive
categories)
Single parent
Orphan child in household
Residence
Notes:
N/I: Not information or Data
N/A: Not Applicable
Wealth index quintile define as the cost of the assets that have the household
Single parent define as a woman that is the head of the household
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
138
Table 3.3.5 Child protection: supply side and uptake variables by region
Number of trials for adoptions
Number of trials for adoptions due to a
sentence
2182
973
574
117
- number of trials
490
322
Region 3: Center
- number of trials
328
48
550
430
240
56
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
2007
Total
- number of trials
By region
Region 1: Northeast
- number of trials
Region 2: Northwest
Region 4: Center-West
- number of trials
Region 5: South-Southeast
- number of trials
Urban
- number of trials
Rural
- number of trials
Northeast region includes Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Chihuahua and Durango and Coahuila; Northwest includes Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora and Sinaloa. Center includes Distrito Federal, Queretaro,
Hidalgo, Tlaxcala, Morelos and Estado de Mexico. Center West includes Jalisco, Michoacan, Colima, Aguascalientes, Nayarit, Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi and Guanajuato; and South-Southeast includes Puebla,
Campeche, Yucatan, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Quintana Ro, Tabasco, Guerrero and Veracruz.
Source: DIF, 2008
Alternative of Table 3.3.5 Child protection: Number of shelters for children and teenager migrants unaccompanied (2007)
State
Municipality
Number of shelters
Number of Modules
Baja California
Tijuana
2
1
Mexicali
1
1
Sonora
San Luis Rio Colorado
0
1
Nogales
1
1
Aguaprieta
1
1
Chihuahua
Ojinaga
1
0
Ciudad Juarez
4
1
Coahuila
Cd. Acuña
1
1
Piedras Negras
0
1
Nuevo Leon
Monterrey
1
0
Tamaulipas
Nuevo Laredo
1
1
Reynosa
1
1
Matamoros
1
1
Chiapas
Tapachula
1
1
Tabasco
Tenosique
0
1
Veracruz
Acayucan
0
1
Source: Sistema Nacional para el Desarrollo Integral de la Familia
139
Table 3.4.1 School attendance and correlates (by individual, households and geographic dimensions)
Net primary school attendance rate*
(MICS Indicator No. 55)
87.30
Mexico, 2002
Total
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
87.26
Age group 1
86.68
Age group 2
92.08
Age group 3
92.59
Age group 4
89.82
Age group 5
74.29
Female
87.35
Age group 1
88.87
Age group 2
92.16
Age group 3
92.96
Age group 4
89.56
Age group 5
71.64
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
81.85
3-4 members
88.75
5-6 members
87.70
7+
85.63
Women’s education
None
82.80
Primary
87.34
Secondary+
91.19
Gender of the head of the household
Male
87.86
Female
84.61
Wealth index quintiles
Q1 (poorest)
86.58
Q2
90.09
Q3
90.46
Q4
92.94
Q5
91.61
Ethnicity/language/religion*
Group 1: Indigenous
90.57
Group 2: Not Indigenous
86.55
Work (among hholds with children)
Both parents working
94.20
None of the parents are working
96.47
No adult in primary working age (18-54)
91.42
At least one child under 15 working
84.60
Illness and disability in the household
Adult(s) with chronic illness
90.95
140
(Continued from previous page)
Net primary school attendance rate*
(MICS Indicator No. 55)
87.30
Mexico, 2002
Total
Child/children with disability
79.22
Family vulnerability (not mutually exclusive categories)
Single parent
84.61
Orphan child in household
High dependency ratio (4+children per adult)
83.87
Elder (70+) person in household
90.32
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1: South-Southeast (Oaxaca, Veracruz, Yucatan)
92.63
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla, Morelos).
83.82
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato).
86.80
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa, Sonora).
85.92
Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon)
87.35
Residence
Urban
85.72
Rural
91.18
* Net primary school attendance rate define as children between 6 to 15 years that attending the school
Wealth index quintile define as the cost of the assets that have the household
Single parent define as a woman that is the head of the household
Definitions: Orphan children are considered those for whom one or both biological parents are dead (MICS HL9=2 or HL11=2)
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
141
Table D
Individuals between 6 and 14 years old by age group and expenses per capita
MXFLS-1 (ENNViH)
Age group and Expense per capita group
6 - 7 years old
8 - 9 years old
10-11 years old
12-14 years old
TOTAL
Years of
schooling
% that repeated
a school year
Cognitive test
% Inscribed at
school
Group 1
0.3
0.97
8.1
90.54
Group 2
0.29
0.71
9.15
92.1
Group 3
0.33
1.45
8.99
95.26
Group 4
0.36
1.79
9.82
96.38
Group 5
0.26
0.73
10.04
96.96
Group 1
1.63
23.05
9.13
96.05
Group 2
1.83
13.44
10.21
98.77
Group 3
1.86
10.77
10.61
99.66
Group 4
1.88
8.97
11.25
99.29
Group 5
1.98
9.44
11.68
100
Group 1
3.27
31.64
10.48
96.81
Group 2
3.45
24.22
11.31
96.62
Group 3
3.67
17.3
12.25
97.2
Group 4
3.77
12.97
12.17
98.39
Group 5
3.83
14.38
12.96
98.97
Group 1
5.13
49.23
-
84.83
Group 2
5.61
33.74
-
87.71
Group 3
5.96
29.12
-
93.97
Group 4
6.21
19.23
-
93.79
Group 5
6.29
18.69
-
95.83
Group 1
2.74
27.68
9.47
88.54
Group 2
3.06
19.61
10.63
90.43
Group 3
3.38
16.72
11.11
94.42
Group 4
3.51
11.97
11.48
94.77
Group 5
3.6
12.12
11.99
95.87
Cognitive test is based on Ravens matrix. La prueba estandarizada fue hecha con respecto a la media de la poblacion.
Source: Mexican Family Life Survey (MXFLS-1)
142
Table E
Age group and
Expense per capita
group
Information about the school were children between 6 and 14 years old assist to.
School
School
Proportion of
School
School
Proportion
School has
has
has
computers
has clean
has a
of books
computers
electricity
toilets
per student
floors
library per student
Group 1
97.84
82.01
13.67
0.016
64.49
30.94
2.14
10.54
Group 2
94.4
86.4
17.6
0.023
73.33
40
1.44
10.64
6 – 7 years
Group 3
old
Group 4
12-14
years old
TOTAL
96.85
92.91
24.41
0.026
82.26
49.61
1.46
12.17
99.19
95.93
34.96
0.027
78.86
54.47
1.53
12.66
13.16
Group 5
98.32
94.17
41.18
0.062
84.03
45
2.9
Group 1
98.71
80.69
9.87
0.023
70
34.33
2.09
9.84
Group 2
97.38
90.39
21.83
0.017
71.68
44.98
1.58
11.62
12.23
8 – 9 years
Group 3
old
Group 4
10-11
years old
#
classrooms
99.55
90.95
28.51
0.017
81.94
45.25
1.45
98.6
93.95
32.56
0.028
81.13
48.37
2.13
13.14
Group 5
99.5
96.52
28.36
0.05
85.5
45.77
2.88
12.56
Group 1
97.8
79.12
10.26
0.022
65.41
31.5
1.77
10.22
Group 2
97.8
89.43
18.5
0.017
78.57
45.81
1.76
10.57
Group 3
98.28
95.71
24.03
0.023
82.33
44.21
1.73
11.73
Group 4
99.1
92.76
28.96
0.03
79.45
50.23
2.01
12.1
Group 5
99.02
94.15
32.2
0.055
87.8
51.22
2.44
13.07
Group 1
98.4
82.75
22.36
0.037
73.08
43.45
3.18
10.22
Group 2
98.51
91.99
38.87
0.033
82.58
54.3
3.05
11.72
Group 3
99.13
95.34
52.19
0.035
82.01
58.31
2.93
13.89
Group 4
99.14
96.29
56.29
0.044
83.43
60.86
3.62
15.14
Group 5
99.12
97.66
58.19
0.053
88.56
63.45
4.95
14.73
10.17
Group 1
98.23
81.11
14.61
0.029
68.92
36.01
2.42
Group 2
97.49
90.2
26.69
0.026
77.63
47.93
2.22
11.27
Group 3
98.7
94.05
35.61
0.029
82.11
50.43
2.13
12.71
Group 4
99.01
94.83
41.14
0.036
81.31
54.46
2.64
13.59
Group 5
99.08
96.08
42.79
0.054
87.05
53.92
3.77
13.62
2005
2006
2007
Source: Mexican Family Life Survey (MXFLS-1)
Table 3.4.2 Child education: supply side and uptake variables by region 1990-2006
Major child education indicator: number of
teachers per 1,000 students
Total
- number of teachers per 1,000 students
By region
Region 1: Northeast
- number of teachers per 1,000 students
Region 2: Northwest
- number of teachers per 1,000 students
Region 3: Center
- number of teachers per 1,000 students
Region 4: Center-West
- number of teachers per 1,000 students
Region 5: South-Southeast
- number of teachers per 1,000 students
1990
1995
2000
44.38
47.62
49.55
51.39
51.46
50.66
48.26
51.73
51.02
51.74
51.39
51.36
46.89
49.50
50.55
52.50
52.03
52.05
43.81
47.52
49.06
51.22
51.59
51.74
45.60
48.09
51.00
54.04
54.02
54.03
41.66
44.58
47.06
49.69
50.00
48.18
Northeast region includes Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Chihuahua and Durango and Coahuila; Northwest includes Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora and Sinaloa. Center includes Distrito Federal, Queretaro,
Hidalgo, Tlaxcala, Morelos and Estado de Mexico. Center West includes Jalisco, Michoacan, Colima, Aguascalientes, Nayarit, Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi and Guanajuato; and South-Southeast includes Puebla,
Campeche, Yucatan, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Guerrero and Veracruz. Students are from every school level
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Primer Informe de Gobierno 2007
143
Table 3.5.1 Access to social protection and its correlates by individual, households and geographic dimensions
% of
respondent
women
covered
by health
insurance*
(age 15 and
above)
% of children receiving
free medical supplies (e.g.
antimalarials, antibiotics,
oral rehydration salts) of
the total purchased and
distributed - of the total in
need of medication **
% of
households
or population
covered by
program
Oportunidades
% of households or
population covered by any
form of social protection
(social insurance and/
or cash transfers, in-kind
transfers from public
authorities, employers, or
charities)***
27.42
N/I
13.32
57.76
Individual dimension
Sex and age
Male
Age group 1(0-14)
N. A.
N/I
17.81
54.12
Age group 2(15-24)
N. A.
N/I
14.97
61.59
Age group 3(25-44)
N. A.
N/I
12.28
60.23
Age group 4(45.64)
N. A.
N/I
15.11
61.16
Age group 5(65 +)
N. A.
N/I
15.86
59.87
Age group 1(0-14)
N. A.
N/I
17.45
53.82
Age group 2(15-24)
35.16
N/I
16
60.55
Age group 3(25-44)
40.81
N/I
14.05
58.02
Age group 4(45.64)
44.78
N/I
13.95
63.52
Age group 5(65 +)
43.65
N/I
14.56
58
Household dimension
Household size
Less than 3
41.23
N/I
8.45
51.7
3-4 members
32.63
N/I
9.02
61.21
5-6 members
16.87
N/I
15.07
60.3
7+
27.42
N/I
32.46
50.21
None
8.81
N/I
30.91
35.89
Primary
22.56
N/I
16.01
52.14
Secondary+
46.81
N/I
4.61
70.49
Male
27.07
N/I
13.53
58.6
Female
28.75
N/I
12.53
54.58
Q1 (poorest)
19.79
N/I
18.08
43.55
Q2
22.01
N/I
21.81
50.51
Q3
25.97
N/I
16.96
56.3
Q4
35.3
N/I
6.41
70.66
Q5
42.31
N/I
4.12
73.26
Mexico, 2002
Total incidence/prevalence
Female
Women’s education
Gender of the head of the
household
Wealth index quintiles
144
(Continued from previous page)
Mexico, 2002
Ethnicity/language/religion
% of
respondent
women
covered
by health
insurance*
(age 15 and
above)
% of children receiving
free medical supplies (e.g.
antimalarials, antibiotics,
oral rehydration salts) of
the total purchased and
distributed - of the total in
need of medication **
% of
households
or population
covered by
program
Oportunidades
% of households or
population covered by any
form of social protection
(social insurance and/
or cash transfers, in-kind
transfers from public
authorities, employers, or
charities)***
Group 1
16.85
N/I
39.19
60.66
Group 2
29.44
N/I
9.04
40.47
Both parents working
8.94
N/I
9.74
64.76
None of the parents are
working
8.17
N/I
19.72
45.46
No adult in primary working
age (18-54)
41.75
N/I
13.46
51.43
At least one child under 15
working
18.83
N/I
17.45
47.74
Illness and disability in the
household
Adult(s) with chronic illness
34.46
N/I
12.71
64.31
Child/children with disability
12.18
N/I
21.03
37.22
Family vulnerability (not
mutually exclusive categories)
Work (among hholds with
children)
Single parent
28.75
N/I
12.53
54.58
Orphan child in household
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
High dependency ratio
(4+children per adult)
7.08
N/I
36.42
29.9
32.19
N/I
14.79
56.26
Geographic dimension
Region
Region 1
20.73
N/I
28.59
46.9
Region 2
27.37
N/I
8.36
57.48
Region 3
23.67
N/I
12.49
51.27
Region 4
39.5
N/I
8.35
79.95
Region 5
38.29
N/I
4.61
75.51
Residence
Urban
32.04
N/I
4.54
65.65
Rural
13.41
N/I
41.94
32.33
Elder (70+) person in
household
N/I: Not information or Data. N/A: Not Applicable
*Health Insurance defined as a member of the household that had any type of health insurance (IMSS, ISSSTE, PEMEX, SEDENA, SECMAR or private)
**Households or population covered by any form of social protection define as a household that received Oportunidades
The sub-national regions are: region 1:
Region 2: Center (Distrito Federal, Mexico, Puebla, Morelos).
Region 3: Center-West (Michoacan, Jalisco, Guanajuato).
Region 4: Northwest (Baja California Sur, Sinaloa, Sonora).
Region 5: Northeast (Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon)
Groups of ethnicity: Group 1: Indigenous. Group 2: Not Indigenous
Wealth index quintile define as the cost of the assets that have the household
Single parent define as a woman that is the head of the household
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
145
Table 3.5.2 Social Protection: supply side and uptake variables by region 1990-2006
Major Social Protection indicator: number of medical
offices per potential 1,000 habitants
Total
- number of medical offices per 1,000 habitants
By region
Region 1: Northeast
- number of medical offices per 1,000 habitants
Region 2: Northwest
- number of medical offices per 1,000 habitants
Region 3: Center
- number of medical offices per 1,000 habitants
Region 4: Center-West
- number of medical offices per 1,000 habitants
Region 5: South-Southeast
- number of medical offices per 1,000 habitants
Urban
- number of medical offices per 1,000 habitants
Rural
- number of medical offices per 1,000 habitants
1990
1995
2000
2005
2006
2007
0.41
0.48
0.52
0.53
0.51
0.51
0.46
0.53
0.56
0.55
0.53
0.53
0.51
0.59
0.58
0.57
0.55
0.54
0.44
0.49
0.54
0.55
0.53
0.54
0.41
0.48
0.53
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.42
0.47
0.57
0.58
0.54
0.54
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
N/I
Northeast region includes Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Chihuahua and Durango and Coahuila; Northwest includes Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora and Sinaloa. Center includes Distrito Federal, Queretaro,
Hidalgo, Tlaxcala, Morelos and Estado de Mexico. Center West includes Jalisco, Michoacan, Colima, Aguascalientes, Nayarit, Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi and Guanajuato; and South-Southeast includes Puebla,
Campeche, Yucatan, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Quintana Ro, Tabasco, Guerrero and Veracruz.
Medical offices include those from SSA, IMSS-Oportunidades, State offices, IMSS, ISSSTE, PEMEX, SEDENA and SECMAR (it does not include private medical offices)
Source: Primer Informe de Gobierno 2007.
146
147
0.164
0.118
1
0.168
0.173
0.571
1
[0.010]***
0.399
0.436
0.429
0.068
0.413
[0.119] [0.143]***
0.079
0.098
0.158
0.098
[0.021] [0.025]***
-0.012
0.105
0.128
0.211
[0.057]
-0.045
0.173
[0.066]
0.103
[0.045]** [0.045]*** [0.052]***
0.114
[0.057]**
0.134
[0.023]*** [0.024]*** [0.027]***
0.086
[0.024]*** [0.024]*** [0.026]***
0.168
[0.021]***
-0.066
[0.012]*** [0.012]*** [0.013]***
0.034
[0.122]***
0.518
[0.068]*** [0.068]*** [0.079]***
0.535
[0.008]*** [0.008]*** [0.009]***
0.22
[0.007]*** [0.007]***
0.129
[0.009]***
N/I: Not information or Data. N/A: Not Applicable. Correlations obtained with OLS regressions.
Correlation is significant at 10% level (*), 5% level **, or 1% level***.
REFERENCE/SOURCE: Mexican Family Life Survey 2002
CO 6
underweight
CO 5 wasting
CO 4 stunting
CO 3 never
attended
school
CO 2 Child
Working
CO 1 Not
attended
school
Last three
First four
Two depr.
One depr.
Asset Q1.
0.176
[0.008]*** [0.010]***
0.159
1
[0.041]***
0.257
[0.053]
-0.012
[0.022]***
0.13
[0.028]***
0.12
[0.021]***
0.104
[0.012]***
0.355
[0.124]***
0.758
[0.068]***
0.767
1
[0.006]***
0.409
[0.009]***
0.179
[0.008]***
0.214
At least
one
Two
deprivation deprivations
(Bristol)
Bottom
asset
quintile
(Q1)
Income
Mexico
Household
income
(1.08$ a day
per person
in ppps)
[0.010]
-0.005
[0.014]
-0.005
[0.005]
0
[0.004]***
0.015
[0.003]***
0.011
[0.002]***
0.009
[0.015]***
0.081
1
[0.001]***
0.014
[0.001]***
0.006
[0.001]***
0.007
[0.001]***
0.009
(Sh, S, W, I)
0.024
0.001
0.051
0.206
0.229
0.361
0.15
1
[0.098]***
0.868
0.531
N/A
N/A
N/A
[0.455]
-0.292
[0.455]
-0.292
[0.063]**
0.141
[0.007] [0.029]***
-0.005
[0.001]*** [0.013]***
0.004
[0.001]***
0.01
1
[0.007]*** [0.063]***
0.037
[0.001]*** [0.008]***
0.005
[0.001]*** [0.007]***
0.002
[0.001] [0.009]***
[0.002]
0
[0.002]
0
[0.001]***
0.003
[0.029]***
-0.264
1
[0.010]***
0.115
[0.122]***
0.436
[0.036]***
0.137
[0.004]***
0.021
[0.004]***
0.014
[0.004]
-0.003
[0.004]***
-0.013
[0.000]
0
[0.000]
0
[0.057]
-0.011
1
[0.054]***
-0.491
[0.011]***
0.209
[0.056]
-0.039
[0.084]***
0.28
[0.013]***
0.056
[0.014]***
0.051
[0.016]***
0.104
[0.015]***
0.11
[0.029]***
0.222
[0.037]
0.016
1
[0.087]
-0.016
[0.287]***
0.909
[0.023]**
0.052
N/A
[0.091]
0.009
[0.011]***
0.065
[0.009]***
0.041
[0.010]***
0.045
[0.010]***
0.037
[0.012]***
0.158
1
[0.006]
0.003
[0.000]
0
[0.119]
-0.014
[0.003]
-0.002
N/A
[0.033]
-0.011
[0.004]
-0.001
[0.004]
0.006
[0.004]
-0.003
[0.004]**
0.01
CHILD
CHILD
CHILD
CHILD
CHILD
OUTCOME OUTCOME OUTCOME OUTCOME OUTCOME
1 (CO1)
2. (CO2)
3 (etc.)
4
5
[0.001]*** [0.008]***
0.004
(F,E, H)
First four
Last three
deprivations deprivations
Table 3.5.3 Correlation between child outcomes and indicators of child poverty
1
[0.019]***
0.257
[0.008]***
0.061
[0.000]
0
[0.152]
-0.024
[0.003]
-0.002
N/A
[0.044]
-0.02
[0.006]***
0.035
[0.005]***
0.015
[0.005]***
0.026
[0.005]**
0.013
CHILD
OUTCOME
6
National inventory of programs
1
Name of the Program
Concept Description
Oportunidades (Opportunities)
Objectives
To support families living in extreme poverty, so that their members are able to increase their
capabilities and extend their possibilities of improving their wellbeing conditions.
Type of Program
For the household income; conditioned cash transfers
Inclusion argument
The Program has shown significant impacts on : i) the children’s overall size, ii) families´
consumption, iii) permanence of the children in the school, iv) decrease in sick days and v)
child and mother mortality rates.
Financing cost
2008
Budget
41,361 millions of Mexican pesos nationwide
SEDESOL 20,513.2 MILLIONS OF MEXICAN PESOS (42.22% from the total)
SEP
SALUD
17,639 MILLIONS OF MEXICAN PESOS (50.36% from the total)
3,209 MILLIONS OF MEXICAN PESOS (7.4% from the total)
Budget per State (%):
Aguascalientes 0.62. Baja California 0.37. Baja California Sur 0.22. Campeche 1.11. Coahuila
0.75. Colima 0.33. Chiapas 10.64. Chihuahua 1.06. Distrito Federal 0.32. Durango 1.45.
Guanajuato 4.75. Guerrero 6.55. Hidalgo 3.89. Jalisco 3.08. Mexico 7.84. Michoacan 5.22.
Morelos 1.51. Nayarit 0.92. Nuevo Leon 0.85. Oaxaca 7.85. Puebla 8.12. Queretaro 1.52.
Quintana Roo 1.04. San Luis Potosi 3.81. Sinaloa 2.54. Sonora 1.23. Tabasco 3.31. Tamaulipas
1.66. Tlaxcala 1.17. Veracruz 11.55. Yucatan 2.58. Zacatecas 1.96.
Captured in Section A
No
If yes: proportion to total
N/A
Participating Agencies
SEDESOL, SEP (Ministry of Public Education), SALUD (Ministry of Health)
Agency’s role
SEDESOL is responsible for the general coordination of the Program through “Coordinacion
Nacional” (National Coordination), a decentralized organism of that agency. SEDESOL,
SEP, SALUD and IMSS (Mexican Institute of Social Security) participate in the programs’
operations. SEP and SALUD, together with the IMSS, and in coordination with the state
authorities, are in charge of providing adequate education and health services, personnel
training, and the certification of the families co-responsibilities. On the other hand,
Coordinacion Nacional is responsible for the coordination and follow up of the entire
program. SALUD; SEP; IMSS; Coordinacion Nacional, as well as the public health and
education services (of each State) are in charge of strengthening the development of the
personnel involved in the execution of the Program, through training sessions. SEP is also
responsible of integrating the budget of the Programs with the requirements for scholarships
and the support to acquire or replace school supplies.
Mechanism and
Beneficiaries
What is delivered?
Bi-monthly delivery of the following supports:
-Nutritional support: $210 Mexican pesos monthly per family, plus nutritional supplements
-Education: between $140 until $890 Mexican pesos monthly per youth, depending on its
school grade and gender.
-Energy: $55 Mexican pesos monthly per family
-Senior adults: $295 Mexican pesos monthly per senior person.
-Support for better living (Vivir Mejor): $120 Mexican pesos monthly per family (this was
created to offset the decrease in the purchasing power of the poor people due to the increase
in food prices in the international market. Valid from June to December, 2008 with the
possibility of extending the support period according with the PEF 2009).
-Health: Basic health package guaranteed.
-“Jovenes con Oportunidades” (Youth with Opportunities): Up to $3,598 Mexican pesos in
one installment when graduating from high school before the age of 22. The amount depends
on the points that each student accumulates when finishing every school year.
-The average amount per family is $655 Mexican pesos monthly.
Who are the beneficiaries,
who aren’t?
Families living in extreme poverty.
148
Focus
Target Population
The families are selected based on a socio-economic analysis that considers the following:
1) schooling (level of education) of the head of household, 2) household access to social
security, 3) overcrowding index, 4) type of floor in the house, 5) bathroom at home, 6)
demographic dependency ratio, 7) gender of the head of household, 8) number of children,
9) age of the head of household, 10) type of area (rural/urban), 11) type of region where the
family lives, 12) indexes of household items ownership.
Method
In order to choose the beneficiaries, socio-economic information is gathered from potential
eligible families both in urban and rural areas. Later, this information is analyzed and the
beneficiary households are identified. Finally, the households are incorporated to the census
for the posterior delivery of the supports.
Potential disparities
Coverage
Geographic
32 States; 2,444 municipalities; 92,961 locations; Beneficiaries families per State in 2008:
Aguascalientes 25,572; Baja California 16,758; Baja California Sur 11,198; Campeche 55,221;
Coahuila 36,920; Colima 17,240; Chiapas 559,382; Chihuahua 60,124; Distrito Federal 18,430;
Durango 73,971; Guanajuato 230,583; Guerrero 323,898; Hidalgo 198,672; Jalisco 149,754;
Mexico 378,924; Michoacan 269,563; Morelos 70,570; Nayarit 45,304; Nuevo Leon 46,030;
Oaxaca 406,131; Puebla 390,161; Queretaro 74,512; Quintana Roo 48,110; San Luis Potosi
192,571; Sinaloa 120,791; Sonora 60,630; Tabasco 154,544; Tamaulipas 83,692; Tlaxcala 52,347;
Veracruz 584,798; Yucatan 135,651 y Zacatecas 107,948.
Number of covered people
5,000,000 families (15 millions of beneficiaries)
Quality of the coverage
N/A
Most vulnerable children
Monitoring and Evaluation
N/A
Yes/No
Yes. The Program is evaluated by an external organization.
By whom
EVALUATION OF CONSISTENCY AND RESULTS 2007, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Center for
Strategic Studies.
Impact of the results
-The Program offers the children a higher probability of enrolling in school at an earlier age
-An 85% increase in the enrollment of the first year of high school in rural areas.
-An increase in the possibility of attending junior high in rural areas (an increase of 42% in
boys and 33% in girls)
-An increase of one additional school grade in the expected schooling of young people
between 15 and 18 years old, in rural areas.
-An increase in preventive health clinic visits: 35% in rural areas and 20% in urban areas
-In rural areas, the average sick days per families decreased (by 20% for the group from 0 to
5 – equal to two days per year – and by 11% for the group from 16 to 49 – equal to 6 days per
year)
-An 11% decrease in maternal mortality and 2% in infant mortality
-An increase in the overall size of children. Children under 24, 12 and 6 months of age that
entered the Program before 6 months of age are, on average, 1.42 cm taller (urban areas).
-Less prevalence of a small overall size in children from rural areas that are incorporated to
the Program, compared with the ones that are not in the
Program (a difference of 12.4%).
-Higher total consumption of the families: 22% in rural areas and 16% in urban areas.
Implementation challenges
Oportunidades could have important complementarities and synergies with the Social
Milk Supply Program (Liconsa), in terms of nutritional support, cognitive development and
learning. However, the operating rules of the Program establish that households in areas
that receive nutritional support from other government programs could not be beneficiaries
of this Program. Therefore, we suggest Sedesol and Liconsa to think in the convenience and
possibility of changing the operating rules of the Social Milk Supply Program to eliminate the
mutual exclusion with the beneficiary households from both programs.
Currently, Oportunidades does not have a component or activity that could be directly linked
to the quality of education to guarantee that the impact on the level of education could turn
into skills that can be useful in the labor market. Therefore, the creation a complementary
source of support that invests resources that could act directly on the quality of the education,
is recommended: i.e., to give economic incentives to the teachers; to help the academic
performance of the students with scholarships, and to support the transitions of school
grades by providing financial assistance for remedial courses in reading and mathematics.
149
2
Concept Description
Name of the Program
Nursery and Children Houses Program
Objectives
To make available for working mothers from households with an income up to 6 minimum
wages, with children between 1 and 3 years of age, to have enough time to enter the job market,
to continue on it or to study.
Type of Program
For infant protection and household income: Nursery schools
Inclusion argument
The Program promotes equal opportunities in the labor market, eliminating two important types
of barriers that working mothers and single parents face: insufficient number of nursery schools
and children houses, and the high cost of them.
Financing cost
2008
Budget
1,711 MILLIONS OF MEXICAN PESOS for 2008 (subsidies, fees and indirect expenses)
Budget per State (%)
Captured in Section A:
Aguascalientes 1.89. Baja California 1.46. Baja California Sur 0.60. Campeche 1.68. Coahuila 1.91.
Colima 1.20. Chiapas 2.90. Chihuahua 2.29. Distrito Federal 2.51. Durango 2.64. Guanajuato 5.42.
Guerrero 3.10. Hidalgo 2.38. Jalisco 6.68. Mexico 11.73. Michoacan 4.73. Morelos 2.37. Nayarit
2.50. Nuevo Leon 2.77. Oaxaca 3.68. Puebla 4.77. Queretaro 1.91. Quintana Roo 1.41. San Luis
Potosi 2.40. Sinaloa 2.66. Sonora 2.58. Tabasco 2.26. Tlaxcala 1.69. Veracruz 7.78. Yucatan 2.29.
Zacatecas 1.69.
No
If yes: proportion to total N/A
Participating Agencies
Agency’s role
SEDESOL, DIF, private citizens in charge of the Services for Child Care and Attention (Servicios de
Cuidado y Atencion Infantil).
The agencies responsible of this Program are Sedesol and its Delegations, DIF National System,
and the beneficiaries of this branch of the Program to Boost the Services of Child Care and
Attention and Incorporation to the Child Care Centers Network, that have prepared places to
offer services of child care, nutrition, and leisure activities for children between 1 to 3 years
11 months of age and in the case of disabled children they must be between 1 to 5 years 11
months of age, and are incorporated to the Child Care Centers Network. DIF National System
is in charge of training the personnel of the Child Care Centers that receive support from that
branch of the Program to Boost The Services of Child Care and Attention and the Incorporation
to the Child Care Centers Network of this Program. In the other hand, Sedesol is in charge of
verifying the existence of at least one Child Care Center in the area pointed out by the applicant,
as well as the accomplishment of the eligibility criteria (principles) and requirements established
in the Operating Rules of the Program, and if there is a budget available to give an answer to
the applicant in a time frame of no more than 30 working days. Also, Sedesol must request
DIF National System to validate the property to determinate the feasibility of it, the number of
children that could be attended in it, and if needed, suggest the adjustments required to offer the
service of Child Care and Attention.
Mechanism and
Beneficiaries
Cash Contributions.
What is delivered?
-To create a Child Care Center: up to $35 thousand Mexican pesos (one time support)
-To cover the expenditures of child care: up to $700 Mexican pesos per child every month
Who are the
beneficiaries, who
aren’t?
Focus
Target Population
Beneficiaries: working mothers and single parents
Working Mothers and single parents
150
Method
The people or group of people wishing to establish and operate a new Child Care Center for a
minimum period of one calendar year could receive a maximum support of $35,000 Mexican
pesos for the adaptation and equipment of the place, and also for the acquisition or elaboration
of the materials needed to work with the children. Up to 20% of these resources could be
used to cover the operating expenditures of the first two months, once the Child Center had
been incorporated to the Child Care Centers Network. It could also be given a second and
final economic support of a maximum of $20,000 Mexican pesos to those Child Care Centers
supported by this Program that after having been in operation uninterruptedly for at least 12
months, want to increase their capacity to attend the target population of the Program; this could
happen only if there is a high demand, a lack of infrastructure an equipment, and all the criteria
(principles) and requirements established had been accomplished during the year before. They
must fill out the corresponding application to obtain the support and accomplish the following
requirements: i) fill out the application for support, present the official documents (official
identification, the deeds of the property …). In order to obtain the support for child care, the
following requirements should be accomplished: i) to have at least one child between 1 and 3
years 11 months of age and in the case of disabled children they must be between 1 to 5 years 11
months of age; ii) to be studying, working or looking for a job; iii) not having an income above
6 minimum wages per month in the household; iv) not having access to the service of nursery
schools or child care through the public institutions of social security or other organisms; v) in
the case of being a single parent, he or she must be the only person responsible of taking care of
their children.
Potential disparities
Coverage N/A
Geographic
Has 8,161 Child Care Centers.
Number of people
covered
244,387 children are attended, this means that the objective for 2008 of 200,000 children had
been exceeded, which had allowed to benefit 199,106 entitled ones.
Quality of the coverage
The objective for 2008 was exceeded.
Most vulnerable children
There are 921 Child Care Centers caring for 1,284 disabled children. There are Child Care Centers
caring for disabled children in every State.
Monitoring and Evaluation Yes/No
Yes. The Program is evaluated by an external organism.
By whom
DESING EVALUATION 2007, National Institute of Public Health
- The Program promotes equal opportunities in the labor market, eliminating two important types
of barriers that working mothers and single parents face: insufficient number of nursery schools
and children houses, and the high cost of them.
- The evaluation of the impact of the Program is currently ongoing.
Impact of the results
- Preliminary results of the surveys made in June, 2008 show the following data (which aren’t
exclusively the result of the Program)
- An average increase of 35% in the mother’s income
- Before enrolling in the Program, 34% of the mothers didn’t have a job. From them, 85% already
have one.
- 27% of the beneficiaries are working for the first time. From them, 72% mentioned that they
didn’t work before because they didn’t have a place to leave their children.
Lack of coordination between State governments and Municipalities
Implementation
challenges
-The Program shows inefficiency in the allocation of resources. This could be due to the following
reasons: there are inadequate criteria to focus the target population; the possibility of a duplicity
in the payment from the federal government to the holder of the right from the social security
institutions that enrolls to one of the Child Care Centers of the Program; and the overlapping of
the Child Care Centers in the same localities.
- There is a risk that the Program could not cover marginalized rural and urban areas given to the
requirements that the Child Care Centers must fulfill to be incorporated to the Child Care Centers
Network.
- Lack of coordination with DIF to guarantee the safety and qualified attention in child caring
services, which is key for the success of the Program.
-There is the risk that Child Care Centers could not be sustainable as business in the future.
151
3
Name of the Program
Objectives
Type of Program
Inclusion argument
Financing cost
Concept Description
Program for the Development of Marginalized Zones (was created from the merge of the
Support Program for Micro-regions and Support Program for Priority Attention Areas, PAZAP)
Help reduce the disparities between regions through the strengthening of physical capital
and the development of actions that allow the integration of marginal, lagged, or in poverty
regions into the processes of development.
For the household income
Pursuit the attention in the laggards related with the basic social infrastructure and the lack
of basic services for the houses.
2008
Budget
299 MILLIONS OF MEXICAN PESOS
Captured in Section A
No
If yes: proportion to total
N/A
Participating agencies
SEDESOL
Agency’s role
SEDESOL is in charge of: i) establishing the coordination mechanisms required to
guarantee that its programs and actions do not oppose, affect or present some duplicities
with other programs or with actions of the federal government; ii) guarantee the best use of
the resources; iii) strengthen the coverage of the actions; and v) reduce the administrative
expenses.
Mechanism and Beneficiaries Support for the construction and actions of the following:
a) Social and Services infrastructure: providing drinking water, sanitation works, including
sewerage, drainage, storm drain system and waste water treatment plants, landfills or
similar, electricity, education infrastructure; health centers o similar; infrastructure for the
productivity of the community (greenhouses, silos, cattle infrastructure, among other);
communication systems and community centers.
What is delivered?
b) Housing improvement: concrete floors (remove dirt floors); restroom services
(bathrooms, latrines, septic tank, absorption pit, o similar); stoves above the floor, rustic
stoves o something similar, reinforced walls and roofs.
The maximum federal support is up to $4,500,000 Mexican pesos to build the waste water
treatment plants and electricity, the rest of the programs, constructions or actions will have
a maximum federal support of $2,500,000.
Who are the beneficiaries,
who aren’t?
Focus Households located in areas with a high level and a very high level of marginalization and
municipalities included in the priority attention zones.
Target Population
Inhabitants of the areas defined as Priority Attention Zones in the 32 states, this means:
the municipalities with a high level and a very high level of marginalization; municipalities
with a highly indigenous population, areas with a high level and a very high level of
marginalization located in municipalities with a medium, low and very low level of
marginalization, independently of the territorial coverage, only if the proposed actions do
not duplicate with the activities of the Habitat Program.
Method
The areas that fulfill the requirements of eligibility should present an investment proposal
related with one of the different types of supports given by the Program or in the case of
infrastructure investments, there must be a technical study or an executive project, there
should also be a commitment from all the organisms involved in giving the service and a
maintenance and conservation program. SEDESOL could decline the investment proposals
from an organism that has failed accomplishing the commitments of maintenance and
operation or that had a problem in proofing documentation. Regarding the actions for
housing, all the inhabitants living in households presenting poverty conditions, social lag
or marginalization could be part of the Program, independently of the territorial coverage,
as long as the proposed actions do not duplicate with other Programs’ actions.
Potential disparities
Coverage
N/A
152
Geographic
32 States
Number of people covered
Its objective is to attend the 125 municipalities with the highest poverty and marginalization
of the country.
Quality of the coverage
The Program seeks to reach the highly dispersed localities
Most vulnerable children
Not Available
Monitoring and Evaluation
Yes/No
Yes, the Programs is evaluated by an external organism
By whom
2008 CIDE; 2007 FAO
PAZAP (Priority Attention Areas): The focus is appropriate and would allow the turnaround
unbalanced processes of development in the medium term.
Complementary provision of private goods (housing conditions) and public goods (package
of basic infrastructure) at housing and locality level, that guarantees synergies to reach a
better quality of live and opportunities for the development of the inhabitants of the localities
participating in the Program. External Design Evaluation 2008 from the Support Program for
Priority Attention Areas (PAZAP). CIDE, December 2008.
Impact of the results
- PDL: There has been an impulse in the coordination of inter-institutional actions, from the
three separate branches of the government, different sectors and overall society, to target
and concentrate the efforts and resources on local development of the regions in most
need from the country. Evaluation of Consistency and Results 2007, FAO, March 2007.
- Impact from the actions of concrete floor (Firm Floor): Replacing dirt floors with concrete
floor reduces parasitic infestations by 78%, anemia by 80% and diarrhea by 49% in children
less than 5 years of age. This actions have a positive effect on the cognitive development of
children and teenagers (between 36% and 96% depending on the age range) Cattaneo et al,
Housing, Health and Happiness;World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4214, April 2007
- 565 households provided of concrete floor, located in any part of the country
- 13,500 households provided with tap water
Implementation challenges
- 13,400 households provided with bathrooms
- 11,050 households provided with electricity
- 300 public computer centers
- 275 sanitation works
153
4
Concept Description
Name of the Program
DICONSA Food Assistance Program (In 2008 known as Food Assistance and Rural Procurement
Program but in 2009 its Operation Regulations were modified)
Objectives
Contribute with the development of nutritional abilities granting the supply of quality basic and
complementary products, in rural areas with high marginalization, that lack of sufficient and appropriate
supply sources, and do not receive help from the Human Development Program Oportunidades.
Type of Program
For childhood health, nutrition and home income.
Inclusion argument
Savings transferring through the prices of main and complementary products ( savings margin),
is an efficient transfer mechanism, the saving margin increased to a 6%
Financing cost
2008
Budget
335 million pesos
Budget of each State (%)
Aguascalientes 0.10. Baja California 0.21. Baja California 0.14. Campeche 0.47. Coahuila 0.11. Colima
0.01. Chiapas 9.97. Chihuahua 1.51. Distrito Federal 7.76. Durango 0.37. Guanajuato 6.44. Guerrero 2.61.
Hidalgo 0.13. Jalisco 1.69. Mexico 16.61. Michoacan 1.04. Morelos 0.10. Nayarit 0.30. Nuevo Leon 0.33.
Oaxaca 5.38. Puebla 2.79. Queretaro 0.59. Quintana Roo 0.18. San Luis Potosi 0.14. Sinaloa 5.26. Sonora
0.79. Tabasco 23.93. Tamaulipas 0.04. Tlaxcala 0.09. Veracruz 10.72. Yucatan 0.022. Zacatecas 0.005.
Captured in Section A
No
If yes: proportion to total N/A
Participating agencies
Diconsa S.A de C.V, SEDESOL, Diconsa Stores (committees)
Agency’s role
Mechanism and
Beneficiaries
In the operation there is a co-responsibility system with the beneficiary communities. Each store
has a Rural Procurement Committee who is responsible for the management of the store and
for designating the person in charge of the same. The Rural Procurement Committees of the
stores that depend of each warehouse integrate the Community Procurement Councils which
participate in the operation of the warehouses through the community personnel designated by
them. The groups of these organizations of communitarian participation integrate an important
social organization with national coverage, which promotes direct relationships between
company’s employees and the representatives of the beneficiaries of the Diconsa Stores.
What is delivered?
All the families benefited are granted a bi-monthly financial support and/or in kind of $530mxp.
Besides, they receive bi-monthly a financial support (“Vivir mejor”) for an amount of $240mxp.
Likewise, they receive guidance and social promotion for the development of the family (training
on the improvement of hygiene, health, good eating and nutritional habits, overweight and obesity
prevention, access to other social programs). Additionally, the program delivers food complements
to the families with children under five years of age and or lactating mothers (10 packets of Liconsa
milk for each children over 2 years of age and under five, 10 packets of nutritional complements for
each pregnant or lactating woman) and provides nutritional follow up, in other words, monitors
the evolutions of benefits concerning nutrition in families who received food complements.
Who are the
Families in poverty conditions that are not considered by Oportunidades.
beneficiaries, who aren’t?
Focus
Target Population
Families in poverty conditions according to the CONEVAL criteria who do not receive the food
assistance from the Human Development Program Oportunidades
Method
The rural communities participating are selected by the Sedesol based on marginalization criteria
and on the analysis of the existence of any food assistance program of Sedesol or other federal
entities. In order to be eligible, the communities mustn’t have any food assistance program
from the Federal Government. In order to participate in this modality the families from the
chosen community should be: i) located in a highly marginal area according to the CONAPO, ii)
to be located in areas with a population up to 2,500 habitants, iii) to have a patrimonial poverty
condition. Diconsa in coordination with Sedesol, visits the eligible communities, gathers the
necessary information for the completion of the Socioeconomic Informative Statement through
personal interviews with the head of the family. The members of the families interviewed will
provide the information for the completion of the Socioeconomic Informative Statement. The
Sub-Ministry of Research, Planning and Assessment of Sedesol will examine the socioeconomic
information of the interviewed families according to the poverty criteria stated by the CONEVAL,
in order to determine if the families are susceptible to receive this type of assistance.
154
Potential disparities
Coverage Geographic
Nation-wide
Number of people
covered
In 2007 118,881 households. In 2008 240,190 households.
Quality of the coverage
Most vulnerable children It is by beneficiary household without making distinctions among people.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Yes/No
Yes. The program has external evaluation.
2007 EVALUATION OF CONSISTENCY AND RESULTS RURAL PROCUREMENT PROGRAM:
Colegio Nacional de Economistas, AC (National College of Economists, AC)
By whom
2007 EVALUATION OF CONSISTENCY AND RESULTS FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: Centro
de Estudios para un Proyecto Nacional Alternativo( Research Centre for an alternative National
Project.) (CEPNA)
THE RURAL PROCUREMENT PROGRAM:
-The beneficiary households save a 10% in their monthly expenses in basic products.
-Diconsa sales increased 13.43 % from December 2007 to July 2008
-Till August 2008 there were 22,490 stores.
Impact of the results
-Diconsa launched for sale the fortified and enriched cornmeal flour ”Mi masa” (Sedesol Diconsa
brand) which provides additional proteins, minerals and vitamins to the conventional cornmeal
flour.
FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
-Program beneficiaries obtained a final consume value 14% higher than the non beneficiaries,
which was mostly food.
-In average the beneficiary household members improved the quality of their diet concerning
Iron, Zinc and Vitamin C.
-The children ages 3 and 4 beneficiaries of the Program had an increase of 0.5 cm in size more
than the non beneficiaries form the same age.
RURAL PROCUREMENT PROGRAM: The program has a geographic focalization problem:
- From the 22,490 stores, only 9,137 are located in targeted areas.
- Only the 43% of the areas covered by the program are rural with high marginalization.
- There are 11 thousand target areas that are not being covered.
- It lacks of medium and long term planning, as the intervention of the program, in the covered
areas, is revised annually, according to the coverage of Liconsa and Oportunidades.
Implementation
challenges
- It will be important to register the results concerning nutrition and the efficient supply of basic
and quality products.
- There is a problem to establish the appropriate procedure to assess the regular potential
population; the coverage strategy depends in the appropriate assessment.
-The programs don’t have an appropriate diagnosis to calculate the shortage of main and
complementary products in communities with high marginalization.
FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM:
-The program shows an increase in calories intake but not in physical activity, which can result
in an overweight problem.
155
5
Concept Description
Name of the Program
Social Milk Supply Program (LICONSA)
Objectives
Contribute with the improvement of nutritional levels of households in poverty conditions,
offering fortified milk at reasonable prices.
Type of Program
For children nutrition, food supplement (milk)
Inclusion argument
It has been shown that fortified milk is an efficient instrument to improve nutrition of the
beneficiary children.
Financing cost
2008
Budget
2,7421million of Mexican pesos.
State Budget (%)
Aguascalientes 0.82. Baja California 0.39. Baja California Sur 0.14. Campeche 0.34. Coahuila
0.48. Colima 0.75. Chiapas 1.02. Chihuahua 0.53. Distrito Federal 26.24. Durango 0.90.
Guanajuato 3.26. Guerrero 1.20. Hidalgo 3.02. Jalisco 3.99. Mexico 35.93. Michoacan 2.93.
Morelos 1.75. Nayarit 1.61. Nuevo Leon 0.50. Oaxaca 1.47. Puebla 1.27. Queretaro 0.87.
Quintana Roo 0.45. San Luis Potosi 1.65. Sinaloa 0.63. Sonora 0.39. Tabasco 0.76. Tamaulipas
0.37. Tlaxcala 0.92. Veracruz 2.70. Yucatan 0.88. Zacatecas 1.65.
Captured in Section A
No
If yes: proportion to total
N/A
Participating agencies
Liconsa S.A de C.V., Sedesol, government agencies, and nongovernmental organizations and
other institutions participating.
Agency’s role
Mechanism and Beneficiaries What is delivered?
Who are the beneficiaries,
who aren’t?
Focus
Distribution of fortified milk at a reasonable Price. Each beneficiary household can acquire
between 4 to 24 liters a week, depending on the number of members that qualify for the
assistance.
Population groups of certain ages from household in poverty conditions.
Target Population
Are qualified to receive the aid: i) children from 6 months to 12 years of age; ii) women from
13 to 15 years; iii) pregnant or lactating women; iv) women between 45 and 59 years; v) elderly
60 years and more; vi) people with chronic diseases or physical impaired older than 12 .
Method
In order to integrate the members of the household in the beneficiaries register is necessary
that the head of the family submits the following documents at the sale point: i) birth
certificates of the possible beneficiaries; ii) Immunizations Record for children under 5 years.
iii) The Unique Code Population Register (CURP) from the head of the family or his spouse,
if there is one; iv) Official Identification from the head of the family (voter registration card
or military record); v) Proof of Address. In addition, pregnant or lactating women should:
i) Hand in the medical certificate that states her pregnancy. ii) Present birth certificate or
childbirth proof. People with a chronic disease or physically impaired should present the
medical certificate which recommends milk ingestion.
Potential disparities
N/A
Coverage
Geographic
Nation-wide
Number of people covered
6,030,725 beneficiaries
Quality of the coverage
N/A
Most vulnerable children
N/A
Monitoring and Evaluation
Yes/No
Yes, The program has external evaluation.
By whom
2007 EVALUATION OF CONSISTENCY AND RESULTS: BetaKorosi Consultores S.C
156
-In 2007, the program distributed around one thousand millions litters of fortified milk in
5,006 localities of 1,810 municipalities, almost the 74 % of the municipalities in the country,
of the 31 federal entities and the Federal District.
-In comparison with last year, there is an increase in coverage, since 19 more municipalities
were served.
- Children who consumed fortified milk present lower anemia than the ones that consumed
unfortified milk (10.7% vs.15.6%)
Impact of the results
- All the beneficiaries around 4.3 millions live in urban areas and 1.2 in semi urban-rural
areas. By attention groups, 3.6 millions were boys and girls between six months to 12 years
of age, 64.3% of the total census register; women between 13 to 15 years of age were more
than 368 thousand (6.5%); 63.6 thousand (1.1%) were pregnant or lactating mothers; 445.7
(7.9%) were women between 45 and 59 years of age; 303.9 thousand (5.4%) were people
with chronic diseases or physical impaired; as well elderly citizens (60 or more) were 843
thousand (14.9% of the beneficiaries census)
-The sale price of 4 pesos for litter has been kept below the price of similar commercial milk
in the market, which has allowed, the beneficiaries of the program, to save 6.26 pesos for
litter.
- The milk that the Program produces is appropriate to fight malnutrition.
- In 2007 the coverage of the program represents 9.3% of the goal of 5,900,014 beneficiaries.
- The program lacks of strategic medium and long term planning, which limits its ability to
obtain the results desired concerning nutrition and development.
Implementation challenges
-The program has mistakes of inclusion and exclusion.
- The program lacks of strategic medium and long term coverage.
- The program is centered in urban areas and not in localities with high levels of malnutrition.
157
6
Name of the
Program
Concept Description
Compensatory Actions to Fight the Lag in Initial and Basic Education
Objectives
Contribute to the improvement of the quality of education of children and youth in vulnerable areas with
access and permanency to initial not schooled education and basic education (preschool, elementary and
Junior high in the modality of televised education), through Compensatory Actions such as: educational
and administrative infrastructure; didactic material distribution; training and support for parents and
teachers; financial assistance to Parents Associations (APF), teachers and directors, and institutional
strength.
Type of
Program
For initial education not schooled and basic education (preschool, elementary and Junior High in the
modality of televised education)
Inclusion
argument
The erratic development of the country has prevented the educational benefits from reaching the
population. The situation is more serious in entities and regions with high marginalization and among
more vulnerable groups. Therefore, coverage and equity is the main challenge of the National Education
Program.
The program started in 1994 with the purpose of improving the quality of initial education not schooled
and basic education by compensatory actions in infrastructure, didactic materials, training and support
for parents and teachers, as well as financial assistance to Parents Associations and for institutional
strength. In the last fifteen years five Compensatory Programs have been launched in order to inverse
the consequences of the educational lag in basic education in rural and native settings. Currently the
compensatory actions manage initial not schooled education services and support the basic education
(preschool, elementary and Junior High in the modality of televised education).
Financing cost
2009
Budget
3,124 Million pesos
Captured in
Section A
N/A
If yes:
proportion to
total
Participating
agencies
Agency’s role
N/A
National Council for Education Development (CONAFE)
The CONAFE is in charge of: i) establish foundations to carry out Compensatory Actions. ii) Establish
communication mechanisms to promote parental participation in a permanent and organized manner at
schools assisted by compensatory actions, performing activities of social involvement, with the purpose
of verifying that the aid gets to the beneficiaries. iii) Management of financial resources to operate the
Compensatory Actions. iv) Require the subscription to the Compensatory Actions Execution Coordination
Agreement in each Federal Entity. v) Establish and implement monitoring and tracking systems that allow
observing and corroborating the fulfillment of the regulation issued by the Compensatory Actions.
158
Mechanism and Beneficiaries
What is
delivered?
Who are the
beneficiaries,
who aren’t?
Focus
The type of assistance to the program are:
i) Goods and Services: didactic material for students, teachers, consultants, parents associations: and for
educational activities en each operative chain of initial education not schooled, as well as infrastructural
support, and furniture and equipment. Students from 1st to 6th grade of elementary school receive a basic
package of school supplies for the school year. The schools also receive a package of didactic materials
for the school year.
ii) Training in Initial not schooled education for educational promoters, supervisors: during the training
period the representatives of the community education chain, who have an Agreement with the CONAFE
are provided with lodging, food and travel expenses, as well as those who render service to the program
on behalf of the State Government. Each member of the State Technical Team receives monthly $554mxp
for food and $800mxp for travel expenses, during one year.
iii) CONAFE provides monthly financial assistance to people who participate in strengthen initial
education. The enlace coordinator receives monthly $4,341mxp during 12 months, the zone inspector
receives $3,341mxp, the module supervisor $2,952mxp, educational promoter $884mxp.
iv) Equipment and educational infrastructure : construction or restoration of classrooms, workshops,
laboratories, playgrounds, bathrooms, latrines, civic-sports areas.
v) Assistance and Training for Parents Association. The preschools with 10 to 60 students receive
$3,000.00mxp; from 61-120 students, 4,000.00, and those with 121 students or more, $5,000.00 mxp;
the unitaria and bidocente elementary schools receive $5,000.00 mxp; tridocente and tetradoente
organizations $6,000.00 mxp and pentadocentes or full organization, $7,000.00mxp; and televised
middle schools with 5 to 45 students receive $10,000.00mxp. from 46 to 90 students $11,000.00mxp
and those with 91 students or more, $12,000.00mxp. All these aids will be received through the parents
associations.
vi) Incentives on performance to elementary teachers. All the teachers identified in the elementary
schools selected to receive the incentive are granted a set amount of $1,450.00 during the months of the
school year, including the school break.
vii) Help school supervision. School supervisions that oversee the elementary schools selected integrate
the Universe of Compensatory attention, they receive financial support quarterly for $2,400.00 during
three quarters of the school year. Sector headquarters who serve the elementary selected schools in the
Universe of Compensatory attention, receive a quarterly financial support for $1,300.00 mxp during three
quarters of the school year.
Boys and girls in vulnerable areas with access and permanency to initial not school and basic education.
Target
Population
Population in rural and native areas preferably, susceptible of being benefited en the following
educational levels: i) initial education not schooled (mothers, fathers and persons that participate in
taking care of boys and girls between 0 and 4 years of age). ii) preschool education (students, parents
association, schools). iii) elementary education: students, teachers, directors, zone supervisors, chiefs of
sectors, parents associations and schools) iv) middle school education: students, parents association and
schools with televised middle school.)
Method
Zone coordinators, module supervisors, educational promoters and enlace coordinators should present
certain documentation and comply with some requirements (as to live in the community where they
teach, to have legal age, traveling availability, team work ability and communicate ideas in an oral and
written manner).
Once documentation has been accepted, the authority has a period of 30 calendar days to communicate
the approval of the applications to the Zone Coordinator and Module Supervisor. In the case of
educational promoters the response time is two months. In order to be eligible, preschools should: i) Be
located in the main municipalities for the strategy 100x100 determined by the Federal Government. ii)
Be a part of the schools situated in the main municipalities in the Agendas for Equity in Initial and Basic
Education. iii) To be in the 50% of native-rural schools with more disadvantages. iv) To be in the 25%
of the general-rural schools with more disadvantages. Elementary schools should: i) Be located in the
main municipalities for the strategy 100x100 determined by the Federal Government. ii) Be a part of the
schools situated in the main municipalities in the Agendas for Equity in Initial and Basic Education. iii) Be
a part of native schools of the rest of the 31 states in the country. iv) To be in the 62.5% rural schools with
more disadvantages. v) To be in the 12.5% of the urban schools with more disadvantages. The televised
middle schools should: i) Be a part of the Middle School System in the modality of televised education
registered in the 31 states of the country.
Potential
disparities
N/A
159
Coverage
Geographic
31 states, excepting the Federal District
Number of
people covered
In 2007 the Program covered 367,986 parents concerning initial education not schooled, 409,871 children
between 0 and 4 years of age; 75,342 people related with basic education support and 5,104 concerning
the institutional strengthen.
Quality of the
coverage
The program has enough coverage and has been able to reach the target population.
Most vulnerable
N/I
children
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Yes/No
Yes
By whom
2008 EVALUATION OF CONSISTENCY AND RESULTS: Centro de Investigacion y Docencias Economicas
A:C (Research and Economic Teachings Center A.C)
Compensatory actions contribute to decrease the educational lag, by taking care of the first childhood
and basic education services.
Impact of the
results
-The program has an efficient improvement in coverage and has achieved to cover the target population.
- The program has contributed to decrease the failing rates, repetition and desertion and increase the
terminal efficiency of covered schools.
Lacks of long term strategic planning that allows establishing goals and indicators, define strategies and
develop detailed execution programs.
Implementation - There is no evidence of the follow up of the suggestions generated from external evaluations.
challenges
- Performance indicators lack of base guidelines.
- Focalization criteria is based on information not updated (INEGI 1995 and CONAPO 1998)
- The program has a limited number of indicators oriented to the measuring of results.
160
7
Name of the Program
Concept Description
Quality Schools Program (PEC)
Objectives
i) Increase the quality of basic education provided by the public schools. Ii) Establish, in the
beneficiaries basic public schools of PEC, a model of academic management with a strategic focus
on strengthening its organizational culture and operation, oriented towards the improvement
of the learning processes of the students and the quality of teaching practices that responds to
diversity with fairness, based on a social participation scheme of co-financing, transparency and
accountability.
Type of Program
For the education of children: preschool, primary and secondary.
Inclusion argument
Given that one of the main responsibilities of the Mexican Government is to ensure the right
of receiving quality education , this Program is part of the national policies aimed at the
transformation of the institutional and educative process that is seeking to overcome the different
obstacles that education is facing such as : the lack of a culture of planning, the absence of
external evaluations to improve their performance, the excess of administrative requirements that
take time from teaches and principals, among others.
Financing cost
2008
Budget
1,258 MILLIONS OF MEXICAN PESOS
Captured in Section A
No
If yes: proportion to
total
N/A
Participating agencies
SEP (Ministry of Public Education)
SEP and local governments (states and municipalities) are in charge of promoting responsible
actions for the proper execution of the PEC in each State and they also must promote actions that
change the institutional management for the benefit of the school. SEP, through the Subsecretaria
de Educacion Basica y la Direccion General de Desarrollo de la Gestion e Innovacion Educativa
(Sub-Ministry of Basic Education and the General Direction of Development of Educational
Management and Innovation), is the organism that interprets and defines any financial or
Agency’s role
operating aspect of the program. SEP and the Ministries of Public Education or its equivalent
from each state should spread the information about budget allocations and beneficiaries in
accordance with the Federal Law of Transparency and Access to Public Government Information.
On the other hand, the National Coordination for the Quality Schools Program and the States
General Coordination of the Quality Schools Program are in charge of promoting in the mass
media and in social and cultural spaces the philosophy, institutional objectives and achievements
of PEC.
Mechanism and Beneficiaries
What is delivered?
The resources of PEC are in addition and complementary to the ones given by the federal,
state and municipalities programs aimed to the improvement of the infrastructure and
operation of the educational establishments. These resources are managed by SEP through
the National Fund for Quality Schools. In order to participate in the program, the States must
assure their wish and commitment to matching the resources given to them. SEP transfers the
amounts corresponding to each State in proportion to its population (4 to 14 years of age); this
should be in accordance with the statistical information from the II Population and Housing
Counting (INEGI 2005). For each peso invested by the State Government, SEP matches three
more pesos. The allocation of the resources to the schools works in the following way: i) The
Technical Committee for the Quality Schools State Trust will authorize the transfer of one initial
contribution to each school participating in the PEC, per school year, up to $50,000 mxp based
on the socio-economic conditions established in the basic geostatistical area (AGEB) and on
the educational needs of the community where the beneficiary school is. Ii) As an exception;
this Committee will authorize the transfer of an initial grant up to $70,000 mxp to new schools
or to those that have at least accomplished four years in the PEC and are also located in urban
areas with high levels or very high levels of marginalization. Iii) The Committee could give
simultaneous resources, in addition to the transfers mentioned above, up to one peso per each
peso that the school can collect from the municipal contributions, parents, or donations given
by social or private organizations,. These simultaneous resources can not exceed $50,000 mxp
per school year per school.
Who are the
beneficiaries, who
aren’t?
Basic Public Schools, including all its levels and modalities, that voluntarily decide to
participate in the program and fulfill the requisites published in the official announcements
per State.
161
Focus
Target Population
Basic Public Schools, including all its levels and modalities.
Method
Each State must present their willingness to participate in the Program. Initially, the schools
that have not been participating for more than 5 years in PEC will be beneficiated. ii) For urban
schools applying for the first time, an index of urban marginalization from medium to high
marginalization as defined by the AGEB and established by the CONAPO (The National Population
Council) and/or its counterpart at the state level, should be proven. Iii) In addition, it should be
considered as a target population: a) educational places located at agricultural workers' camp
sites that attend migrants students; b) schools that attend indigenous students; c) multigrade
schools; d) multiple attention centers for students with special education necessities related to
a disability and/or development disorders, as well as, e) community centers from the CONAFE
(National Council for Educational Development); iv) For the beneficiaries schools that have been
participating for five years or more, the state will define the support strategy and according with
the maximum amounts of the financial resources, v) If all the possibilities mentioned above are
exhausted, the rest of the different types of basic public schools could be beneficiated by the PEC.
Potential disparities
Coverage
Geographic
Nation-wide
Number of people
covered
During the school year 2007-2008, the Program benefited 14,310 schools, from a target population
of 35,249 schools.
Quality of the coverage Most vulnerable
children
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Yes/No
Yes, the Program is evaluated by an external organism
By whom
2008 EVALUATION OF CONSISTENCY AND RESULTS. Centro de Investigacion y Docencias
Economicas A:C (Research and Economic Teachings Center A.C)
- The Program seeks to increase the quality of education and encourages an institutional and
academic management that strengthens the participation of the academic centers into the
decisions taking process, promotes a joint responsibility among the different social and educative
players, and the students and teachers safety as well as transparency and accountability
information disclosure.
- The Program has monitored the results and followed the suggestions made by the external
evaluations to improve their performance.
Impact of the results
- The fact that the schools participate in the Program, improves the ability of cooperative and
participative work especially inside the Schools Technical Council, the ability to make participative
auto-diagnostics in the schools; and the ability of the principals to participate with leadership.
- The Program has result in a 6% decrease in desertion rates taking as a base the year 2000,
compared with the schools not participating in the PEC with similar characteristics.
- Attention to marginal urban schools is a wise move, since this population had not been
benefited by any other educational programs.
PEC could be a complement or achieve synergies with most of the programs for basic education –
especially with the ones focused on education equality.
It is not possible to gather accurate information about the operation of the program in the schools
(resources allocation, accomplishment of objectives,…)
Implementation
challenges
There is a lack of a database that identifies the characteristics of the target population, and of
an information system that offers accurate information about what is happening in the schools
participating in the Program.
There hasn’t been any improvements related to the regulations, therefore procedures have not
been simplified and the costs have not decreased
It does not have an accurate specific diagnostic of the problems that the marginal urban schools
face.
The improvement in flunking and desertion rates is modest.
162
8
Name of the
Program
Concept Description
Scholarship Program for Young Mothers and Young Pregnant Women
Objectives
To support teenage mothers and pregnant teenagers, regardless their civil status, so they can
continue and finish their basic education in the regular school system, in an adult education school
or in any other type of public education available in each State. In addition, the Program seeks to
promote a higher equity and no discrimination for teenagers facing motherhood at an early age,
creating or increasing their opportunities of enrollment and continuation in the programs of basic
public education and therefore improving their living conditions.
Type of Program
For the household income: scholarships for pregnant teenagers and young mothers
The National Development Plan has established the importance of not only aiming for the highest
coverage and expansion of the educational services but also for their equality and quality. Therefore,
Inclusion argument such importance is given to the equality of educational services and the implementation of programs
attending those groups that given their vulnerable situation are in risk of dropping-out from their
basic education, like the Scholarship Program for Young Mothers and Young Pregnant Women.
Financing cost
2008
Budget
30 MILLIONS OF MEXICAN PESOS
Captured
in Section A
No
If yes: proportion
to total
N/A
Participating
agencies
Sub-Ministry of Basic Education. the education authorities of each State, the scholarships committees
of each State
The responsibilities of the States, through their education authorities, are: i) to lead the operation of
the Program in its State, according with the established operating rules, the current regulations and
the agreements subscribed with SEP; ii) formalize agreements with SEP required for the operation
Agency’s role
of the Program; iii) to celebrate collaboration and/or coordination agreements for the participation of
other public organisms of basic education (not schooled), like the State Institutes for Adults Education
and the National Institute for Adults Education, through their states delegacies, as well as informing
SEP of these agreements, v) to establish the Scholarships Committee, among other responsibilities.
Mechanism and Beneficiaries What is delivered?
Who are the
beneficiaries, who
aren’t?
Focus
The scholarships consist in a monthly stipend of $650 mxp during the 10 months of the school year.
Teenage mothers or pregnant teenagers with just one child, between 12 and 18 years of age.
Target Population
Teenage mothers, regardless their civil status with just one child or that are pregnant for the first
time, between 12 and 18 years of age wishing to start, restart, continue and finish their basic
education, studying in the regular public system or in any type of public education available in their
States.
Method
Any woman wishing to participate in the program must present documents such as: her birth
certificate and her child birth certificate, a signed registration form, the grades from her last year
at school and an income statement. All women presenting their registration form that meet all the
requirements are considered as potential candidates. The program gives priority to the candidates
from indigenous or excluded communities that have an income less that four minimum wages and
that are about to finish primary school or that are starting secondary school. Besides, women must:
i) be Mexican, ii) be between 12 and 18 years of age at the moment of applying for a scholarship
(once the teenagers are admitted in the program, they can stay in it longer even if they surpass
the age limit, if and when they finish their basic education and continue to accomplish all the
requirements), iii) to have just one child or being pregnant for the first time, iv) they must not have
another economic support for their studies and, v) they must be enrolled in a public education
institute. The operation of the program has six general stages: i) the promotion of the program and
the establishment of the Scholarship Committee by the local authorities of each State, public schools
and SEP, ii) distribution and reception of the scholarship applications, iii) validation of the records, iv)
selecting of the beneficiaries, v) the delivery of the information to SEP and, vi) the process of giving
the scholarship.
163
Potential disparities N/A
Coverage
Geographic
The coverage of the Scholarship Program for Young Mothers and Young Pregnant Women has a
nationwide coverage; the resources will be given to the 31 States and the Federal District to the
teenage mothers or pregnant teenagers.
Number of people
covered
2 thousand young women (2207)
Quality of the
coverage
N/A
Most vulnerable
N/A
children
Monitoring and Evaluation Yes/No
Yes, the Program is evaluated by an external institution
By whom
CONSISTENCY EVALUATION 2007. Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO)
-Currently, the Program does not have mechanism for the documentation of final results.
Impact of the results -The Program has not achieved an acceptable level of cooperation between the different levels of the
government (federal, state and municipality) that participate in its design and operation.
-The Program does not have a coverage strategy for the short, medium and long term.
-The Program’s stipends are delivered with a delay to the beneficiaries.
-To precise the criteria to be used for the allocation of the resources between the States in order to
promote a more efficient execution of the resources.
Implementation
challenges
-To precise the criteria and the role that the principals of the schools play in the pre-selection of the
candidates to avoid discrimination and/or favoritism.
-To develop a diagnosis that allows to establish the potential demand by State and that weighs the
percentage of the target population with the poverty index of abilities of each State, so this can be the
base for the distribution of the resources.
-To establish a budget including the operating expenses and the creation of campaigns.
164
9
Name of the
Program
Concept Description
Support Program for Preschool and Primary Education for Boys and Girls from Families of Migrant
Agricultural Workers (PRONIM)
Objectives
To promote intercultural basic education, for girls and boys from families of migrant agricultural
workers through the coordination of inter-institutional efforts. In addition, the Program seeks: i) to
develop and implement an integral model of basic education according to the living conditions of
the infant population from families of migrant agricultural workers, ii) to design and implement a
national proposal of an intercultural teaching training program involving migration concepts, iii) to
establish a national system of socio-educational information of the infant population from families of
migrant agricultural workers, and v) to strengthen the inter-institutional coordination mechanisms at
different levels (federal, state and municipalities) that enhance politics and actions to offer a quality
educational service targeted to the infant population from families of migrant agricultural workers.
Type of Program
For infant education: preschool and primary
Inclusion argument
The migratory dynamic of the agricultural workers from Mexico, about 2 millions of Mexicans
(Operating Rules of the Program, 2008), including entire families, obliges the country to make an
additional effort to offer this population the required guarantees for their girls and boys to access
the basic education. It is estimated that about 400 thousand children in Mexico live in this situation,
and only 5% of them have access to education.
Financing cost
2008
Budget
11.4 MILLIONS OF MEXICAN PESOS
Captured in Section A No
If yes: proportion
to total
Participating
agencies
N/A
Sub-Ministry of Basic Education. Local and State governments.
The National Coordination of PRONIM and the Educational Organisms of each State, through the
Sub-Ministry or Direction of Basic Education, will promote the implementation of mechanisms that
contribute to the diffusion of PRONIM’s actions and results, as well as mechanisms for consulting and
Agency’s role
information in order to boost transparency and accountability disclosure of information. The Ministry
of Public Education will transfer the resources to those States having families of migrant agricultural
workers according with the Census of the Assistance Program for the Agricultural Workers.
Mechanism and Beneficiaries What is delivered?
Who are the
beneficiaries, who
aren’t?
Focus PRONIM resources are transferred to each State in just one installment. The education authority
of each State opens a bank account, in which the resources are deposited, theses resources will
be exclusively used for the development of PRONIM activities. The bank account is supervised
by the financial area of the educational organisms of each State and by the General Direction
of Development of Educational Management and Innovation of the Sub-secretariat of Basic
Education. The allocation of resources for the States participating in the PRONIM is different, based
on the coverage of girls and boys attended by each State and on the complement of the Human
Development Index of the same State.
Sons and Daughters of migrant agricultural workers.
Target Population
The States are the ones that get, in the first place, the federal funds of the Program, which are used
to complete the expenses of operation, development, tracking, teachers training, schools counselors,
technique-pedagogic advisers, supervisors with migrant school centers, and state coordinators. As
well as for infrastructure and academic equipment expenses.
Method
The Ministry of Public Education transfers the resources to those States with families of migrant
agricultural workers. Then, each State designs their own criteria to chose the target population
according with the diagnosed information that they have, the Strategic Plan of Educational Assistance
for Girls and Boys from Families of Migrant Agricultural Workers made by each State and according
with the target coverage, besides the principles establish in the Operating Rules. The State benefited
by PRONIM must: i) Show their willingness to participate in the program either written or via
email; ii) present a Strategic Plan of Educational Assistance for Girls and Boys from Families of
Migrant Agricultural Workers that includes an annual working Program according with the technical
specifications that the national coordination of the Program establish with the Program coordinations
from each State, and iii) subscribe a coordination agreement with the Ministry of Public Education.
165
Potential disparities
Coverage N/A
Geographic
Coverage: Nation-wide. In 2008, the Program covered 21 States (Baja California, Baja California Sur,
Chiapas, Chihuahua, Colima, Coahuila, Durango, Guerrero, Hidalgo, Jalisco, Michoacan, Morelos,
Nayarit, Nuevo Leon, Oaxaca, Puebla, San Luis Potosi, Sinaloa, Sonora, Tamaulipas and Veracruz).
Number of people
covered
N/I
Quality of the
coverage
The Program seeks to ensure more equity in the quality of the educational services for boys and
girls between 3 and 14 years of age, children of migrant agricultural workers.
This program supports boys and girls living in a vulnerable situation due to the fact, that in most of
the cases, they work, and because of this they don’t attend school. Besides, the ongoing migration
of their families puts them under an unstable and full of risks situation.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Most vulnerable
children
Yes/No
Yes, the Program is evaluated by an external institution.
By whom
CONSISTENCY EVALUATION 2007. Institute for Social Investigations, UNAM
-Very low enrollment rate related to the eligible population.
-The program has not had a big effect in the overall enrollment rate.
Impact of the results
-There are very little personnel in the Coordination of the Program to promote the stipulated
services.
-The Program does not present jet any mechanisms for the registration of the final results.
-The Program does not have a strategic plan for the medium and long term.
-The coverage progress of the Program has been very slow.
Implementation
challenges
-The extension of the Program towards preschool and secondary school education could scatter the
efforts.
-The Program does not have any documents that accurately determine the educational requirements
of the population settled in the camp sites of the agricultural workers.
-Ensure that the children from migrant agricultural workers could stop working and attend school, so
they can have higher development opportunities.
166
10
Name of the
program
Concept Description
Popular Insurance
Objectives
Offer financial protection to all Mexicans, presenting a public securing option in matter of health to
families and citizens who due to their labor and socioeconomic condition are not beneficiaries of
the social security institutions. To face this task implies to adopt the following specific objectives: i)
reduce private pocket expense that puts at risk the impoverishment of the most vulnerable families,
because of their state of health and their socioeconomic level, ii) encourage timely attention
to health of Mexican families, avoiding delay and consequent aggravation of diseases due to
economical reasons, iii) fortify the public system of health to reduce the breach between beneficiary
families of social security and those who do not have this benefit in matter of health, and iv)
contribute to the overcoming of inequalities and backdrops in the distribution of expense among the
federal entities with different levels of development in matter of health.
Type of Program
For household income and child health: supply of health services and medical insurance
Inclusion argument
Population that does not enjoy any type of insurance represents an important proportion of the
total population, since the housing and Population Census 2000 reports up to 57.8% of not insured
population. These people is not affiliated to social security due to their labor situation and/or
because their low capacity of acquisition does not allow them to pay for the IMSS familiar health
insurance, or purchase a private insurance. The high costs of medical attention frequently cause
families to postpone or give up the attention, and if they pay for the costs, these make the whole
family face tough financial situations.
Financing cost
2008
Budget
37,000 MILLIONS OF MEXICANPESOS
Captured in Section A No
If yes: proportion to
total
Participating
Agencies
N/A
Health Ministry. Federal and State Governments.
The Health Ministry is the instance that guarantees coherence and coordination between
Popular Health Insurance and its other programs, as well as to other institutions of health sector.
Furthermore, it identifies the priorities with regard to geographical areas, population groups,
and available infrastructure for the execution of Popular Health Insurance and coordinates the
Agency’s role
performance of surveys and investigations necessary for their implementation. It is the Federal
Government’s task to formulate the strategic development plan of the Popular Health Insurance
and to channel to the participating federal entities the resources to instrument the Popular Health
Insurance, among other actions.
Mechanism and Beneficiaries
What is delivered?
Who are the
beneficiaries, who
aren’t?
Focus
The Popular Insurance covers close to 255 interventions and medical services and the supply of 285
medicines associated to the services package. The coverage of services that the suppliers shall grant
the beneficiaries of the Health Popular Insurance includes the majority of interventions performed in
the health centers and general hospitals of the public health net of state services.
Mexicans without social security
Target Population
Beneficiaries of Health Popular Insurance are Mexican families that have no benefits from social
security in matter of health and have satisfied the affiliation requirements.
Method
In order to be selected, individuals must: i) reside within the regions of coverage of the Health
Popular Insurance, ii) Not be beneficiary of social security, iii) freely choose to become affiliated, and
iv) pay the appropriate affiliation fee.
Potential disparities
Coverage
N/A
Geographic
Nation-wide
Number of covered
people
In 2007 the program covered around 5’100,000 families throughout the country.
167
Quality of the
coverage
Most vulnerable
The goal is that all children without social security to be covered by the Popular Insurance
children
Monitoring and Evaluation Yes/No
Yes. The program has an external evaluation
By whom
CONSISTENCY EVALUATION AND RESULTS 2007: Investigacion en Salud y Demografia S.C. (Health
and Demography Investigation)
- The level of coverage reached is satisfactory; it is deemed that with the registered tendency 98% of
the established goal will be covered by 2010.
Impact of the results
- When comparing results of 2007 with those of 2006, progress was seen in the performance of
Activities and the delivery of the Components to the beneficiaries.
- In matter of financial protection, a reduction of 2% in catastrophic expenses was reported between
2005 and 2006.
- The affiliates have a larger probability of use based on need perceived (62%) than those not
affiliated (54%).
- The Program does not formally have a strategic plan that takes into consideration the scenarios in
the short, medium and long term and that includes the indicators and strategic goals.
- The fulfillment of the coverage presents wide variations in each federal entity.
Implementation
challenges
- The Program faces weaknesses and threats such as: diversity of areas responsible for the
operation; the lack of information to measure the impact; the lack of strategic plans with indicators
and goals with scenarios of medium and long term and an infrastructure with deficiencies and low
quality.
- Continue with the goal of expanding the coverage of the population that does not have social
security.
168
11
Name of the program
Concept Description
Medical Insurance for a New Generation (SMNG)
Objectives
Promote, attend and conserve a better state of health of Mexican children under five years old, born
as of December 1 of 2006, who not being beneficiaries of social security are affiliated to the System,
through the free granting of high quality health care in matter of prevention, diagnosis, treatment
and rehabilitation. The benefits of SMNG shall be additional top and complementary to those
currently offered by the System described in the Universal Health Services Catalogue (CAUSES)
and in the Fund of Protection against Catastrophic Expenses (FPGC). Furthermore, this program
seeks: i) reduce incidence of diseases, damages to health and incapacities to the people among
the newborns, ii) reduce mortality and neonatal, infantile and in preschool age morbidity, iii) impel
healthy growth and development of the beneficiary people; iv) secure access of the targeted people
to health services; v) grant a package of health actions and its medicaments and related products,
that take care of the epidemiologic profile, and also to the demand of health services and needs of
this sector of the people; and vi) avoid impoverishment.
Type of Program
For Child Health: health program for children from 1-4 years old.
Inclusion argument
The level of health of the Mexican people has substantially improved during the past decades as
a result of a larger coverage of health services, the improvement on hygiene and sanitation, and
the advance on medical technology. However, the achievements on health and the epidemiologic
transition have been reached unequally throughout the country and among the several strata of
income. Particularly worrisome are the backdrops in matter of health still observed on minors
under 5 years. The child mortality indicators stand out, of infectious diseases and malnutrition. The
prevalence of anemia on 30% of minors under one puts at risk the development of new generations
(ROP of Program, 2008). It is important to highlight that the health conditions during the first
years of life impact in a decisive manner and on some occasions permanently, the growth and
development of the person up to advanced ages.
Financing cost
2008
Budget
2,641 MILLIONS OF PESOS
Captured in Section A No
If yes: proportion to
total
N/A
Participating Agencies
Health Ministry. National Board of Health Social Protection. Under Department of Prevention and
Health Promotion. IMSS and ISSSTE
Agency’s role
Mechanism and Beneficiaries What is delivered?
Who are the
beneficiaries, who
aren’t?
Focus
Children affiliated to SMNG are guaranteed, during the term of validity of their rights, the right to
receive services of prevention medicine, and medical attention at the first, second and third levels,
without any disbursement whatsoever for the service. The components that integrate these services
are: i) a prevention actions set and of attention with line of life, ii) lab and cabinet tests and that
allow early diagnosis; iii) medical attention, medicaments and related products for the diseases that
affect children under 5 years; and v) certain type of interventions.
Mexican children who were born as of December 1st of 2006, who are not beneficiaries of social
security.
Target Population
Beneficiaries of the SMNG are Mexican children born as of December 1st of 2006, who are not
beneficiaries of social security or do not have any other mechanism of social prevention on health
and that are affiliated to the System. On perspective, beneficiary population of the Program shall be
taken care of until they reach the age of five years old.
Method
The program operates in all towns within national territory where there are families with
Mexican children that were born as for December 1st of 2006, who are not beneficiaries of
the social security system and have the possibility of access to the health services from any
institution within the Health National System with capacity to provide the benefits of this
Program. Eligible as beneficiaries of SMNG are Mexican children that belong to families
affiliated to the system and who further proof: i) to be Mexicans residents within Mexican
territory, ii) to have been born on December 1st of 2006 or after, iii) not to be beneficiaries of
social security or have some other mechanism of social prevention on health; and iv) their rights
to be current within the System.
169
Potential disparities
Coverage
N/A
Geographic
The Program operates within all of the localities in National Territory.
Number of covered
people
In 2008, close to de 830,000 children were affiliated to the Program, the Federal District, Nuevo Leon
and Veracruz with larger coverage
Quality of the
coverage
N/A
Most vulnerable
N/A
children
Monitoring and Evaluation
Yes/No
Not available
By whom
Not Available
Impact of the results
Not available
Implementation
challenges
There is no evidence but it is believed that it stimulates informality.
170
12
Name of the
Program
Concept Description
Urban Marginal Child Work
Objectives
Keep or reinsert into and education environment girls, boys and teenagers, so as to break the circle
of poverty.
Type of Program
For child protection: social assistance
Inclusion argument
Because it contributes to the attention to causes that generate children’s work, such as: lack of
education, cultural aspects that determine whether the girls or boy will go to school, insufficiency of
resources to go to school, among others.
Financing cost
2008
Budget
9.439 MILLIONS OF MEXICAN PESOS
Budget per State (%)
Aguascalientes 2.20. Baja California 2.95. Baja California Sur 3.15. Campeche 3.03. Coahuila 3.82.
Colima 3.34. Chiapas 2.36. Chihuahua 2.93. Durango 4.13. Guanajuato 2.65. Guerrero 2.76. Hidalgo
2.97. Jalisco 4.08. Mexico 6.34. Michoacan 3.12. Morelos 1.96. Nayarit 3.35. Nuevo Leon 4.73. Oaxaca
2.23. Puebla 2.85. Queretaro 2.81. Quintana Roo 4.03. San Luis Potosi 3.27. Sinaloa 3.21. Sonora 2.99.
Tamaulipas 3.94. Tlaxcala 2.15. Veracruz 2.99. Yucatan 3.74. Zacatecas 2.68.
Captured in
Section A
No
If yes: proportion to
total
N/A
Participating
Agencies
DIF National System (Normative Instance) and 31 State DIF Systems (Executing Instances):
Aguascalientes, Baja California, Baja California Sur , Campeche, Coahuila, Colima, Chiapas,
Chihuahua Durango, Guanajuato, Guerrero, Hidalgo, Jalisco , Mexico, Michoacan, Morelos, Nayarit,
Nuevo Leon, Oaxaca, Puebla, Queretaro, Quintana Roo, San Luis Potosi, Sinaloa, Sonora, Tabasco,
Tamaulipas, Tlaxcala, Veracruz, Yucatan , Zacatecas
Agency’s role
Administrate the financial resources, Design and execution of the Annual Work Plans, Offer
Counseling and Training, Follow-up on the execution of the Programmed Actions and Evaluate the
Impact of the Actions.
Mechanism and Beneficiaries
What is delivered?
Actions of family and community intervention are performed (informal model of education) so as to
encourage social co-responsibility in the prevention of risks associated to urban marginal children’s
work, and scholarships are given to girls and boys, who due to their precarious situation do not have
the economic means to attend or remain within an education environment.
Who are the
beneficiaries, who
aren’t?
Working girls, boys and teenagers who live in socially excluded urban areas, and their families.
Focus
Target Population
Girls, boys and teenagers who work in urban areas and live in conditions of social exclusion, and
also their families.
Method
As part of the strategies against children’s work, the participation of Communitarian Children’s
Promoters is expected, who identify girls, boys and teenagers who work in urban areas within
their own work ambiance, and invite them to participate with actions that discourage this social
phenomenon. In case the family of the boy or the girl does not have sufficient resources for him/
her to remain or be introduced to the school environment, they are then considered as candidate to
receive a scholarship, as per budgeted availability.
Potential disparities
Coverage
Geographic
N/A
31 Federal Entities: Aguascalientes, Baja California, Baja California Sur , Campeche, Coahuila,
Colima, Chiapas, Chihuahua Durango, Guanajuato, Guerrero, Hidalgo, Jalisco , Mexico, Michoacan,
Morelos, Nayarit, Nuevo Leon, Oaxaca, Puebla, Queretaro, Quintana Roo, San Luis Potosi, Sinaloa,
Sonora, Tabasco, Tamaulipas, Tlaxcala, Veracruz, Yucatan, Zacatecas
171
Number of covered
people
During Fiscal Exercise 2007 the following coverage was reached:
- Attention to a 73,446 working girls and boys, and also to 99,943 girls and boys at risk of
incorporating into work activities.
- 127,441 attended Families
Quality of the
coverage
The actions implemented to discourage child work, include the municipalities considered in the
survey of 100 Cities of working girls, boys and teenagers 2002-2003” performed by the DIF National
System and UNICEF
Most vulnerable
children
Working girls and boys subject to attention may be: natives, teenagers, pregnant women, with drug
problems, in state of abandonment, among others. This is, there is no discrimination for any one
particular reason.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Yes/No
Yes. The Program has external evaluation
By whom
EVALUATION OF RESULTS 2006: el Colegio Mexiquense
EVALUATION OF RESULTS 2007: UAM
- Reduction of 17.2% of total urban marginal working girls, boys and teenagers, as per the results
achieved by the “First study on one hundred cities of working girls, boys and teenagers” performed
in 1997 by the National System for the Integral Development of Family DIF and the United Nations
Impact of the Results Children’s Fund UNICEF, which registered 114,497 working girls and boys who worked in the main
urban centers of the country, in the second survey made in 2002 94,795 were identified.
- Termination efficiency of girls and boys with scholarship of 93% (girls and boys with grants that
approved the school term), during fiscal exercise 2007.
Implementation
challenges
Increase termination efficiency of girls, boys and teenagers within school environment and promote
social participation.
172
13
Name of the Program
Concept Description
School Breakfast Program
Objectives
To promote an adequate nutrition in the vulnerable population with the intention of impacting
their nutritional condition through a “breakfast or lunch” with“ nutritional quality” and through
strategies of nutritional orientation and community development.
Type of Program
For the nutrition and protection of children: Social Assistance – School Nutrition
Inclusion argument
The Program has been operating for 60 years and actuality has become strategic due to the
risk of obesity and malnutrition that the Mexican scholar child population faces, in addition to a
complex problem of low levels of education, lack of information and poverty.
Financing cost
2007
Budget
3,030.8 MILLIONS OF MEXICAN PESOS
Captured in Section A
No
If yes: proportion to total
N/A
Participating Agencies
-National System for Integral Family Development (DIF)
-DIF National System.
-DIF from each State
-DIF State System
Agency’s role
1. Coordination of the Program; 2. Operation of the Program
Mechanism and Beneficiaries What is delivered?
Hot or Cold Breakfast (milk, cookies or cereal bars, juice, fruit, vegetables, leguminous, meat,
chicken, eggs)
Who are the beneficiaries, Students from public schools after a targeting exercise aiming at detecting vulnerability
who aren’t?
conditions.
Focus Target Population
Preschool and elementary school children from public schools
Method
Targeting by the level of marginalization and poverty
Potential disparities
Coverage
N/A
Geographic
The entire Mexican Republic
Number of covered people 5,510,187 children with federal resource.
Quality of the coverage
It is necessary to reorganize and redefine the targeting strategy
Most vulnerable children N/A
Monitoring and Evaluation
Yes/No
Yes. The Program is evaluated by an external organism.
By whom
CONSISTENCY AND RESULTS EVALUATION 2007. Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios
Superiores de Monterrey
Impact of the Results
-The Program correctly identifies the problem that wishes to solve (infant malnutrition and the
performance of children at school)
-The variety in the composition of the school breakfasts given by each of the 32 States causes
that the nutritional components of these breakfasts might be significantly different from one
State to another, from a population group to another, as well from a type of breakfast to another.
Implementation
challenges
-At national level, the Program hasn’t been able to consolidate the mechanisms for a
systematic gathering of information that allows the global analysis of the -performance and
results of the Program.
-To improve the quality and nutritional contents of the school breakfasts given around the
country so that the breakfasts could help to achieve a healthier diet according to the needs of
the different groups served.
-To plan and implement actions to guarantee that in every single breakfast the three big groups
of food are included; to encourage eating vegetables, fruits, leguminous and integral cereals; to
include, preferably, regional and seasonal food from local producers, as well as to consider the
fat, sugar and sodium contents in order to prevent issues like child obesity.
173
14
Name of the Program
Concept Description
National Net of Childhood Rights Diffusion
Objectives
To create a space for girls, boys and teenagers to promote the knowledge, analysis and reflection
of their rights and motivate them to freely and voluntarily participate in their family, school
and community, in order to build up a social culture where children rights are practiced and
respected.
Type of Program
For child protection: a precautionary strategy that promotes the knowledge of children’s rights
and the education of the citizens.
Inclusion argument
Innovative since the knowledge, reflection and practice of their rights will help the girls, boys
and teenagers, especially the most vulnerable ones, to actively participate in building up a better
social environment for them, promoting equal opportunities, as in the extent that this population
group exercise its citizenship it will make itself more visible to the adult’s world. During this
process, adults that interact with the boys and girls that participate in the Program are also
involved in building up a social culture of daily practice of children’s rights.
Financing cost
Budget
The National System for Integral Family Development (DIF National System) (SNDIF) does not
disburse resources for the operation of the strategy. The States and municipalities use their own
resources for the implementation of the Program and the expenses required for it. That is why
the budget and the activities are different in each case.
Captured in Section A
N/A
If yes: proportion to total N/A
Participating Agencies
State governments, Electoral Institutes from each State, The Human Rights Commission from
each State and municipalities, The Ministry of Public Education from each State and local areas,
Indigenous Towns Commission, Municipal Councils
i) Facilitate spaces in the mass media, they allocate budget for the operation of the strategy,
ii) support and/or create the election of diffusing groups and its training,
iii) facilitate the promotion of the strategy in the schools,
Agency’s role
iv) implement the strategy in the shelters/schools in indigenous areas and train the personnel
that works with children on children’s rights (Yucatan);
v) support the local activities of the diffusing groups of girls and boys.
Mechanism and Beneficiaries What is delivered?
Who are the
beneficiaries, who
aren’t?
Focus Advice and support for the diffusion of the children’s rights.
Girls, boys and teenagers attended by the DIF and the overall population
Target Population
Mainly girls, boys, teenagers and their families participating in the different programs
implemented by the DIF of the States and municipalities, by government workers of the System,
local (municipality) authorities and the overall population.
Method
N/I
Potential disparities
N/A
Coverage
Geographic
32 States reported and 30 operating with the participation of 1276 municipalities
During 2008 (January-June)
Informed girls 30,258, trained girls 7,073
Number of covered
people
Informed boys 30,577; trained boys 6,372
Informed adults 10,697; trained adults 3,964
Total informed 71,532; trained 17,409
30 DIFfusers and state representatives and 1276 municipalities
Quality of the coverage
The strategy has contributed to the knowledge of the children’s rights by the children and to the
diffusion of them among the community, especially among the local authorities.
174
Most vulnerable children
Monitoring and
Evaluation
The most vulnerable children are attended by DIF. The participation of girls and boys in the
strategy is almost the same. The difference is 1.02% more girls than boys.
Due to the lack of resources there isn’t an evaluation that indicates the progress and impact of
the strategy, although the Inter-American Children’s Institute (IIN) considers it a novelty strategy.
Yes/No
No
By whom
N/A
Impact of the Results
The National System for Integral Family Development (SNDIF) has been making sure that the
results from the annual workshops made with the diffusers groups of girls and boys from
the federal entities are analyzed and taken into account to have a more active and genuine
participation of children so that this can contribute to their integral formation and citizens
formation.
Implementation
challenges
-Lack of a budget to create national campaigns.
-Lack of knowledge from the authorities at all levels of the government about the
commitments taken by our country when ratifying at the Child’s Rights Convention.
-Resistance of adults to recognize that girls and boys have rights (culture).
-Lack of knowledge from adults (teachers, parents, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and
community authorities) about the implementation and interpretation of the Child’s Rights
Convention.
-Lack of a budget at all levels to promote and diffuse the knowledge and implementation of the
children’s rights.
-Lack of knowledge about the promotion and motivation of child population.
175
15
Name of the Program
Concept Description
Program for Girls, Boys and Adolescents in Frontier Zones
Strategy for the Prevention and Attention of migrant and repatriated children and adolescents
Objectives
To join efforts and actions between the three instances of the government order, public
and private institutions, and national and international organisms from the civil society to
prevent and attend the needs of migrant and repatriate boys, girls and teenagers traveling
by themselves and the collateral problems which they are exposed to, as well as to promote
coordinated actions of familiar and communitarian protection and contention. At the same
time, with the strategy implementation, in both, the north and south borders the physical and
metal integrity of the migrant and repatriated boys, girls and teenagers are protected until
their return to their families and their return to their places of origin.
Type of Program
For the infant protection: Social Assistance
Inclusion argument
The search for better living conditions has made migration one of the big global phenomena.
In this case, Mexico becomes the place of origin, traffic and destination of many men, women,
girls, boys and teenagers wishing to enter the United States searching for better life conditions,
sometimes leaving behind, unprotected and in a vulnerable condition, their wives, children and
relatives.
Financing cost
2008
Budget
21.18 MILLIONS OF MEXICAN PESOS
Budget per State (%)
Aguascalientes 1.66. Baja California 7.12. Coahuila 14.72. Chiapas 8.86. Chihuahua 10.08.
Guanajuato 1.66. Guerrero 1.66. Jalisco 1.66. Mexico 1.66. Michoacan 1.66. Nuevo Leon 2.45.
Puebla 1.66. Sinaloa 4.03. Sonora 7.93. Tabasco 4.74. Tamaulipas 22.0. Veracruz 6.40.
Captured in Section A
No
If yes: proportion to total N/A
Participating Agencies
The National System for Integral Family Development (SNDIF) and 17 State DIF Systems
(Executorial Instances): Aguascalientes, Baja California, Coahuila, Chiapas, Chihuahua,
Guanajuato, Guerrero, Jalisco, Mexico, Michoacan, Nuevo Leon, Puebla, Sinaloa, Sonora,
Tabasco, Tamaulipas, Veracruz.
At the same time, the Program is in coordination with the following public and private
institutions: Secretary of Government, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Health,
National Institute of Migration, Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance, UNICEF,
National Institute of Women, UNHCR (The UN Refugee Agency), IOM (International
Organization for Migration), Secretariat of Social Development, Juvenile Integration Centers,
Organizations from the civil society, National Human Rights Commission, YMCA, and
AEROMEXICO (airline).
i) Manage the financial resources, design and execution of the annual work plans; ii) give advise
and training; iii) follow up the execution of programmed actions; iv) evaluate the impact of such
actions.
Mechanism and Beneficiaries Agency’s role
What is delivered?
Who are the
beneficiaries, who
aren’t?
Focus Target Population
Through this strategy, financial resources are given to the State DIF Systems which use them to
transfer the girls, boys and teenagers from the north and south borders of Mexico to their place
of origin, they also get support for food and ground transportation, and for the strengthening of
the shelters or places where the girls, boys and teenagers are guarded.
Migrant and repatriated girls, boys and teenagers (nationals and foreigners)
Migrant or repatriated girls, boys and teenagers (nationals and foreigners) travelling by
themselves, this means without an adult relative. From new born up to 17 years 11 months of
age getting temporary shelter to protect their physical and mental integrity during the time of
their journey to their place of origin or until being reunited with their family.
176
Method
In the case of Mexican citizens, the program attends all the girls, boys and teenagers traveling by
themselves and that are repatriated by the United States authorities or that have migrated from
their place of origin with the intention of crossing the northern border with the United States but
are unable to do so and are left abandoned in the border cities. Regarding, foreign girls, boys
and teenagers, the program attends all the cases referred by the National Institute of Migration
inside the frame and agreements established for that purpose.
Potential disparities
N/A
Coverage Geographic
17 States:
North border: Baja California, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, Sonora y Tamaulipas
South border: Chiapas, Tabasco, and Veracruz
Place of origin: Aguascalientes, Guanajuato, Guerrero, Jalisco, Mexico, Michoacan, Puebla and
Sinaloa
Number of covered
people
During the 2007 fiscal year, the program reached the following coverage: Assistance to 21,366
migrants and repatriate girls, boys and teenagers (national or foreign) traveling by themselves.
Regarding the year 2008 (up to September), the program had assisted 15,256 migrants and
repatriate girls, boys and teenagers (national or foreign) traveling by themselves.
Quality of the coverage
The working girls and boys that are attended by the program can be indigenous, pregnant
teenagers, with addiction problems, abandoned, among others. This means, that the program
Most vulnerable children
doesn’t discriminate against any special condition and it aims to give attention to every boy, girl
and teenager living under these vulnerable conditions.
Monitoring and Evaluation Yes/No
Yes. The Program is evaluated by an external organism.
By whom
RESULTS EVALUATION 2006: Colegio Mexiquense
RESULTS EVALUATION 2007: Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana
Impact of the Results
The shelters net have the ability of making boys, girls and teenagers aware of the dangers of the
informal migration.
The intervention methodology influences the patterns of behavior of the target population by
guaranteeing the respect and protection of their rights.
Implementation
challenges
To establish the operation of an information system that allows the intercommunication of all the
organisms involved in the attention of migrant and repatriate girls, boys and teenagers, in order
to make it easier and faster for them to return to their places of origin.
177
Appendix 2. National Mexican Family Life Survey
The Mexican Family Life Survey (ENNViH or MxFLS) is a multi-thematic and longitudinal database which collects, with a single scientific tool, a wide range of information on socioeconomic indicators, demographics and
health indicators on the Mexican population. ENNViH is the first Mexican survey with national representation
departing from a longitudinal design, tracking the Mexican population for long periods of time regardless of
migration decisions with the objective of studying the dynamics of economy, demographics, epidemiology,
and population migration throughout this panel study of at least, a 10-year span.
The base-line sampling design was undertaken by the National Institute of Geography Statistics and Information (INEGI acronym in Spanish). This base-line is a probabilistic, stratified, multi-staged, and independent
sample at every phase of the study. The scope of the study consists of private households in Mexico during the
year 2002. Primary sampling units were selected under criterions of national, urban-rural and regional representations on pre-established demographic and economic variables. Regional definitions are in accordance
with the National Development Plan 2000-2006. The approximate sampling size is 8,440 households with approximately 35,000 individual interviews in 150 communities throughout the Mexican Republic.
The base-line was conducted during 2002. The second wave of field work was conducted during 2005-2006
with a 90 per cent re-contacting rate at household levels. The 3rd and 4th waves of the survey are programmed
for the years 2009 and 2012, respectively.
The multidimensional characteristics of the ENNViH facilitate the inter-relational study of different demographic and socioeconomic phenomenons present in population welfare dynamics.
Surveys ENNViH 1 and 2 provide detailed information on the individual, household and community levels:
Household and Individual Information
•Expenditure and consumer models, decisions regarding savings, family owned assets and wealth, as well
as information about total and transfer mechanisms of resources between non-resident family members.
•Information regarding the impact of social programs in the community, as well as at the household and
individual levels.
•Levels of education and school attendance decisions and permanent schooling for all household members,
including information on school performance, grade repetition, as well as the highest level of education
attained by parents and siblings who do not reside within the household, regardless of weather or not they
are deceased.
•Type of employment, participation and mobility within the workforce of all household members who are over
the age of 5, along with retrospective information about the individual’s employment activities in a formal and
informal sector during the past two years, as well as general information about his/her first job.
•Time allocation information on an individual level concerning household activities, child education, recreational and leisure time in general.
•Measurement and interpretation of health status: self-perception and expectations of the individuals’ own
health status, everyday habits relating to the care or negligence of individual health (sports, alcohol drinking, tobacco, etc.); functional indicators for elderly adults; tendencies and reports of chronic illnesses;
anthropometric measures (weight and size) relating to nutritional and overweight problems; and samples of
biological indicators such as blood pressure and hemoglobin levels that are found to be related to arterial
hypertension and anemia complications, respectively. MxFLS 1 and 2 includes information on the demand
and use of health services, public as well as private, and self-medication.
178
•Retrospective information on reproductive health, pregnancy history, births and abortions pertaining to
women of fertile age within the household (ages 14-45); the practice and use of contraceptives and information about the use of health services during pregnancy, during labor and postnatal services.
•Crime and victimization information on a household and an individual level – theft, assault, burglary and
kidnapping – and their relation on individual welfare; as well as individual conduct modifications that function on levels of perception pertaining to community safety, such as a change of residence, investments in
modes of security, general modifications of everyday habits.
•Information on the use of, and managing of agricultural lands and family businesses.
•Individual, historical information on marriage, domestic partnership and migration (permanent and “rotating”) of adult women and men who comprise the household.
•The second wave also includes a module to measure risk preferences, inter-temporary and altruistic preferences; a module about individual expectations, and information on paternity and daycare centers. There are
also additional biomarkers such as: total levels of cholesterol and a total count of glucose levels while fasting.
Community Information
Similar to the fieldwork conducted on households, ENNViH-1 carried out a community operative with the purpose of
collecting quantitative and qualitative data on schools, health centers and small health care providers; on social programs, and economic and physical infrastructures; and information on the level of local prices by means of visiting
medical dispensaries, pharmacies, markets, flea markets, miscellaneous and/or supermarkets within the community.
Discussion
We consider that the ENNViH represents an excellent source to perform the statistical analysis of the Study on
Poverty and Disparities during Childhood. In fact, this is the only source that allows in great extent the elaboration of most of the charts in the Statistical Template. A main advantage is that, thanks to the great quantity and
diversity of information in this survey, practically all the charts proposed in the Statistical Tables can be made
using this data base, which avoids the use of different bases for all the topics that are analyzed in this study,
thus avoiding compatibility issues.
It is important to mention that, due to the fact that the population weights for the second round of ENNViH
were not ready at the time of performing the analysis, the tables here were carried out using the first round of
the ENNViH, thas is, data of 2002.
In this study, statistical information is made according to the regions where the ENNViH is representative These
regions are: Central-Northeast (Coahuila, Durango and Nuevo Leon), Central West (Guanajuato, Jalisco and Michoacan), Central-Country (Federal District, State of Mexico, Morelos and Puebla), and Northwest (Baja California
Sur, Sinaloa and Sonora) and South-Southwest (Oaxaca, Veracruz and Yucatan). Possibly the sole limitation of ENNViH for this study is that this data base only covers the periods of 2002 to 2005 Therefore, we shall complement
our analysis using alternate sources of information with a longer period of time coverage. These data bases are:
National Survey of Household Incoem and Expenditures (performed since beginning of the eighties to this date)
Census of Households and Population 2005, 2000, 1995
National Survey on Occupation and Employment (ENOE)
National Survey on Demographic Dynamics (ENADID)
National Survey on Health and Nutrition (ENSANUT)
179
Appendix 3. Construction of variables of deprivation through ENIGH and ENNViH
ENIGH (National Survey on Household Income and Expenditures)
For the categorization of the variables on deprivations, the following questions of the 1994 and 2005 ENIGH
questionnaire were taken into consideration:
1. Shelter
Severe deprivation: home with five or more dwellers per room with dirt floor
Less severe deprivation: home with four or more dwellers per room or with dirt floor or with discarded
materials, roof of cardboard sheets, metallic or asbestos sheets, reeds, bamboo or palm, rope or shake,
or earth with beams
2. Sanitation
Severe deprivation: the dwelling has no bathroom
3. Water
Severe Deprivation: the dwelling gets water from a river, creek or lake or other source
Less severe deprivation: the dwelling gets water from a well, a pipe or a public tap.
4. Information
Severe deprivation: the dwelling has no television, neither black-and-white nor color, and has no computer Less severe deprivation: children and adults in the house have a television set, black-and-white or
color, and have no computer
5. Education
Severe deprivation: when the child between 7 and 17 does not go to school
Less severe deprivation: children between 7 and 17 years old who do not go to school or did not finish
primary education
6. Health
does not apply because there is no information on which to construct the indicator
7. Alimentation
does not apply because there is no information with which to construct the indicator
ENNViH (Mexican Famiy Life Survey)
For the categorization of the variables on deprivations, the following questions from the ENNViH 2002 and
2005 were taken into consideration:
1. Shelter
Severe deprivation: home with five or more dwellers per room or with dirt floor
Less severe deprivation: home with four or more dwellers per room or with dirt floor or reed, bamboo,
earthen or discarded materials
2. Sanitation
Severe deprivation: the dwelling has no bathroom
Less severe deprivation: the dwelling has a latrine, black hole or well
180
3. Water
Severe deprivation: the dwelling gets water to wash or drink from a river, creek or lake (carried) or other
source
Less severe deprivation: the dwelling has water to drink or wash from a pipe or public tap
4. Information
Severe deprivation: children at the house did not watch television, did not read or use the Internet during
last week
Less severe deprivation: children and adults at the house did not watch television or use the Internet
during the past week
5. Education
Severe deprivation: children between 7 and 17 years who do not go to school or never did.
Less severe deprivation: children between 7 and 17 years old who do not go to school or did not finish
primary education
6. Health:
Severe deprivation: children who were not vaccinated against measles, diphtheria, tuberculosis or polio.
Less severe deprivation: children who did not get vaccinated against measles, diphtheria tuberculosis or
polio at age two
7. Alimentation:
Severe deprivation: children who find themselves over three standard deviations below the international
reference of impairment (height per age) or the BMI per age
Less severe deprivation: children who find themselves over two standard deviations below the international reference of impairment (height per age) or the BMI per age
181
For further information on the Study on Poverty
and Disparities in Childhood: the Case of Mexico
please contact:
Paseo de la Reforma 645
Col. Lomas de Chapultepec
Mexico, D.F. 11000
Mexico
www.unicef.org
email: [email protected]
© UNICEF Mexico/ Mauricio Ramos
July, 2009