May, 2016
This evaluation was made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID). The contents of this evaluation are the responsibility of Jorge Gallego, Keri Culver, Centro Nacional
de Consultoría, and Management Systems International and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States
Government.
Mid-term Impact Evaluation of the Afro-Colombian and Indigenous
Program 2011-2016
Mid-term ACIP Evaluation ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The evaluation team wishes to extend its thanks to the Afro-Colombian and Indigenous
respondents who took their time to answer our survey, interview and focus group questions.
We wish you the best in all your endeavors.
The professionals involved in the team included Raúl Arce, Olga Victoria Dulce, Angela
Garzón, Carolina Hernández Acero, Santiago Peña Herrera, Carlos Ramírez Chaves, Camila
Rivera, Lucio Severo, and Juan Fernando Vargas.
The team acknowledges Carlos Castro and his team at the Centro Nacional de Consultoría
for the CNC’s tireless efforts in reaching isolated and challenging field sites, for the quality
of data collected, and for their sensitivity in outreach to the communities that were subjects
of this study.
We offer our thanks and a photo credit to the USAID/Colombia Flickr site for the cover
photo of an ACIP participant with her flourishing cacao, all rights reserved.
Finally, the team thanks the ACIP staff and USAID personnel who oriented the evaluation,
provided important links in the communities, and helped to put the evaluation findings into
context.
Mid-term ACIP Evaluation iii
MIDTERM IMPACT EVALUATION OF
THE AFRO-COLOMBIAN AND
INDIGENOUS PROGRAM (ACIP)
2011-2016
Centro Nacional de Consultoría and Management Systems International
Management Systems International
200 12th Street South
Suite 1200
Arlington, VA 22202
www.msiworldwide.com
May 11, 2016
Contracted under AID-514-C-13-00003
USAID/Colombia EVAL (Evaluation and Analysis for Learning)
DISCLAIMER
This evaluation was made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency
for International Development (USAID). The contents of this evaluation are the responsibility of Jorge Gallego,
Keri Culver, Centro Nacional de Consultoría, and Management Systems International and do not necessarily
reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
Mid-term ACIP Evaluation iv
CONTENTS
Acronyms ............................................................................................................................... vi
Executive Summary............................................................................................................... vii
Introduction: Evaluation Purpose & Questions........................................................................1
Evaluation Purpose ...............................................................................................................1
Evaluation Questions............................................................................................................1
Project Background ..................................................................................................................2
Evaluation Design & Limitations.............................................................................................2
Design...................................................................................................................................2
Limitations............................................................................................................................3
Findings....................................................................................................................................5
Result 1 (R1): Institutional Capacity of the State.................................................................5
Result 2 (R2): Ethnic Minority Grassroots Organizations .................................................11
Result 3 (R3): Economic Opportunities for Ethnic Minorities ..........................................18
Section 4: Cross-cutting issues...........................................................................................30
Conclusions and Recommendations.......................................................................................32
Mid-term ACIP Evaluation v
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1: Evaluation questions.................................................................................................1
Figure 1.1: ICIAE results for treated state institutions, of a possible 100 points.....................6
Figure 1.2: ICIAE results by dimension, for ethnic majority institutions................................7
Figure 1.2: ICIAE results by dimension, for institutions without an ethnic majority ..............8
Figure 1.4: Average ICIAE results by dimension for treated institutions (% change).............9
Figure 2.1: Democracy and participation: Assemblies...........................................................13
Figure 2.2: Democracy and participation: Leadership ...........................................................14
Figure 2.3: Autonomy and management ................................................................................15
Figure 2.4: Cultural identity, social/human development ......................................................15
Figure 2.5: Management and territorial control......................................................................16
Figure 2.6: Representation......................................................................................................17
Figure 2.7: Management of rights ..........................................................................................18
Figure 3.1: Survey sample, urban participants, disaggregated by ethnic group and sex........18
Figure 3.2: Treatment effect on the probability of being employed.......................................20
Figure 3.3: Treatment effect on the probability of looking for a job .....................................21
Figure 3.4: Treatment effect on the probability of working part time or less ........................22
Figure 3.5: Treatment effect on the probability of having a written contract ........................22
Figure 3.6: Treatment effect on formal labor income ............................................................23
Figure 3.7: Survey sample, rural participants, disaggregated by ethnic group and sex .........24
Figure 3.8: Food security index..............................................................................................25
Figure 3.9: Food purchases.....................................................................................................26
Figure 3.10: Treatment effect on family income (left) and total expenditure (right).............27
Figure 3.11: Treatment effect on productive activity.............................................................27
Figure 3.12: Government awareness of ethnic issues: rural (left) and urban (right)..............29
Figure 3.13: Knowledge of cultural traditions rural (left) and urban (right)..........................29
Mid-term Impact Evaluation of ACIP vi
ACRONYMS
ACIP Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program
ARL Aseguramiento por Riesgos Profesionales, workers’ compensation
insurance
COR Contracting Officers’ Representative
CRIC Consejo Regional Indígena del Cauca (Regional Indigenous Counsel of
Cauca)
DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse
EPS Entidades Promotoras de Salud, health promoting entities
FCR Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations
FY Fiscal Year
ICIAE
Índice de Capacidad Institucional de Atención Étnica, (in English,
Assessment of State Institutional Capacity for Attention to Ethnic
Minority Needs)
ICOE Índice de Capacidad Organizacional Étnica (in English, Ethnic
Organizational Capacity Index)
INCODER Instituto Colombiano para el Desarrollo Rural
MADR Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural
MAIS Movimiento Alternativo Indígena y Social
PMP Performance Management Plan
SOW Statement of Work
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes the mid-term measurement of the USAID-funded Afro-Colombian and
Indigenous Program (ACIP) impact evaluation. The evaluation design and baseline were
undertaken by DevTech and Econometría, while the mid-term was conducted by Management
Systems International (MSI) and Centro Nacional de Consultoría (CNC), consistent with the initial
design. The mid-term impact evaluation found important gains in formal employment and food
security among its Afro-Colombian and indigenous beneficiary households.
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS
USAID/Colombia requested an external mid-term impact evaluation of ACIP efforts after three
years of implementation, to capture progress on indicators defined for baseline data collection in
2013. Key audiences for this evaluation report are the USAID/Colombia Mission Front Office,
Technical Offices, and Program Office, and the implementing partners. The evaluation measures the extent to which ACIP is achieving its goals with target populations.
Evaluation results can inform decision-making for the remaining implementation period. The
evaluation also identifies best practices and lessons learned to date to maximize the final impacts
of the program. The evaluation questions are as follows:
1. To what extent has ACIP increased the socio-economic and political inclusion of ethnic minorities
in targeted intervention areas? (Main objective)
2. To what extent has GOC attention to the needs of ethnic minorities increased? To what extent has
the capacity of the GOC to protect and grant ethnic minorities their legal and political land rights
increased? (Result 1)
3. To what extent did Community-based Organizations participate in policy design and enforcement
(i.e., free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) processes)? (Result 2)
4. To what extent has governance improved in ethnic territories? (Results 1 and 2)
5. To what extent has ACIP increased economic opportunities for Afro-Colombian and indigenous
populations? (Result 3)  Rural: Program contribution to value chain sustainability and market alliances?  Urban: Program contribution to increased formal employment for ethnic minorities?
6. How effective were the strategies in empowering women and youth? (Cross-cutting)
PROJECT BACKGROUND
USAID created its first program for Colombia’s Afro-Colombian and indigenous populations, to
build human and institutional capacity in ethnic groups and communities, state institutions and the
private sector. ACIP implements activities in three geographic regions—Pacific, Caribbean, and
Central. With the support from the GOC, the program aims to achieve four results:
Result 1: Strengthen State institutional capacity;
Result 2: Strengthen community-based organizations;
Result 3: Increase access to economic opportunity for ethnic minorities; and
Result 4: Increase positive messaging of ethnic minority issues.
ACIP includes among its interventions the following cross-cutting themes: gender equality, youth
participation, promotion of a culture of legality and improving the living conditions of beneficiaries
by improving livelihood, food security and environmental protection.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 8
EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS
The impact evaluation design was set at baseline including the main outcomes of interest. Together,
the evaluation examines three of the four ACIP results. Methods used are appropriate to each
intervention, including a rigorous quasi-experimental survey design (Result 3), qualitative
interviews and focus groups (all Results), and the construction of indices (Results 1 and 2.) Result
4 was studied alongside Result 3, and in qualitative research, but without a telephone survey that
was used at baseline. Result 4’s design, therefore, does not constitute an impact evaluation. At mid￾term, sample units paralleled those at baseline, to conduct the comparative analysis, and in the case
of the survey, both treatment and control groups. The design allows for an impact evaluation only of Result 3 on economic opportunities, with
treatment and control groups and measures at baseline and midline. The index measures created at
baseline for Results 1 and 2 do not meet that standard, but do provide for a comparison over time
of treated institutions and organizations. The main study limitation is a high level of attrition among
Result 3 survey respondents in both urban and rural areas. Though this round of the impact
evaluation of Result 3 is complete in line with the original design, the third round of the impact
evaluation, in 2017, will have to re-contact and re-interview nearly all who were interviewed in the
mid-term in order to meet the standard for rigor for the endline measure. A second limitation,
common to performance evaluations, is the small sample size of government agencies and
organizations interviewed. The sample sought was in line with the original design, but should not
be construed to be representative.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The findings of the evaluation revolve around the four central results to which ACIP is aimed: the
institutional capacity of the State (R1), community and ethnoterritorial organizations (R2),
economic opportunities in the countryside and the city (R3), and positive messages and self￾identification (R4). The interventions also included cross-cutting themes: the empowerment of
women and young people, and land. Finally, we investigate beneficiaries’ perceptions of the
program. Below we present the main evaluation findings for each of these elements. The clearest conclusions of the evaluation pertain to the generation of economic opportunities (R3),
both in cities and in rural areas. ACIP-supported training and job-seeking strategies in cities
increased beneficiaries’ employability (including formal employment) and income. Urban
beneficiaries were more likely to have a job and a written employment contract, and to be affiliated
with the health and pension systems, and their expected monthly income from formal employment
is almost COP$100,000 higher than for similar individuals in the control group. Some focus group
participants reported staying in the jobs they obtained, and others reported being promoted. Still
others reported not being satisfied with the jobs that they obtained, and continued to look for other
opportunities. This is not necessarily negative: respondents simply had higher expectations for
themselves, and felt they had wider opportunities because of the training
In the countryside, the program increased households’ food security and their ability to pay for
their food, the likelihood that they are engaged in a productive activity, the percentage of the land
used productively, and the likelihood of having received technical assistance. There were no
detectable effects on rural household income or expenditures; however, these results may become
apparent later, as productive projects come to fruition.
ACIP also addresses perceptions of ethnic minorities regarding their socio-economic and political
inclusion (Result 4). The evaluation of this component is partial, in that there was no relevant
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 9
evaluation question linked to the component, and the evaluation design does not meet the standard
of an impact evaluation. Among rural R3 respondents, the program has had a positive impact on
the perception that the government is concerned about ethnic issues, and on ethnic minorities’
participation in activities to claim their rights. However, participants in productive projects
perceive that their knowledge of cultural traditions haslessened. This is not uncommon in programs
to increase awareness, because their new awareness may include learning about realms of life with
which they were previously unfamiliar. The sample for the R3 survey did not include participants
from messaging activities directly,1 so that, too, helps to explain why knowledge gain in these
topics was not part of their experience. Among urban R3 respondents, there is a positive impact on
participation in activities for claiming rights as well as on knowledge about cultural traditions. This
divergence in results demonstrates a difference in the nature of the interventions in rural and urban
areas, and in the lifestyles of ethnic groups in the countryside and the cities. R3 respondents had
the same perception at midline that they had at baseline, that there is discrimination against
minorities or that their issues tend to be ignored.
To evaluate the institutional capacity of the State, we applied the Índice de Capacidad Institucional
de Atención Étnica, (in English, Assessment of State Institutional Capacity for Attention to Ethnic
Minority Needs) (ICIAE) for a second time (as designed at baseline), through interviews with 10
municipal, departmental and national institutions. Overall, changes were more positive in sites with
a majority ethnic population, than for those without such a majority. The qualitative and
quantitative data show changes in the following dimensions:  Public policy and planning: Capacity improvement in public policy formulation, but
limited evidence of implementation of these very recent policy changes.  Investment resources: Several territories increased resources for ethnic communities, or
have included the development of these communities in strategic budget lines.  Human and organizational resources: Only a handful of offices showed an increase in
human resources for attending to minority populations.  Capabilities and projects: Ethnic majority sites showed a slight improvement in their
perceptions on this dimension, but some reports indicated that there is still resistance to
dedicating resources to ethnic issues at the departmental and municipal level.  Participatory management: Sites without ethnic minorities showed a decline in
perceptions on this dimension, while sites with ethnic minorities showed improvement.  Information systems: There was improvement in perceptions of information systems but
only among sites with ethnic majorities.
The evaluation team conducted 37 semi-structured interviews with organization leaders, with a set
of questions based on ACDI/VOCA’s multi-dimensional Índice de Capacidad Organizacional
Étnica (in English, Ethnic Organizational Capacity Index) (ICOE) (developed by ACDI/VOCA
during the Program’s first year), to track changes in organizational strengths and weaknesses of
grassroots ethnic minority organizations (R2). Key findings, by major dimensions, are as follows:
Democracy and participation: stronger in both assembly participation and in how
decisions are made; weaker in committee participation of young people and in training for
leadership roles.
1 Participants in messaging activities were likely included, however, in focus groups.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 10
Autonomy and administration: stronger in organizational plans; weaker in capital for
their organizations’ operations and projects. Cultural identity and human and social development: stronger in both cultural
preservation and shared knowledge of organizational plans. Territorial management and control: greater strength in the cartographic delimitation
of their collective territories. Representation: stronger in participation in the formulation of public policies. Management of rights: stronger in prior consultation; weaker in the effective exercise of
rights by children and young people. In terms of cross-cutting themes of the intervention, R2 results show advances in the participation
of women in assemblies and in holding management positions. There are no clearly differentiated
gender-related results in the urban and rural components of R3. Positive program impacts are found
in youth across the urban program, because the program had positive results overall and its target
population was young people. With R2 interventions, however, many leaders indicated that youth
were not participating more widely in ethnic organization activities. This, despite ACIP having
organized a number of important activities with youth organizations in particular. With respect to
land, it is clear that there are institutional bottlenecks that affect these processes, particularly in
relation to the Colombian Rural Development Institute (INCODER)2
; however, restitution cases
through the Land Restitution Unit fared better. Participants’ perceptions of ACIP are quite positive.
They say it has met their expectations, while recognizing aspects that could be improved. Fully
84% of those interviewed in the countryside and 93% in the city would recommend that a relative
or friend participate in the program.
2
It was announced in November 2015 that INCODER would be abolished and replaced with new institutions.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 1
INTRODUCTION: EVALUATION
PURPOSE & QUESTIONS
EVALUATION PURPOSE
USAID/Colombia requested an external mid-term impact evaluation of ACIP efforts after three
years of program implementation. The evaluation was designed to capture progress on indicators
defined for baseline data collection in 2013. The key intended audiences of the evaluation report
are the USAID/Colombia Mission Front Office, Technical Offices, and Program Office, and the
implementing partners, at both prime and sub levels.
The evaluation measures the progress on impact and outcome indicators defined under each of the
four program results, to determine the extent to which ACIP is achieving its goals with target
populations. The results are designed to help improve decision-making for the remaining
implementation period, in order to achieve program goals. Finally, the evaluation identifies best
practices and lessons learned to date to maximize the final impacts of the program and offers
recommendations to support ACIP.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The evaluation questions are listed below, and related to their program results.
Figure 1: Evaluation questions3
QUESTION STRATEGIC LEVEL
1. To what extent has the Program increased the socio-economic and political
inclusion of ethnic minorities in the Program's targeted intervention areas?
Main Objective
2. To what extent has GOC attention to the needs of ethnic minorities increased?
- To what extent has the capacity of the GOC to protect and grant ethnic
minorities their legal and political land rights increased?
Result 1
3. To what extent did Community-based Organizations (CBOs) participate in policy
design and enforcement processes (i.e., free, prior, and informed consent
(FPIC) processes)?
Results 1 and 2
4. To what extent has governance improved in ethnic territories? Result 2
5. To what extent has ACIP increased economic opportunities for Afro-Colombian
and indigenous populations?
 Rural area: Program contribution to value chain sustainability and market
alliances?
 Urban area: To what extent has the Program increased formal employment
for ethnic minorities?
Result 3
6. How effective were the strategies in empowering women and youth? Cross-cutting
3 We note that there is no evaluation question specifically on Result 4, which likely explains the baseline design,
which does not include a specific and methodologically sound design for impact evaluation of that result.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 2
PROJECT BACKGROUND
ACIP is funded through Cooperative Agreement No. AID-514-A-11-00004, as amended, for a five- year period through August 29, 2016, in the sum of $61.4 million. Its purpose is to increase socio- economic and political inclusion of Afro-Colombian and indigenous populations in three regions
of Colombia: Pacific, Caribbean and Central. These groups face social, economic and institutional
marginalization, exploitation, and discrimination. Government policies target these groups to raise
them from negative cycles of marginalization and poverty, but with mixed effects. This is USAID’s
first program fully dedicated to improving the lives of Afro-Colombian and indigenous people.
ACIP was launched in 2011. It focuses on building human and institutional capacity of ethnic
minorities and communities, state institutions and private sector organizations. It works directly
with local communities to develop improvement strategies that will result in social, economic and
political inclusion. The ACIP approach includes cross-cutting themes promoting gender equality,
youth participation, a legality culture, and enhancement of beneficiaries’ living conditions by
improving livelihoods, food security, land rights for ethnic communities, and environmental
protection. ACIP’s target area is comprised of nine urban areas and five rural regions with large
ethnic populations, selected by USAID to take advantage of enabling conditions with the local
governments and the private sector.4
ACIP’s results framework is included in the Evaluation Scope of Work (Annex G). It is shaped by
the following objectives:  State Institutional Capacity Strengthened
 Ethnic Minority Community-based Organizations Strengthened
 Rights to Land for Ethnic Communities Increased
 Ethnic Minority Access to Economic Opportunities Increased
 Positive Messaging of Ethnic Issues Increased
 Cross-Cutting Themes
EVALUATION DESIGN &
LIMITATIONS
DESIGN
EVAL and CNC used a mixed methods – qualitative and quantitative – approach to examine a set
of indicators for each ACIP result. The evaluation sought to understand changes in policies,
practices, attitudes and decision-making among community based organizations and partner
institutions with respect to ethnic populations. The evaluation also surveyed 2,368 participants in
economic opportunity programming. Full detail on methods is included at Annex A.
4 “Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP) Year Four Work Plan, October 2014 – September 2015.” Publication
prepared by ACDI/VOCA for review by USAID, dated December 18, 2014, and provided to the evaluation team for purposes of
background knowledge of the Program.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 3
The survey design, instruments (Annex H) and samples established at baseline were continued in
this mid-term measure, to ensure comparability. A control sample interviewed at baseline was re￾interviewed, in a longitudinal, quasi-experimental panel approach, allowing detection of program
impact over time. The evaluation also replicated the baseline data collection on attitudes and
perceptions of ethnic groups, to measure possible ACIP influence through cultural activities and
promoting ethnic heritage in the media. As a panel design, only individuals and groups interviewed
at baseline were sought for interviews at mid-term. The team also conducted structured interviews with the institutions and organizations involved
with ACIP, using the same instruments (Annex H) used at baseline to capture change over time on
indices related to attention to ethnic needs, institutionality and community representation. This
evaluation component is not an impact evaluation. For both institutions and organizations, the
evaluation team posed additional questions about the progress to date of their ACIP participation.
The instrument differed slightly for institutions in sites with and without a majority ethnic
population.
LIMITATIONS
The evaluation design followed in this study has certain limitations. First, the design does not allow
us to determine a causal effect of the program on the State’s attention to ethnic needs (Result 1) or
ethnic organizations’ strength (Result 2). Because the design did not include sufficient or
sufficiently matched entities or organizations in a quasi-experimental comparison design, the
analysis of these results does not correspond to a strict technical definition of an impact evaluation
as defined in USAID’s Evaluation Policy.5
Instead, the evolution of outcomes is tracked over time,
to determine if a particular result is seen or not, and triangulated with focus group and interview
data to understand the program and external factors affecting any findings. A further limitation is
the small sample size of these evaluation components, particularly for Result 1, reflecting the
original design, attrition/refusals, and early beneficiary offices. ACIP has worked with many more
government offices (58 in total) and organizations (197 in total)6
than could be included in field
work, and these results cannot be said to be representative of all of ACIP’s work. As with most
evaluations, resource limitations make it impossible to visit all intervention sites, and the original
design did not allow for a representative sample, but does provide examples from major categories
of intervention. For Result 3 (economic opportunities) an impact evaluation is conducted, using quasi-experimental
techniques. However, for Result 4, only a selection of the original design was repeated. The
baseline included telephone surveys with non-ethnic citizens. Unfortunately, this element was not
rigorously replicable. Because we could not replicate the sample in a rigorous fashion, results
would not provide useful evidence of a change over time in positive messages about ethnic issues
among non-ethnic populations, so we excluded this element from the midline measurement. This
was the only part of the design for R4 that we did not repeat. The baseline data collection measured
5 USAID’s evaluation policy defines an impact evaluation as those that “measure the change in a development outcome that is
attributable to a defined intervention; impact evaluations are based on models of cause and effect and require a credible and
rigorously defined counterfactual to control for factors other than the intervention that might account for the observed change.”
(USAID Evaluation Policy, 2011, p. 2). The baseline design for Results 1, 2 and 4 did not meet the standard of a “credible and
rigorously defined counterfactual” with either an experimental or quasi-experimental design; the design for Result 3 did indeed
meet this standard, by rigorously matching treatment and comparison samples. 6 As of the end of ACIP’s fourth year of programming, per the Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP), Quarter 4 – FY2015, July-September. October 31, 2015, pp. 37-45.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 4
Result 4 only through the Result 3 survey (which does not systematically include Result 4 activity
participants) and through this incomplete telephone survey design, and as such does not qualify as
an impact evaluation of Result 4.
Second, there was a high degree of attrition in each component. In the case of Result 1, for instance,
in this midline the team was able to interview 10 out of 16 entities who were surveyed during the
baseline. Two of the six non-respondent entities were not interviewed because they no longer exist
and the others refused the interview. In the case of Result 2, we interviewed 37 of the original 42
organizations. The five organizations that were not interviewed at midline were lost because of
logistical challenges and the unwillingness of some organizations to be interviewed. The indices
of R1 and R2 were adjusted and recalculated so that baseline and midline results were comparable.
The highest level of attrition was suffered in the quantitative survey carried out to measure Results
3 and 4, as about 30% of the interviewees could not be re-interviewed. This was as true for the
urban sample as for the rural. Some individuals could not be located, particularly among the urban
attrition. Among the lost rural sample were a large number who refused to be interviewed, and
respondents who were unavailable. In the case of the quantitative survey, statistical techniques
were employed in order to correct the pervasive consequences of attrition,7 and to verify whether
the results remain robust when considering the remaining sample – which, indeed they did. A full
description of these techniques and their outcomes are included in Annex A to this report.
7 Power calculations reveal that moderate increases in sampling error occur as a result of the attrition. For instance, in order to
find a 15% difference between treatment and control groups, sampling error increases from 4% to 4.9%. To find a difference of
5% the sampling error increases from 4.1% to 5.1%. For more information, see Table A.8 in Annex A.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 5
FINDINGS
RESULT 1 (R1): INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY OF THE STATE
SUMMARY: Changes were more positive in sites with a majority ethnic population, than
for those without such a majority. Data show the formation of dozens of new public policies
but that the trickier tasks of implementation and evaluation are not yet evident – in some
cases because the policies are very recent. Resources budgeted for programs for minority
communities increased, but governments do not yet track whether actual expenditures are
accruing. Some offices felt more able to implement ethnic-focused projects and others
expressed an ongoing lack of capacity for such activities. In this section, we present the main results of the intervention with State institutions. The team
interviewed an array of national, departmental and municipal institutions to measure changes in
the Índice de Capacidad Institucional de Atención Étnica, (in English, Assessment of State
Institutional Capacity for Attention to Ethnic Minority Needs) (ICIAE). To ensure consistency
with the baseline, interviews with officials from the selected entities were guided by the semi- structured ICIAE instrument, grouped into six dimensions of attention to the needs of ethnic
minorities. The team completed the index for 10 of the 16 entities treated, and two of the three
comparison entities analyzed at the baseline.8
In only four interviews were the same respondents
interviewed, due to staff turnover and availability, which can affect responses in ways that the
evaluation team cannot predict – new respondents may know less or more about the program, or
have greater or lesser willingness to discuss the issues, for example. The quantified responses
therefore should be considered in light of this potential variation: the fact that there are numeric
scores does not make those scores absolute or more robust.
ICIAE scores items on a 0-100 scale, with higher scores indicating greater state capacity. Figure
1.1, below, compares ICIAE scores at baseline and midline for the ten institutions. The pale color
shows baseline and the deeper color shows midline scores. The overall score is at the top, followed
by scores for municipal, departmental and national institutions. Only four institutions showed
significant improvement.
8 The six treated institutions that were not interviewed at midline were: the Governor’s Office of Chocó, the Mayor’s
Office of Bojayá, the Mayor’s Office of Uribía, INCODER, and the Presidential Offices of Afro Affairs and
Indigenous Affairs. The latter two agencies closed, while the remaining four were unwilling to receive the evaluation
team.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 6
Figure 1.1: ICIAE results for treated state institutions, of a possible 100 points
In overall terms, there has been no major change from baseline to midline in the ICIAE measure. The composite ICIAE for these ten institutions fell slightly, from 46.8 to 43.7.9,10 But the
composite score masks differences in experiences among institutions. Some scores improved
compared to baseline (the Mayor’s Offices of Santa Marta and Quibdó, the Governor’s Office of
Cauca, and the Ministry of the Interior), while they fell for others (the Mayor’s Offices of
Cartagena, Silvia, Barranquilla and Maicao, the Governor’s Office of La Guajira, and the
Ministry of Agriculture). The Ministry of Agriculture registered the greatest decline, while the
Mayor’s Office of Quibdó showed the greatest improvement. The evaluation’s interviews in
Quibdó revealed a very active and engaged leadership in the areas promoted by ACIP, which
helps to explain that outcome: one ingredient of success that development projects often mention
is having a program “champion” with similar goals and the necessary authority to enact them. For the Ministry of Agriculture, high turnover probably affected negatively the degree of change.
9 Whether comparing our ten interviews to the same ten interviewed at baseline, or to all sixteen, the change is the same. The
baseline index for all 16 entities was 46.9, essentially the same obtained by limiting analysis to the 10 re- interviewed entities. 10 Indicator data on these scores for the ACIP Performance Management Plan (PMP) is found in Annex E, including totals and
relevant disaggregation.
16
65
51
58
77
35
60
23
29
24
59
50
53
43
53
62
43
39
35
33
0 20 40 60 80 100
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development
Ministry of Interior
Governor's office of Guajira
Governor's office of Cauca
Mayor's office of Quibdó
Mayor's office of Maicao
Mayor's office of Santa Marta
Mayor's office of Barranquilla
Mayor's office of Silvia
Mayor's office of Cartagena
Baseline Midline
Municipal Departmental National
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 7
Institutions serving ethnic majority sites had an average gain of 8 percentage points (pp) across
all dimensions combined, while those without an ethnic majority saw a decline of 7 pp.
Figure 1.2 breaks down the ICIAE by key activity dimensions: public policy and planning,
investment resources, organization and human resources, information systems, participatory
management, and capabilities and projects11. This figure and the one that follows show scores for
each of these dimensions and by type of entity (that is, a territorial entity with or without an ethnic
majority.) Since maximum possible scores among the categories differ, comparisons are based on
the percentage of the maximum score achieved by each institution in each dimension.
Figure 1.2: ICIAE results by dimension, for ethnic majority institutions
11 The capabilities and projects category is used only for entities located in areas with ethnic majorities.
33%
50%
45% 44%
59%
29%
57%
23%
42%
61%
77%
32%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Public Policy and
Planning
Investment
Resources
Organization and
Human Resources
Information
Systems
Participatory
Management
Capabilities and
Projects
Ethnic Majority baseline Ethnic Majority midline
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 8
Figure 1.2: ICIAE results by dimension, for institutions without an ethnic majority
Sites with and without ethnic majorities had nearly the same scores at baseline. However, at
midline there was a difference of 13 points in favor of entities with an ethnic majority.12 The
entities without an ethnic majority scored lower in general, and when they did improve, they did
not do so by much. The entities with an ethnic majority improved in four dimensions, and very
significantly in three of these. As a national-level institution, the Ministry of Agriculture, does not
have an ethnic majority; its strongly negative score from baseline to midline affects the negative
trend overall of those sites. The percent changes from baseline to midline in the ICIAE dimensions
are depicted in Figure 1.4.
12 Entities with ethnic majorities have more than 50% population of indigenous or Afro-Colombian populations, or both. The firm
that carried out the baseline made that distinction in the design, given that these types of sites might react differently to ethnic
groups’ needs. The results suggest such a difference, though answering that question was not part of this study.
35%
55%
44%
53%
47%
42%
57%
45%
22%
34%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Public Policy and
Planning
Investment Resources Organization and
Human Resources
Information Systems Participatory
Management
Non-ethnic Majority baseline Non-ethnic Majority midline
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 9
Figure 1.4: Average ICIAE results by dimension for treated institutions (% change)
It is clear that for entities with ethnic majority there is an increase in most categories. From baseline
to midline, entities with an ethnic majority show improvements in capabilities and projects,
participatory management, information systems, and public policies and planning. They also show
declines in human and organization resources and in investment resources. The entities without an
ethnic majority show advances in human and organizational resources, investment resources, and
public policies and planning, while they decline in participatory management and information
systems. The magnitude of the positive changes for ethnic majority sites is also greater than any
gains enjoyed in non-ethnic majority sites, resulting in the disparity in the overall scores. In any
implementation with government institutions, external factors are at play and highly influential:
budgets and staffing decisions are outside the control of the institution itself, and further out of the
hands of the ACIP team. The degree to which external factors affect entities in sites with and
without an ethnic majority is not known, but the comparison is strong: sites with ethnic majorities
appeared to make greater progress across several dimensions of change.
ACIP leveraged significant funds through public sector sources – USD1.43 billion at the end of
the fourth year of the project – and private sector sources – USD 18 million. The program reached
their ambitious goals on both counts, and exceeded these goals for the private sector sources by
38%.13 Funding sources included national-level Ministries, departmental and municipal
governments, specialized agencies such as the Servicio National de Aprendizaje (SENA) and the
governmental body working for the sustainable development of the San Andrés, Providencia and
Santa Catalina archipelago, known as CORALINA.
13 Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program, Quarter 4 – FY2015, July-September. October 31, 2015, p. 27.
24%
-27%
-3%
17%
18%
3%
6%
7%
2%
1%
-31%
-13%
0%
-7%
-40% -20% 0% 20% 40%
Public Policy and Planning
Investment Resources
Organization and Human Resources
Information Systems
Participatory Management
Capabilities and Projects
Total
Non-ethnic Majority
Ethnic Majority
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 10
ACIP also leveraged funds for ethnic interventions through the royalties and Contrato Plan funding
mechanism, starting early in their implementation with projects such as technical assistance to the
government of Chocó. ACIP helped the government access the Gran Darien Contrato Plan to
leverage USD615 million for efforts to fight extreme poverty across the region.14 ACIP assisted
the government in Cauca to access USD11.6 million over eight projects funded by royalties.15
ACIP also undertook such efforts at the local level, for ethnic communities such as the Raizal in
San Andrés, where ACIP supported three groups in securing organizational strengthening grants,
with cost-share support from the departmental government and the local environmental authority.16
Through the Contrato Plan funding mechanism, ACIP leveraged USD3.6 million for the
construction of a hospital in Acandí, 85% of whose population is Afro-Colombian, indigenous or
Raizal.17
In overall terms, the largest positive change experienced by entities with and without an ethnic
majority was in public policy and planning, in line with the results of focus groups and interviews
as shown below and in more detail in Annex C (the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations
(FCR) table). For example, the 2013 National Policy on Gender Equality includes a component
for Afro-Colombian and indigenous women. ACIP played a significant role in this achievement. Another example in line with these results is that the Governor’s Office of Cauca, with ACIP
support, formulated and submitted three projects to the General System of Royalties. Several
additional examples are found in Annex C (Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations.)
By any reckoning, ACIP’s efforts to promote the national government’s attention to ethnic
minorities was not easy. Two national institutions focused on ethnic issues closed during the period
since the baseline, and a high turnover of personnel in the Ministry of the Interior during the same
period was reported. It is also apparent that there have been problems with the institutional
commitment at a national level from the beginning. INCODER staff refused to be interviewed, which was crucial for the interests of this evaluation. Since data collection ended for the evaluation,
INCODER was abolished and two new institutions have been created in its place.
ACIP supported and strengthened the entities in terms of the formulation of public policies, 52 as
of the end of ACIP’s fourth year,18 and in their inclusion in official development plans. This result
holds for both governors and mayors, and for places with and without ethnic majority populations. At the national level, ACIP provided technical assistance around the Ministry of Interior and
National Planning Department’s response to 115 free, informed prior consent processes with Afro- Colombian communities.19 There were not enough national level entities to draw conclusions, including those that closed and those whose staff refused to be interviewed. Both conditions
support the hypothesis that ACIP faced significant challenges at the national level. Evidence from
in-depth interviews in the field supports the formulation of public policies in territories such as
Cauca,20 Guajira, Valledupar,21 and Barranquilla,22 and their inclusion in development plans for
14 Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program, Quarter 4 – FY2012, July-September. October 31, 2012, p. 8. 15 Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP), Quarter 4 – FY2013, July-September. October 31, 2013, pp. 5, 8. 16 Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP), Quarter 4 – FY2013, July-September. October 31, 2013, p. 12. 17 Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP), Quarter 4 – FY2014, July-September. October 31, 2014, pp. 8-9. 18 Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP), Quarter 4 – FY2015, July-September. October 31, 2015, pp. 8-9. 19 Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP), Quarter 4 – FY2014, July-September. October 31, 2014, p. 8. 20 National Public Policy on Gender Equality, approved in 2013. 21 Training of personnel of the Office of Indigenous Affairs in La Guajira Department and the Valledupar Mayor’s Office. 21 Support for meetings and awareness-raising related to public policy for Afro-descendants, Mayor’s Office of Barranquilla.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 11
those sites. In Santa Marta,23 Chocó and Quibdó, implementation was to be monitored by ACIP- supported information systems.24 ACIP provided logistical support for meetings and events for the
formulation of policies, advice to the staff of territorial entities, and well-received workshops
and/or training for nearly 1,300 government personnel.25 However, it is important to note that there
is no evidence of improvements in the government’s capacity to implement and monitor the
policies formulated, as reflected in ICIAE and interview data from Barranquilla, Cartagena, Cali,
Lloró and Cauca (please see findings 2.9 to 2.15 in Annex C). However, in some cases the policies
were said to be quite newly passed, and as such had not had time to be implemented yet.
Regarding the planning and investment of public resources in ethnic communities, territories such
as Cauca,26 Cartagena,27 Guajira28 and Barranquilla29 increased resources for ethnic communities,
or have included the development of these communities in strategic budget lines. There is little
evidence of budget increases by the mayor’s offices of Santa Marta, Maicao and Valledupar for
purposes related to ethnic minorities, though interviewees in these sites stated that there is constant
support for investment projects with the ethnic communities. As for organization and human resources, only the Mayor’s Offices of Quibdó
30 and Riohacha and
the Governor’s Office of Cauca31 showed an increase in human resources for attending to minority
populations, while in municipalities such as Silvia, San Andrés,32 Cartagena and Barranquilla33
there was no evidence of increased personnel for assisting this population. Capacity building with
Some interviewees praised ACIP for the enrichment and value of training, while some responses
also indicated that cooperation was not as strong as hoped. One respondent felt that ACIP did not
make every effort to include the government in policy development debates, while another felt
closer coordination would be helpful. Another trend seen in the data was that resistance to
dedicating time and resources to ethnic issues still exists in some institutions.
RESULT 2 (R2): ETHNIC MINORITY GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONS
SUMMARY: Organization leaders reported improvements in assembly participation and
organizational planning, as well as in participation in public policy development. This
aligns well with the ACIP experience with local governments, reported under Result 1.
Leaders were pleased with progress in cultural preservation, sharing plans with their
communities, and prior consultation. Leaders report that the organizations are weak in
youth participation and getting capital for operations. However, ACIP supported many
23 Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP), Quarter 4 – FY2014, July-September. October 31, 2014, p. 27. 24 Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP), Quarter 4 – FY2013, July-September. October 31, 2013, p. 21. 25 Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP), Quarter 4 – FY2015, July-September. October 31, 2015, p. 27. 26 There was an increase in 2014 resources for “Afro-Colombians and indigenous people in territorial coexistence” and six
royalty projects in three thematic lines (ethno-education, culture and productive projects). There were also specific budgets for
activities related to ethnic groups planned in development plans and supported with their POAIs. 27 Ethnic issues are part of the strategic focus areas of the secretariat responsible for such matters. 28 We found budget increases for ethnic population in La Guajira with respect to executing the 2008-2011 Investment Plan. 29 In the program’s first phase, the Mayor’s Office funded projects totaling COP 700,000,000, or 19% of the budget. 30 The Quibdó Mayor’s Office has one official and two contractors dedicated to addressing issues of minority ethnic groups. 31 The Land Restitution Unit and Cauca’s Governor’s Office have staff responsible for responding to needs of ethnic groups. 32 Several officials and contractors reported that they were not integrated in the processes for the formulation of public policy
instruments and reports conducted by the Raizal consultants hired by ACDI VOCA. 33 The Mayor’s Office of Barranquilla does not have a specific group/office for the indigenous and Afro-Colombian population.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 12
youth-oriented activities, including a ground-breaking Youth Policy in Quibdó, now
incorporated into its development plan.
This section presents evaluation results related to the strengthening of ethnic minority grassroots
organizations, which include community and territorial organizations. Semi-structured interviews
were conducted with staff of 37 organizations34 to track changes in organizational strengths and
weaknesses since baseline using complementary surveys with leaders of Indigenous and Afro- Colombian organizations. Interviews, consistent with the baseline, focused on the following
capacity dimensions:  Democracy and participation
 Autonomy and administration
 Cultural identity and social and human development  Territorial management and control  Representation and advocacy
Fieldwork included extended in-depth interviews with organizational respondents in addition to
their responses to the semi-structured instrument. For each dimension in the instrument, the leaders
identified three strengths and three weaknesses of their organizations. The evaluation presents the
percentage of leaders who identified a component as a strength and the percentage who identified
it as a weakness. As each leader identified three strengths and three weaknesses, the percentages
do not add up to 100. The analysis that follows shows the change in percentages of leaders citing
a given element as a strength or weakness. This design means that new strengths or weaknesses
can emerge, both objectively and as subjective perceptions. For example, something cited as a
great strength at baseline may drop, not because it is no longer a strength, but because the leaders
have focused on new elements as a result of their participation in ACIP. Or an element may emerge
as a weakness, primarily because leaders are now more aware of it, also due to their exposure
through ACIP, or for some other reason. The results, therefore, should not be read as having
succeeded or failed with a given component, but rather as focus areas for further intervention that
the organizations themselves have identified. Figure 2.1 presents results for the democracy and participation dimension of ACIP interventions
with organizations. The principal positive change is in preparing assemblies. There is also marked
improvement from baseline to midline in that the degree to which women participate in
commissions is now seen more widely as a strength. From 2013 to 2015, there is a nine percent
increase in the number of leaders that consider this aspect a strength, and at the same time there is
a 12 percent decrease in the perception that it is a weakness. This suggests that ACIP had a positive
effect on women’s participation in commissions.35
34 Of 42 organizations interviewed at baseline, three could not be interviewed for logistical reasons and two refused the interview. 35 Indicator data on these women’s and youth participation data for the ACIP PMP is found in Annex E, including totals and
relevant disaggregation.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 13
Figure 2.1: Democracy and participation: Assemblies, changes in strengths and weaknesses
However, the results are not similarly positive with respect to youth participation. There is a 20
percent increase in leaders who see this as a weakness likely reflecting ACIP’s awareness-raising
effect on the issue. Focus groups and interviews support the hypothesis that inclusion of women
was stronger than was the case for youth. For instance, leaders and functionaries in the Caribbean
region acknowledge that for training activities ACIP required a minimum 40% of women
participation. Equivalent evidence of quotas or other incentives for youth is not evident. However,
evidence from ACIP’s reporting shows the program’s involvement with youth chapters of ethnic
organizations, such as their support to the Youth Platform which comprises 30 organizations and
1,400 members, and which participated in the development of Quibdó’s youth public policy.36
ACIP has worked with other youth organizations as well, such as the Helping Youth Organization
in Providencia and Santa Catalina,37 and Fundación SER AFRO in Santa Marta with technical
assistance for public policy involvement and leveraging funds for projects.38
Figure 2.2 presents results in the dimension of management positions and leadership. The main
strengths identified are the way in which decisions are made, and the participation of women in
management positions, with notable improvements against baseline for both.
36 Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP), Quarter 1 – FY2016, October-December. January 31, 2016, p. 9. 37 Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP), Quarter 3 – FY2015, April-June. July 31, 2015, p. 13. 38 Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP), Quarter 1 – FY2015, October-December. January 31, 2015, p. 15.
11%
-5%
-15%
-12%
20%
-12%
12%
9%
9%
4%
-20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Frequency of assemblies
Preparation of assemblies
Results of comissions created by assembly
Women's participation in commissions
Youth participation in commissions
Strengths Weaknesses
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 14
Figure 2.2: Democracy and participation: Leadership, changes in strengths and weaknesses
On the other hand, the weaknesses that grew at midline were leadership training, leaders’
relationships with other stakeholders, and the participation of young people in such positions.
Leaders increasingly felt their organizations were weak in this area, showing that the youth
component has not progressed as expected, and as mentioned above, possibly reflecting a new￾found awareness owing to ACIP activities. The evaluation team inferred from some comments that
leaders may feel threatened by youth participation, possibly suggesting new avenues to pursue in
attempting to change this dynamic. ACIP has indeed prioritized activities with youth in these
organizations, such as leadership training, cultural and sport activities, unique educational
opportunities, and support to youth chapters of those organizations.
Aligned with the results presented in Figures 2.1 and 2.2, findings from the in-depth interviews
also support an overall conclusion that ACIP’s activities may have helped foster a more prominent
role for women in some organizations. For example, ACDI/VOCA supported several Afro- Colombian women’s organizations to conduct a women’s event during the World Summit of Afro
Mayors held in Cali in 2013. Also in that year, ACIP supported more than 100 Afro-Colombian
women leaders in an international conference focusing on women with African roots. These
activities39 support the strong performance of women’s participation in the interview results. It is
one of the strongest gains found by the evaluation.
Figure 2.3 presents changes in perceived strengths and weaknesses with respect to organizations’
autonomy and administration. The greatest positive changes are seen in the administration and
accounting training (25% more see it as a strength), in the existence of financial statements (9%
more) and progress on their own plan (13%). Leaders more frequently cited weaknesses in terms
of the organizations’ budgets, the articulation of their own development plans with those of the
department or municipio, and management during the last two years. These findings seem quite
consistent with organizations’ coming to be more aware of certain aspects through ACIP
programming, taking steps to address them, but not yet being fully self-sustainable. They are also
consistent with the lack of resources; as at baseline, the existence of capital was the most frequently
cited weakness at midline. Focus groups and interviews suggest positive results in some
39 And several others: please see the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations table in Annex C for further detail.
-10%
5%
-21%
13%
-2%
12%
15%
2%
-3%
-9%
17%
-17%
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
Women's participation in leadership roles
Youth participation in leadership roles
Capacity-building for leadership turnover
Capacity-building for leadership roles
Way decisions are made
Leaders' relations with other stakeholders
Strengths Weaknesses
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 15
organizations, but almost all asserted that they do not yet have sufficient administrative capacities
for their own management. Figure 2.3: Autonomy and management, changes in strengths and weaknesses
Figure 2.4 presents the results in terms of cultural identity and human and social development. The
change in strengths favored members’ knowledge about their organizations’ plans and
management of tensions, differences and conflicts in the community. Leaders also identified these
elements as notable strengths in the baseline. A cooperative of the Wayuu Epinayu Clan said that
it has reestablished and strengthened its cultural identity and organizational autonomy thanks to
the ACIP-supported cemetery improvements. Six urban indigenous councils in Cali recognized
strengthening of cultural identity, stating that ACIP support helped them recover their cultural
identity. Fewer leaders said that women’s participation was a weakness, though few also said it
was a strength. Slightly fewer leaders called identifying vital elements of cultural cohesion a
strength at midline than at baseline. Figure 2.4: Cultural identity, social/human development, changes in strengths and weaknesses
Figure 2.5 presents the changes in strengths and weaknesses with regard to the management and
control of the organizations’ territory. The most positive changes include knowledge of legislation
about territorial protection, and demarcation of sacred sites. It is notable that percentages are low
overall in this dimension; there are several important negative changes as well since the program
began. As mentioned above, there are significant government bottlenecks when it comes to efforts
17%
7%
8%
-5%
-7%
0%
27%
4%
13%
-24%
9%
25%
-5%
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30%
Articulation between plan and PDM-PDD
Progress in plan implementation
Management over the last two years
Financial statements
Admin and accounting capacity-building
Capital for operations
Organization budget
Strengths Weaknesses
-3%
-20%
7%
-10%
-2%
-7%
-17%
-29%
18%
-13%
7%
3%
-5%
2%
0%
15%
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30%
Members' knowledge of the organization’s plan
Knowledge of laws that protect community rights
Legal or social mobilization in favor of rights
Cultural preservation
Identifying vital elements of cultural cohesion
Women’s participation in the organization
Youth participation in the organization
Managing community tensions and differences
Strengths Weaknesses
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 16
in land restitution and titling. ACIP can only go so far in these efforts with the communities it
supports, when the government response is slow or weak. As a result, the findings in management
and territorial control are mixed.
Figure 2.5: Management and territorial control, changes in strengths and weaknesses
Field interviews indicate that ACIP helped the Association of Community Councils of Northern
Cauca (ACONC) to identify and describe 5,000 families in its territories and to send this
information to the government and the Constitutional Court. This effort contributes to and fortifies
their knowledge of the legislation relating to protection of their territories. On the other hand,
across organizations, a majority identifies the territorial management plan as a weakness, and far
fewer leaders said their internal agreements were a strength, as they had been at baseline. As has
been seen throughout the data, the principal achievements have been seen in the acquisition of
knowledge and skills, while there are still weaknesses – possibly exacerbated by new awareness –
in the application of these knowledge and skill sets. This, too, feeds and is fed by the difficult
relationships with national-level bodies, particularly INCODER.
The results for the dimension of representation are presented in Figure 2.6, below. The principal
advances have been made in training to advocate in public policy processes and to debate public
policy in Congress. In line with what was found in the qualitative field work and the findings
regarding State institutions’ attention to ethnic issues, in absolute terms participants perceive a
growing strength in the formulation of public policy. For example, the Kankuamo, Kogui and
Malayo – Arhuaco indigenous cabildos make note of their consensual participation in policy
formation through their representation in political parties and organizations. Some such
organizations include the Wiwa Delegation, Consejo Regional Indígena del Cauca (CRIC) and
Movimiento Alternativo Indígena y Social (MAIS), as well as associations of resguardos like
Cooperativa Multiactiva Indígena Wayuu of the Epinayu clan. Civil society organizations in
Barranquilla were trained by ACIP to participate in the formulation of public policy for Afro- Colombian populations. Nevertheless, these organizations report that they were not invited by the
State to participate nor involved in the processes of implementing these same policies.
31%
-5%
-2%
-20%
11%
-3%
1%
5%
12%
-5%
14%
-30%
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Territory management plan
Demarcation of territory
Demarcation of sacred or spiritual sites
Territorial conflict management
Knowledge of laws on territorial protection
Agreements to protect territory
Strengths Weaknesses
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 17
Figure 2.6: Representation, changes in strengths and weaknesses
Weaknesses that were more frequently mentioned were participation in public policy debates at
the departmental and municipal levels. These findings show that in terms of governance, the space
these communities find at the legislative organs of their own territories is very limited, which is
consistent with their baseline responses. This makes the political inclusion of these historically
marginalized communities even more difficult. These findings coincide with results from in-depth
interviews. The organization respondents indicate that these spaces for civil society do exist at
departmental and municipal levels but that they are not operative or functional. For example, in
Chocó, respondents report that their political participation is limited and there is evident disinterest
on the part of the government institutions to include the organizations in their processes.
Finally, Figure 2.7 presents results around rights management. The greatest positive changes are
in the exercise of rights in ethno-education and culture, and knowledge of laws and routes for
implementation of rights, while the negative changes most frequently cited were exercising ethnic
rights for childhood and adolescence and taking actions for effective implementation of rights.
-1%
-2%
-5%
-4%
-7%
2%
11%
-3%
3%
-4%
-13%
-13%
-12%
-13%
4%
-18%
-7%
9%
9%
-20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15%
Representation on Municipal Council
Representation on Territorial Council
Representation on boards
Representation on municipal commissions
Representation on boards of directors
Policy debates in the Municipal Council
Policy debates at Department Assembly
Policy debates in Congress
Public policy formulation
Training for public policy advocacy
Strengths Weaknesses
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 18
Figure 2.7: Management of rights, changes in strengths and weaknesses
RESULT 3 (R3): ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR ETHNIC
MINORITIES
3.1 Economic Opportunities for Ethnic Minorities in Urban Areas
SUMMARY: ACIP has increased urban beneficiaries’ economic opportunities. In 2015, it
is more probable that they are working, looking for other jobs, working part time, have a
written contract, and are affiliated with the health, pension and ARL systems; it is less
likely that they are studying. Their average monthly income from formal employment is
almost $100,000 COP higher (USD $25-28, depending on exchange rate.)
ACIP seeks to enhance Afro-Colombian and indigenous access to the formal labor market through
partnerships with the private sector. ACIP has provided training to 9,195 participants40 to make
them more competitive in the labor market and increase their chances of finding formal
employment. ACIP reports that their targeted private sector firms saw a 90% change in the
proportion of Afro-Colombian and indigenous employees hired during FY2015.41 This section of
the report examines the causal effects of the intervention on impact indicators of economic
opportunity, to determine ACIP’s impact on economic opportunities for minority groups in
targeted cities. The survey sample is shown in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1: Survey sample, urban participants, disaggregated by ethnic group and sex
Treatment Control Total
Indigenous 8642 55 141
Afro-Colombians 412 338 750
Not self-identified as either 7 60 67
Women 308 288 596
Men 197 165 362
40 Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP), Quarter 4 – FY2015, July-September. October 31, 2015, p. 27. This figure
represents 88% of the Life of Project goal. On average between urban and rural economic opportunities programming, women
make up 55% of these participants. 41 Ibid. 42 The small number of indigenous respondents means findings are less likely to be statistically significant, as seen below. This
appears to be because far more Afro-Colombians participated in the urban program, not any kind of over- or under-sampling.
16%
6%
19%
-9%
-7%
-6%
-14%
-2%
2%
28%
-11%
-2%
10%
3%
11%
2%
-10%
8%
-20%-15%-10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Ethnic rights in ethno-education and culture
Ethnic rights in health
Ethnic rights in childhood and youth
Knowledge of the Victims’ Law
Knowledge of the Antidiscrimination Law
Knowledge of the Restitution Law
Knowledge of Women’s Law
Actions for implementation of rights
Knowledge of routes for implementation of rights
Strengths Weaknesses
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 19
Total surveyed persons 505 453 958
To estimate the causal effects of the program, the evaluation team followed the baseline design
described in the introductory chapter of this report. Taking advantage of the longitudinal nature of
the data, we used the differences-in-paired-differences method, described in Annex A with detail
of methods and design. That is, we compared the changes over time in the average of each variable
of interest between treatment and control groups. When the difference is greater than zero, it is
because the program has had a positive impact on that variable. The variables examined are
employability; time dedicated to work, studying and job hunting; work formality and affiliation
with benefits; and income from formal employment.
Following are a series of graphical representations of the results obtained for the variables of
interest. Each figure presents the coefficients estimated in the different models. We first present
the estimates for the model that includes the entire sample of interviewees, but which does not
control for the attributes of the individuals. The model then controls for individual attributes, like
age, gender, ethnicity, household size, whether the head of household is a child, whether the head
of household is a parent, displacement, victimization, receipt of State subsidies, education level
and number of children.43 The final set of models is their location: residents of Bogotá,
Barranquilla, and Cali. The models check the robustness of the results and examine whether
different subgroups have different impacts.
Figure 3.2 summarizes the results of the first variable, “employability.” The coefficient compares
treatment and control groups for their probability of being employed in 2015 versus 2013. If the
point is to the right of zero, the effect of the program is positive; if the point is to the left of zero,
the program effect is negative. For employability, the point estimate is positive in all of the models, indicating that ACIP has had a positive effect. That is, from 2013 to 2015, the beneficiaries of the
program showed an increase in the probability of being employed.
43 In Annex D, all regression tables for the analyses are included, including the coefficients of the interactions, for treatment and
control, from baseline to midline. Given that most variables are dummies, these changes are expressed in percentages.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 20
Figure 3.2: Treatment effect on the probability of being employed
The horizontal line accompanying each estimate corresponds to the 95% confidence interval. If
this line does not cross zero, the effect is statistically significant at a 95% confidence level. This is
a high confidence level, and some of the evaluation’s findings are significant at a slightly less
rigorous 90% confidence level, also generally accepted in social science literature as significant.
In Figure 3.2 ACIP can be seen to have had a positive and significant effect in almost all cases: for
men and women, Afro-Colombians and indigenous people, in Barranquilla and in Cali. The only
exception is Bogotá, in which the confidence interval line dips below zero; that is, there is slightly
less confidence that Bogota participants’ positive result is statistically significant. In terms of magnitude, as shown in Table D.1 in Annex D, the change in the probability of being
employed is 22% higher for treated individuals than for control individuals, a large effect. Focus
group and in-depth data support and explain these positive results on the employability of the
beneficiaries. To cite just one example, of the 256 people in the District of Aguablanca who
graduated as shoe manufacturing technicians, 203 were hired in the sector. The positive result seems based on ACIP’s moving beyond simply training, because it also helped
beneficiaries find jobs. Upon forming partnerships with companies that need staff, ACIP then
works to improve participants’ soft and hard skills to meet those companies’ needs. Companies
interviewed for the evaluation expressed great motivation to continue with the work, and at least
one municipio developed a public-private partnership that uses the ACIP approach.
In focus groups, the evaluation team heard from participants who had stayed in the jobs they
obtained, and others who had been promoted. Still others reported not being satisfied with the jobs
that they obtained, and continued to look for other opportunities, as illustrated by the following
results. This is not necessarily negative: respondents simply had higher expectations for
themselves, and felt they had wider opportunities because of the training. Figure 3.3 shows that ACIP has a positive impact on the probability of looking for work. While
the training increased the probability that the beneficiaries had jobs, they also continued looking
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 21
for work – women more so than men, and those in Bogotá more so than in Barranquilla and Cali.44
The qualitative evidence is in line with this finding. For example, the beneficiaries of the
Corporación de Desarrollo Productivo (CDP) del Cuero project reported that the program opened
new and better paying employment opportunities for them, in general. Figure 3.3: Treatment effect on the probability of looking for a job
At the same time, the probability of currently studying generally fell for the treated individuals, more so than for control respondents. ACIP beneficiaries now spend less time studying than their
peers, after completing the training course with ACIP and now working. The evaluation team examined the time that respondents spent at work. Figure 3.4 shows that ACIP
has a slight positive effect on the probability of working part time or less.45 There is a similar slight
(5%) negative effect on participants’ probability of working full time or greater. These results
suggest that the beneficiaries have been employed for less than four hours per day, which may also
help explain why they are looking for other jobs.
44 Bogota’s results deserve a separate explanation. First, figure 3.1 shows that for this city the program has a null or very small
effect on the probability of being employed. Meanwhile, figure 3.2 shows that the largest effect of ACIP on the probability of
looking for employment occurs in Bogota. This evidence suggests that in Bogota, jobs were more difficult to secure, either for
scarcity or some other reason. 45 The effect is significant to 95% in the model without attributes, and 90% in the model that includes attributes.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 22
Figure 3.4: Treatment effect on the probability of working part time or less
ACIP seeks not only to help participants find jobs, but also to ensure that their employment is
formal and provides them with benefits. Figure 3.5 shows that ACIP has a positive effect on the
probability of having a written contract, which reflects an important advance toward formality. There is also focus group evidence of ACIP’s positive effects on formality. In Barranquilla, for
example, participants valued the fact that the program enabled them to move from an informal
work dynamic to a formal one, and to manage their own savings. Many respondents cited this
move from informal to formal employment as an important change for them, opening greater
opportunities and more stable income. Indigenous respondents did not have greater likelihood of
a written contract, but the sample for that group was quite small, and the results therefore are not
statistically significant. Figure 3.5: Treatment effect on the probability of having a written contract
ACIP had no impact on the probability of having a verbal contract. This confirms that the positive
impacts of the training are being channeled through formal employment.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 23
It is expected that greater formality will correlate with increased affiliation with the health (EPS),
pension and occupational risk insurance (ARL) systems. Women, Afro-Colombians, and those in
Cali are significantly more likely to have health care, though the magnitude is low. Women, Afro- Colombians, and those in Bogotá and Cali are significantly more likely than control respondents
to be affiliated with the pension system. There is also some evidence that participants are more
likely to be affiliated with the ARL, though not in Barranquilla.
Finally, it is expected that ACIP would have repercussions on participants’ formal income. Figure
3.6 a positive and significant effect for the treatment versus the control populations in income
derived from a formal job.46 The difference is over COP$90,00047 higher per month for
participants. Figure 3.6: Treatment effect on formal labor income
This evidence, added to that presented above, leads us to respond affirmatively to the central
question of this chapter: has the Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP) increased
economic opportunities for minority groups in Colombia (referencing in particular the urban
beneficiaries)? In fact, this impact on income is significant for all cases except Bogotá.48 The
program increases income from formal employment for women, men, Afro-Colombians and
indigenous people, in Barranquilla and Cali. The effect is slightly less significant (90% confidence
level) for women and for Barranquilla.
The training offered in ACIP’s urban program gave many participants important new economic
opportunities, in large part because of ACDI/VOCA’s efforts to partner proactively with
companies looking to hire new employees with the right skill sets. There were a few respondents
from the urban program who said they would prefer different types of training: technical or
technological training, help with being entrepreneurs, and more challenging topics. Other training
46 Due to the design of the baseline survey, it was not possible to recover the income except in cases of formal employment. 47 Approximately USD$30, at exchange rates valid at the time of writing. 48 In the case of Bogotá, there is no significant difference in income. This might be because the income is null, or that the sample
size is too small to detect any differences.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 24
programs worldwide have failed by providing content that doesn’t meet the needs of business,
resulting in trained people without work. Input from participants could provide additional lines of
training that call for other types of business partnerships.
3.2 Economic Opportunities for Rural Beneficiaries
Summary: ACIP has had modest impacts on rural participants. First, it has increased their
levels of food security and the probability that they are able to pay for their food, important
factors in a rural economy. There are significant and positive effects on the probability of
being involved in productive activities and on the percentage of land area used
productively. However, no impacts are found on total expenditures and income.
ACIP seeks to increase economic opportunities in rural communities by providing technical
assistance, infrastructure and equipment for productive projects. ACIP projects include the
cultivation of cacao, coffee, citrus fruits and bananas, goat farming, forestry activities and fishing. The program has worked with the private sector and rural producer associations to ensure the
competitiveness of the productive units in existing markets, and to promote strategic value chain
partnerships. The program had supported 3,297 rural households, or 110% of its Life of Project
goal, by the end of FY2015.49 Figure 3.7 shows the rural survey sample used for the evaluation. Figure 3.7: Survey sample, rural participants, disaggregated by ethnic group and sex
Treatment Control Total
Indigenous 174 164 338
Afro-Colombians 139 196 335
Not self-identified as either 0 3 3
Women 56 189 245
Men 257 174 431
Total surveyed persons 313 363 676
Participants interviewed from these activities reported positive outcomes, such as improved quality
and production based on the ACIP technical assistance (TA) with a Kankuamo group in the Sierra
Nevada. They cite improved product selection and processing, as well as packaging for wider
markets. Another example is among San Andrés fisheries producers, who cite successful
renegotiation of prices and terms with new customers. Survey data supports some positive
outcomes for these participants. The empirical strategy used to evaluate the impact in the rural
sector is the same as that used for the urban component: paired differences, to compare the changes
in the outcome variables of interest between the baseline and the midline in the treatment and
control groups. As with the urban analysis, each figure reflects the coefficients associated with the treatment effect
and its confidence interval. Each model presented in the figures shows the estimated treatment
effect and its respective confidence interval. If that interval, shown in the figures as a line radiating
out from the points, crosses the 0 bar, the treatment effect is not significant at the 5% level. Some
49 Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP), Quarter 4 – FY2015, July-September. October 31, 2015, p. 27.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 25
findings, as noted below, cross that 0 bar only very slightly, and are significant at the slightly less
rigorous 10% level.
Figure 3.8 shows the program’s impact on respondents’ food security. In order to measure this
aspect, we used the Latin American and Caribbean Scale of Household Food Security,50 validated
in Colombia in 2007. This indicator is based on the responses to 17 questions related to food
security. It has a range of 0 to 17, with lower values indicating greater security. Since ACIP is
focused directly on households’ agricultural production capacities, it is expected that its
interventions would have a positive effect on beneficiaries’ food security. Figure 3.8: Food security index
In the models with51 and without attributes,52 we find a negative effect on the scale (i.e., greater
security is a lower index number), indicating a positive impact on the households’ food security, across the full rural sample. This result, which is highly positive given ACIP’s aspirations, is also
evident in the case of men53 and to a lesser degree for indigenous people. Focus group and
interview data support this finding. Participants report that projects developed under the traditional
farm model have improved the families’ food security by diversifying the type of food available
on their land.
This effect on food security is linked to the households’ capacity to pay for the food that they
consume. That is, if the program has a positive effect on households’ economic opportunities, it
would be expected that food security would increase due to the greater resources available to pay
50 Mayo 2012. Escala Latinoamericana y Caribeña de Seguridad Alimentaria Manual de Uso y Aplicación.
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3065s.pdf 51 For these models, we controlled for aspects such as the head of household’s age, gender, ethnicity and level of education, the
number of children in the home, and whether or not they were displaced as a result of the armed conflict. 52 In the case without attributes, the significance is at 10%, as is the case for indigenous respondents. 53 No effect is found for female-headed households, a result which is true throughout the analysis. Rather than showing that the
effect is not true for women, this is very likely a consequence of the fact that few rural households in the sample are female- headed. It is therefore difficult to find gender effects in the rural component, since the unit of analysis is the (generally male- headed) household, and not the individual, as in the urban component.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 26
for food, and not necessarily due to greater household consumption, given the characteristics of
the projects supported, which were mainly cash crops. Indeed, Figure 3.9 shows that the program
has a positive effect on households’ ability to purchase food they consume. This effect is evident
in the models with and without controls for households headed by a man, for indigenous people,
and in the Department of Cesar.
Figure 3.9: Food purchases
Project participants cite income from their projects that nevertheless remains below their needs.
The analysis goes on to examine whether ACIP impacts household income. There are two ways to
verify this hypothesis: by directly examining the households’ self-reported income, or by analyzing
the aggregation of expenditures. The second way is usually more reliable given respondents’
tendency to under-report income.54 Figures 3.10 and 3.11 illustrate the effects of the program on
these two variables. The results are clear: the program has neither positive nor negative impacts
on household income or expenditures. Positive impacts on food purchases and no effect on overall expenditures or income implies a
reduction in other expenses. This makes sense, as the program provides rural households certain
inputs that otherwise they would have purchased. Also important to consider is that income
reporting in rural areas is far from an exact science: people don't always use their funds in ways
that are expected, or report them with precision. People may misreport unintentionally, or because
54 This phenomenon has been documented over decades, including in developing country and Latin American contexts. See, for
example, Lustig, Nora and Ann Mitchell, Poverty in Mexico: Adjusting Survey Data for Under-reporting” available at: . Also
Pettersson, Hans. (2005). “Chapter XXIV: Survey design and sample design in household budget surveys.” In “Household
Sample Surveys in Developing and Transition Countries” Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistics Division, Studies
in Methods Series F No. 96. Accessed February 15, 2014 online at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/pubs/gesgrid.asp?id=349. Another
paper cites extensive expenditures data reported at “multiples” of reported income “Several papers have pointed out that the
reported expenditures of those who report low incomes often are multiples of their reported incomes (Rogers and Gray 1994;
Jencks 1997; Sabelhaus and Groen 2000)”; from Meyer and Sullivan, 2003, below, p. 18. Also Meyer, Bruce D., and James X.
Sullivan. (2003). “Measuring the well-being of the poor using income and consumption.” National Bureau of Economic Research
Working Paper Series; Working Paper 9760 accessed February 2, 2014 at http://www.nber.org/papers/w9760. Created for the
Joint IRP/ERS Conference on Income Volatility and Implications for Food Assistance, May 2-3, 2002.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 27
they think if they report increased income, they could prejudice their future participation. Since
respondents say they still don't have sufficient income to live, the latter possibility seems like it
could have affected reporting.
Figure 3.10: Treatment effect on family income (left) and total expenditure (right)
Though no impacts are found on expenditures nor income compared to control groups,55 certain
favorable effects on economic opportunities are reflected in other ways. As shown in Figure 3.11, ACIP has a positive effect on the probability that households are dedicated to productive activities. Figure 3.11: Treatment effect on productive activity
Second, participating households have increased the percentage of hectares used for productive
activities by virtue of participation in ACIP.56 This is clear in the case of projects based on the
55 Indicator data on rural income for the ACIP PMP is found in Annex E, including totals and relevant disaggregation. 56 Effects are significant at a 90% confidence level for the no controls and controls models.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 28
traditional farm model. Focus group respondents reported that production is improved through this
model because there is an emphasis on soil improvement, sowing, and product harvesting.
Households in the program are also more likely than control households to have received technical
assistance, which was widely used in the ACIP regions. In a focus group, Kankuamo respondents
stated that their operating capacity increased as a result of the technical strengthening of the coffee
growers whom the program supported. For them, the technical assistance provided to the
production and selection processes improved the indicators in the product’s value chain. 57 In the
Pacific region, in another focus group, farmers reported that specialized technical assistance helped
them strengthen their skills in managing their cacao production. Other communities require
additional attention, such as the Wiwa community in the Department of La Guajira. The members
of that community stated that the project did not include a component on the sustainability of the
value chain or marketing and distribution partners. A fisheries project participant focus group
reported the need for more TA on sustainability of the catch, while other focus groups revealed
strong desires for additional support as late yield crops come to fruition. They also request TA for
administration and accounting around productive projects.
ACIP’s positive effects on the rural sector are encouraging, particularly given that many of the
supported projects involve medium- and long-term crops. Sufficient time has not yet passed in
order to evaluate the economic impacts these kinds of projects.
3.3 Ethnic communities’ perceptions
This subsection presents findings on ACIP’s fourth component, though these results do not
represent an impact evaluation design. Result 4 (R4) has focused on the identity and self￾recognition of ethnic communities in Colombia. We interviewed the same samples interviewed for
R3 described in the preceding sections, with module on self-recognition and perception by
members of the communities studied, as designed at baseline.58 However, we did not repeat the
telephone survey of non-ethnic minorities undertaken at baseline, as the design lacked necessary
robustness to attribute any detected changes to the ACIP interventions.59 ACIP directed significant
effort at changing those broader opinions, and at direct activity beneficiaries, but the quantitative
data collected includes only those opinions held by R3 participants – who were not direct
beneficiaries of the component. At the same time, the evaluation team conducted qualitative
research work in various field sites to inform these findings on R4.
The urban and rural baseline and midline surveys asked about the perception of whether the
government is attending to the needs of Afro-Colombians and indigenous people. Figure 3.12
presents ACIP’s impact on this perception.
57 Organization respondents report having packaged, marketable product that now meets the required technical conditions. 58 As indicated above, the telephone survey was eliminated for midline because of the difficulty in making inferences from it. 59 Result 4 does not appear in the evaluation questions as a formal line of inquiry, which is likely why the firm conducting the
baseline did not design the study for wider and more rigorous inclusion of these topics among the sample.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 29
Figure 3.12: Government awareness of ethnic issues: rural (left) and urban (right)
The results show that ACIP has had a positive and significant impact for rural R3 respondents on
perceptions of government attention. Urban R3 respondents reported no effect on this perception.
Perhaps, in line with the qualitative information collected in this regard, the results are positive
among rural R3 respondents because ACIP implemented strategies such as the equipping of
specialized radio stations in rural communities. These strategies appear to contribute to individual
empowerment and awareness-raising about what the government is able to do.
The results are also dissimilar in terms of impact on knowledge about cultural traditions. As shown
in Figure 3.13, rural R3 respondents felt they had less knowledge, perhaps because their
participation increased their awareness of “what they do not know.” Among urban R3 respondents
the tendency was somewhat more positive. However, ACIP did not direct its cultural activities
toward the participants in urban job training or rural productive projects. These results, therefore,
are not the results experienced by direct beneficiaries.
Figure 3.13: Knowledge of cultural traditions rural (left) and urban (right)
Data from the research with rural R3 participants indicate increased involvement in activities to
claim collective rights, which aligns with the use of specialized media in rural areas that may have
had a positive impact on community proactivity. Another association reported the recovery of
traditional seeds, aromatic and medicinal plants, and agricultural techniques, as part of ACIP’s
positive cultural legacy. Six urban indigenous councils in Cali reported that they were
strengthened, with ACIP support, in recovering their cultural identity and in seeking to combat
uprooting through ancestral knowledge. Findings indicate that the program invested in media
infrastructure and in supporting radio stations and other media, which, again, do not target the
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 30
survey respondents directly. The increase in awareness around these issues may also contribute to
respondents saying they know less about traditions, as they learn “what they do not know” by
exposure to the program. This conclusion is speculative, but supported in other development
research regarding the effects of training.
The evaluation found no effect on R3 participants’ perceptions that they are discriminated against,
that their problems are usually ignored, or that it is more difficult for them to find work.60 This last
result is surprising, given that ACIP has clearly had a positive effect in the cities on the probability
of finding a job. People’s perceptions about prejudice from others are historically hard to uproot.
SECTION 4: CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES
4.1 Women and young people
This section summarizesthe main findings around ACIP’s cross-cutting issues. In terms of gender,
the quantitative results for urban economic opportunities (R3) show differential effects for men
and women. Generally, the magnitudes of the effects are greater for men, which is evident for
variables like employability and formal labor income. Comparing magnitudes, the increase in the
probability of being employed is 6.4 percentage points higher for men than for women.
Also, increase in income is COP$56.000 higher for men. It is safe to conclude that even though in
the cities ACIP has important effects for both men and women, these impacts are higher for male
participants. At 30% higher for men, this is an even greater difference than the national average
income gap for men and women, which the Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística
(DANE) puts at 20%.61 The news in organizational governance (R2) is more positive, since leaders
more frequently stated in interviews that the participation of women in assemblies and managerial
positions represent tangible strengths. In terms of young people, no advances are seen in terms of youth participation in their
organizations (R2), nor can we conclude that youth are generally more empowered. With regard
to economic opportunities, it is important to note that the entire urban program was focused on
young people, and so the positive results presented in this evaluation are ultimately positive results
for them. 4.2 Land
With support from the communities and ACDI/VOCA, the Land Restitution Unit (LRU) has
developed its capacity to assist ethnic groups through the methodological design, processes and
restitution demands from an ethnic perspective. However, INCODER (the main entity responsible
for territorial matters for ethnic groups) demonstrated a lack of either capacity or willingness to
title and guarantee these groups’ territorial rights, despite its agreement with ACDI/VOCA under
the program. During the writing of this report, President Juan Manuel Santos announced that
INCODER will be abolished and replaced with two new institutions62, which may be read as a
60 A socio-economic and political inclusion index created at baseline is included included in the indicator table for the ACIP PMP
in Annex E, including totals and relevant disaggregation. 61 According to DANE, national income gender gap is of 20% (see http://www.eltiempo.com/estilo-de-vida/educacion/brechas- salariales-entre-hombres-y-mujeres-en-colombia/15353195) 62 http://www.elheraldo.co/nacional/santos-anuncia-la-liquidacion-del-incoder-231828
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 31
demonstration of the office’s inefficiencies or other problems. Lack of a strong GOC institutional
partner has influenced ACIP’s ability to meet goals with regard to titling, though restitution work
with the collaborative LRU has continued.63
Based on the observations and interviews in rural areas, INCODER did not resolve the majority
of petitions and proceedings that ACDI/VOCA has worked on with the communities for the titling,
clarification and expansion of resguardos and collective territories, due to a lack of political will
and the problems of continuity caused by the turnover of agency personnel and managers. ACDI
VOCA has provided technical and logistical assistance since 2012 for three collective titles for
Caribbean Afro-Colombian communities (Palenque, Boquilla y Orika) that did receive titles. This
support helped to build the case for titling through supporting socioeconomic, legal and land use
studies. But it took external factors to finally secure the titling action, the first in the region and 19
years after the law that established the possibility was enacted. The first two were said to have
been granted because of a specific political context (President Obama’s visit in 2012 and the
Colombian President’s need to demonstrate actions to benefit the Afro-Colombian population),
and the last was the result of Constitutional Court Decision 680 de 2012.
Since data collection for the evaluation concluded, further land titling processes have successfully
concluded. For instance, in late 2015, the ACIP project reported that two communities whose land
rights efforts it supported had gained formal land title. The Rio Naya Afro-Colombian Community
Council achieved formal land title to an estimated 177,000 hectares of ancestral territory, providing
land rights to more than 18,500 Afro-Colombians who reside there; and the indigenous council
Eperara Siapidara del Naya secured land title to 756 hectares, benefiting 58 families.64
Furthermore, ACIP encountered some resistance to collective titling in the Caribbean area, in spite
of related workshops and awareness-raising sessions, for two key reasons. On the one hand,
collective titling is not considered a traditional form of land ownership in a small number of Afro- Descendent communities surveyed, as private family ownership is the prevalent concept in these
areas. In some cases, members of communities also saw economic potential from the use of their
land for tourism and commerce, which they felt would be better served by private family titling. Given that the instruments presented collective titling as the norm, only those respondents in this
minority of sites reported this disagreement. However, it is something to consider in programming
across diverse sites.
4.3 Perceptions of the program
The final questions posed in this evaluation were related to beneficiaries’ perceptions of ACIP. First, the beneficiaries were asked whether the program has met their expectations, on a scale of 1
to 5, with 1 meaning that their expectations were not met, and 5 meaning that they were fully met. Only 11% of rural respondents stated that the program did not meet their expectations at all, while
19% stated that it fully met their expectations. The most common response was 3, with 33%,
indicating that the program met beneficiaries’ expectations to some extent.
63 By the first quarter of FY2016, ACIP had, according to its M&E reporting, met or surpassed all of its Life of
Project land-related targets under four indicators: Land cases supported (125%); Collective territories formalized
(100%); Rural hectares formalized (100%); and Households with formalized land (100%) (Source: ACIP Quarterly
Report Q1 FY 2016.pdf, p. 31). 64 ACIP Quarterly Report Q1 FY 2016.pdf, p. 10.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 32
The results in the city are more favorable, where only 8% stated that the program did not meet
their expectations, and 35% stated that it fully met them. The most common response among urban
participants was 4, with 30%. That is, the positive perceptions of the program are greater in the
city than in the countryside. Focus groups align with this positive assessment and also provide
greater information on what might be improved. For example, urban respondents in focus groups
valued the trainings, but they also expressed that other areas of training more aligned to their
preferences would have been be more to their liking. The second crucial question for measuring perceptions of ACIP, more precise than the first, is
whether the participants would recommend the program to a relative or friend. The results in the
countryside are very strong: 84% would do so. The results in the city are even better: 93% of the
beneficiaries would recommend the program. These positive perceptions are somewhat stronger
in the city than in the countryside, perhaps a consequence of the urban intervention’s immediate
results versus the rural intervention’s longer-term projects with later-yield crops. CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Throughout this evaluation report, the team has presented the findings and conclusions that emerge
from quantitative and qualitative evidence. This section brings those conclusions together and adds
our recommendations, in terms of both short-term (during the remaining six months of ACIP
activities) and longer-term (corresponding to future programming decisions.) Some
recommendations bridge this difference and could be started while ACIP is still running, but
should also be considered for future programming. These distinctions are noted in the text.
In terms of R1, the ICIAE scores and their comparison with the baseline show that, at the aggregate
level, State entities have not made overall progress in strengthening their attention to ethnic
minorities. The score is only one measure, and when aggregated, it masks the experiences of given
sites, types of institutions and capacities. At the level of individual dimensions that comprise the
ICIAE, there is evidence of some progress. In particular, the program has been successful in
supporting the planning and formulation of public policies in favor of minority groups, while the
success in implementation, monitoring or evaluation of the policies is not evident. As a result, the
team recommends that, in the short term, the program strengthen technical support to develop
instruments that monitor and evaluate the implementation of these policies at the municipal and
departmental levels. Stronger technical and logistical partnerships with mayors’ and governors’
offices may also work to serve this purpose. Establishing veedurías (citizen oversight committees)
among affected groups to monitor and support the implementation and monitoring of the new
policies is also recommended, not only for monitoring implementation of policies but in following
the land processes discussed below. ACIP may have time to lay groundwork and initial veeduria
activities, perhaps in some but not all sites, and USAID should consider the recommendation about
veedurías in future programming.
ACIP has provided logistical support to help the organizations take part in spaces provided by
territorial and, to some extent, national institutions of the State. This participation has led to
organizations’ participation in formulating public policies and in events on specific themes relating
to ethnic minorities. These activities were carried out principally in large cities, and for this reason
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 33
the evaluation team recommends deepening these efforts in small and intermediate cities in future
programming. In addition to logistical support, ACIP has used its influence to bring policymakers
and citizens together to make plans and policies. This effort is all the more important given some
evidence of resistance to ethnic-focused programming, low institutional capacity in some areas to
implement it, and the sometimes fragile nature of national and territorial government commitments
to these populations. Given ACIP’s success to date with these challenging efforts, we recommend
the support be continued where opportunities arise or can be triggered by ACIP’s intervention, through the end of the project. The findings from in-depth interviews with governors’ offices and secretariats suggest that there
are important resources budgeted for programs for minority populations. At the same time, in many
sites, actual expenditures cannot be monitored for their execution because they are not itemized
by ethnic group. The team therefore recommends that ACIP continue to support the construction
of development plans that dedicate funds to minorities transversally across these development
plans, and that future programs take this administrative challenge on board in planning. However,
we further recommend a specialized effort on this front: to first identify a selection of cooperative
sites as pilots, working with the institutions to develop a way to program, itemize and monitor the
investments. Results from such pilots would be helpful both for USAID and for the GOC, particularly if ACIP can manage to do so, even in a small number of sites, before close-out. Increases in staff dedicated to attention to the needs of minority groups in some regions show that
these alcaldías and gobernaciones can be counted on to increase their efforts in tangible ways.
Respondents also laud the training they received. The team therefore recommends that future
programs intensify support to these positions, with greater duration and adult learning best
practices such as coaching and learning-by-doing, leaving installed capacity in these state bodies.
It may be useful to monitor turnover among positions that have had training, to assess the degree
to which capacity remains or is lost.
At the same time, the calculation of the ICIAE and the additional qualitative fieldwork show
greater difficulty for ACIP at the national level. Two government organs dedicated to these
populations no longer exist; the ICIAE of another dropped precipitously; and the vital relationship
with INCODER resulted in no interview at all. The GOC announced in December, 2015 that
INCODER would be abolished and replaced with two new institutions, underscoring its lack of
effectiveness. We recommend early and engaged relationships, supported by USAID, with the
newly formed institutions in any future programs. If ACIP is able to establish initial relationships
in the time remaining in the program, this is certainly recommended. This kind of advocacy would
make known that land issues are important to USAID and to ethnic organizations – who may not
be able to advocate at the national level en masse – and could move the already-prepared land
processes along, prior to the close of the program. The importance of these current events – the
closure of INCODER and the initiation of new institutions dedicated to land issues – cannot be
overstated. These events create an opportunity for ACIP and its successor projects, and/or USAID
itself, to make inroads with those new government bodies and to ensure that ethnic minorities’
land issues are included as part of the agenda. The likely peace accord and post-accord period
further offer an opportunity for USAID to push the prioritization of these land issues in
programming design, both in their own activities and in those where USAID supports post-accord
government decision-making. USAID should capitalize on this opening through ACIP in the near
term, and by promoting these priorities in their ongoing discussions with the GOC.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 34
In terms of strengthening organizations (R2), one fundamental conclusion is that women’s roles
have grown in the dimensions of participation in assemblies and in the taking on of leadership
roles. For youth, leaders cite youth participation consistently as a weakness, despite the ample
ACIP activities with youth organizations. Encouraging youth leadership in existing organizations
is therefore a pending task for future programming. In terms of autonomy and administration, the organizations themselves identify progress that
results from their work with ACIP: they now have their own plans, an important step. However,
great weaknesses are also cited, such as the lack of their own capital to put those plans into effect, and a strong general perception that their execution of projects is lacking. Despite the value of
developing and managing their own plans, their sustainability is highly in question if their sources
of financing remain murky. The long-term recommendation of the team, then, is to focus efforts
on this self-sustainability, both so that they can secure resources and so that they can formulate
and execute projects independently. Wherever short-term attention can be provided, case by case,
to organizations that are attempting such processes on their own, ACIP would do well to provide
such support. Organizations also require additional capacity building around rights management;
which elements each organization needs should be quickly prioritized in consultation with them.
Then, ensure that organizations have begun to think about how to find resources and how to
advocate after the close of the program.
ACIP has also focused on opening spaces inside the organizations, increasing members’
participation but not contributing in the long run to their sustainability, as these spaces are not
formalized. However it is still at a mid-point in the process, and it is still possible that this
participation will be enshrined for the organizations as ACIP continues working with them. The
evaluation team would recommend formalizing these spaces for members’ ongoing contribution
and participation. This can be realized through modifying the organizations’ bylaws or by
agreements with traditional authorities in the short term, and by including this in future programs. With respect to economic opportunities in rural and urban areas, ACIP has supported important
gains for participants. In urban sites, ACIP has increased employability, formality and income for
beneficiaries, due in large part to the capacity building with young participants and to important
and successful alliances with employers. There are variations in individual measures, by site and
by sex, which should be further investigated and addressed. In particular, ACIP should look into
the lower wage dividend that women have gained because of participation – to discover what might
explain it, and how to combat this differentiation. One possible differentiator – childcare – was
addressed in San Andrés, where childcare was provided in some cases. Other sites may benefit
from attention to this detail.
Another recommended exercise is to review the employment programming. The significant
difference in outcomes for women and men deserve to be investigated thoroughly: are there
important differences in the jobs or job conditions for which men and women were trained? Are
employers paying women less or channeling them into certain work categories? Do the work
categories need to be expanded or re-thought in any way? What could operators do differently to
attract women to the program, such as childcare assurances or varied training and job
opportunities? Are there other ways of outreach to women that were not explored? Is there any
follow-up measure or measures that could assist women to maintain their employment after
training? What explains the significant salary discrepancy? This “after-action review” could
significantly improve follow-on activities and should be done while staff are still with the project
and able to comment knowledgeably on the decisions and challenges encountered. We recommend
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 35
it also include attention to possibly distinct urban indigenous needs, along similar lines of inquiry, as these populations may have different needs than their rural counterparts. In rural areas, while the advances are mixed in income and expenses, there are important impacts
in food security, efficient use of territory and self-support. From now until the program’s close,
ACIP should ensure that all productive projects are deeply integrated into their respective value
chains. ACIP team members can and should provide their detailed lessons learned as part of close- out, to apply ground-level knowledge to explicit questions about what works and what does not.
In medium- and longer-term projects, such as late-yield crops, USAID projects should support
producers with interim income generation activities, as they cannot reliably and solely live off
traditional farm produce during the years necessary to await these cash crops’ production.
The chief conclusion of the evaluation with respect to household economy is that, contrary to
experiences in many other countries, the strategy designed to promote economic opportunities for
Colombia’s ethnic minorities has been successful. In the medium and longer term, the benefits
promise to be even greater, as the productive projects begin to bear fruit. Meetings with the
producers on their TA needs could fruitfully be had as this final implementation period
commences. Abundant openness to their stated needs, to the degree possible, is recommended.
A small number of indigenous organizations reported particular problems with the way productive
projects were incorporated into their cultures and communities. While the number is not large, it
bears further investigation. As one of its closeout activities, ACIP regional staff should assess the
degree to which projects were incorporated into indigenous life in the communities they served.
This is an opportune time to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of decisions taken. We
suggest that staff across regions check projects in other regions, to allow fresh eyes to conduct the
review, and that they include community members in the reviews to ensure multiple perspectives.
Regarding positive messages around ethnic issues, the evaluation team offers limited conclusions
based on the surveys with R3 respondents and qualitative data. The greatest impacts are found on
the beneficiaries’ own perceptions – but that these differ whether respondents are in urban or rural
areas. Rural R3 beneficiaries have a better perception of the State’s concern for their issues, and
greater participation in claiming their collective rights. However, among urban R3 respondents,
this perception of improved attention to ethnic needs is not apparent, nor do they report now
participating more in claiming ethnic rights. Urban R3 respondents do, however, see impact in
recuperating knowledge of their cultural traditions, while rural respondents do not. These different
perceptions likely stem from the nature of the context and R3 interventions in rural and urban
areas. Some principal indicators of program success – perceptions of discrimination or that their
problems are ignored – showed no improvement among either rural or urban R3 respondents. While this does not preclude work in either rural or urban environments on these issues, there is
room for seeking out best practices, maintaining realistic expectations about impact, and designing
strong and replicable evaluative methods to track progress. This recommendation applies to the
remainder of the ACIP program but even more so to longer-term efforts to change messages about
ethnicity.
The team offers two conclusions with regard to cross-cutting themes in the intervention. First, the
evaluation team found good progress in women’s participation in participating organizations,
while at the same time more leaders lamented low youth participation than at baseline, despite
ample ACDI/VOCA activities in this vein. The team recommends a strong focus on youth
participation in future programming, if this continues to be important to USAID; the 2012 Youth
Policy, which has taken time to roll out, suggests that it will. There may be room to adapt these
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation 36
guidelines, however, in line with what youth respondents are interested in – such as creating their
own organizations or chapters instead of holding leadership positions in the organizations of their
elders. Second, progress on land titling has been minimal, anecdotal at best, despite a great deal of
program effort. In large part this is due to the difficult relationships with national-level bodies such
as INCODER. In contrast, ACIP’s recent work in supporting communities with their “damages
and infringements” model has led to progress in initiating a series of land restitution claims in the
courts.
Beneficiaries’ perceptions of ACIP are generally very positive, even more so in the urban areas
than in the rural. ACIP’s operating model is appreciated and is a valuable experience that should
be replicated with the goal of increasing economic opportunities and political inclusion for ethnic
minorities in Colombia.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 1
ACIP MID-TERM EVALUATION
ANNEXES
ACIP Mid-term Evaluation Annexes...............................................................................................1
Annex A: Design and Analysis........................................................................................................3
Quantitative measures...................................................................................................................3
Survey analysis.............................................................................................................................5
Qualitative measures.....................................................................................................................9
Qualitative analysis.....................................................................................................................14
Study limitations .........................................................................................................................15
Annex B: Additional ICAE Figures...............................................................................................17
Annex C: Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations Table ....................................................22
2. To what extent has GOC attention to the needs of ethnic minorities increased? ...................22
2a. To what extent has the capacity of the GOC to protect and grant ethnic minorities their
legal and political land rights increased?....................................................................................32
3. To what extent did Community-based Organizations participate in policy design and
enforcement processes (i.e., FPIC)? ...........................................................................................36
4. To what extent has governance improved in ethnic territories? .............................................36
5. To what extent has ACIP increased economic opportunities for Afro-Colombian and
indigenous populations? .............................................................................................................46
6. How effective were the strategies in empowering women and youth? ..................................57
7. To what extent has ACIP increased positive perception about ethnic issues? .......................62
8. To what extent program participants (both beneficiaries or institutions) report having a
positive perception about the Program? .....................................................................................65
Annex D: Regression Tables..........................................................................................................68
D.1 Economic Opportunities in the City ....................................................................................68
D.2 Economic Opportunities in the Countryside........................................................................80
Annex E: Indicator table ................................................................................................................96
Annex F: List of Entities, Organizations and Individuals Interviewed..........................................98
Annex G: Evaluation Statement of Work ....................................................................................100
Annex H: Data Collection Instruments........................................................................................112
Script for updating contact data from baseline respondents.....................................................113
Institutional capacity for ethnic care instrument (ICOE) .........................................................116
Version for entities where an ethnic group is in the majority ..................................................116
Institutional capacity for ethnic care instrument (ICOE) .........................................................124
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 2
Complementary questions guide ..............................................................................................130
Community and Ethno-Territorial Organizations questionnaire (ECOA) ...............................133
Community and Ethno-territorial Organizations focus group guide ........................................143
Rural beneficiaries questionnaire .............................................................................................145
Urban beneficiaries questionnaire ............................................................................................162
Rural focus group guide ...........................................................................................................174
Urban focus group guide ..........................................................................................................176
Annex I: Disclosure of any Conflicts of Interest..........................................................................178
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 3
ANNEX A: DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
EVAL conducted this mid-term measure of ACIP’s contributions to significant and sustainable
change in the socioeconomic and political inclusion of indigenous and Afro-Colombian
populations in targeted geographic areas. A mixed methods – qualitative and quantitative –
approach was used to examine a set of indicators for each result pursued by the program. The
evaluation sought to understand changes in policies, practices, attitudes and decision-making
among community based organizations and partner institutions with respect to ethnic populations.
The survey design, instruments (Annex G) and samples established at baseline were continued in
this mid-term measure, to conserve comparability. A control sample interviewed at baseline was
re-interviewed, in a longitudinal, quasi-experimental panel approach, allowing detection of
program impact over time. The evaluation also replicated the baseline data on attitudes and
perceptions of ethnic groups, to measure influence ACIP may have had through cultural activities
and promoting ethnic heritage in the media. As a panel design, only individuals and groups
interviewed at baseline were sought for interviews at mid-term. The evaluation team also conducted structured interviews with the institutions and organizations
involved with ACIP, with the same instruments (see Annex G) used at baseline to capture change
over time on indices of key practices related to ethnic care, institutionality and community
representation. This component of the design does not meet the standard of an impact evaluation.
A small number of comparison institutions were included at baseline, but most comparison
institutions declined to be interviewed at both measures. For both institutions and organizations,
the evaluation team also posed additional questions about the progress to date of their ACIP
participation. For institutions, the instrument differed slightly for sites with and without a
majority ethnic population.
The sections that follow detail the components of the evaluation design, field research and
analyses.
Quantitative measures
The survey design, sample, instrument and analysis were created in 2012-2013 at the outset of
the ACIP program, by the Colombian firm Econometría. The design is an impact evaluation:
baseline, midline and endline measures using a quantitative questionnaire, across a sample
comprised of:
1000 rural hoseuholds between treatment (those that are intended to participate of the in
the intervention) and control (those that will not participate) groups will be surveyed; and
1400 tretament (TRM) and control (CTR) indviduals will be surveyd in the urban area.
Finally, 1200 individuals (TRM+CTR) that do not belong to ethnic communities will be
contacted by telephone to conduct a survey. (ACIP Final Baseline Report, Econometría)
The evaluation surveyed 2,368 participants in economic opportunity programming, as shown in
Tables A.1 and A.2:
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 4
Table A.1: Urban survey sample
Treatment Control Total
Indigenous 86 55 141
Afro-colombians 412 338 750
Not self-identified as either 7 60 67
Women 308 288 596
Men 197 165 362
Total surveyed persons 505 453 958
Table A.2: Rural survey sample
Treatment Control Total
Indigenous 174 164 338
Afro-colombians 139 196 335
Not self-identified as either 0 3 3
Women 56 189 245
Men 257 174 431
Total surveyed persons 313 363 676
According to the baseline Final Design Report and Final Report, and communication with the
firm in charge of implementing the baseline, control groups for both the urban and the rural
components of Result 3 were chosen through a quasi-experimental method called Covariate
Balance Propensity Score (CBPS). As a result, treatments and control groups are balanced across
a wide range of individual and household-level characteristics, which makes them comparable.
However some characteristics remain unbalanced and hence, any empirical analysis that is
carried out to investigate the impacts of the Program should control for relevant characteristics.1
The survey instruments are structured as a traditional household survey, differentiated for rural
and urban participants. They include modules as follows:  Contact and demographic data on the respondent and his or her family unit, including
participation in other social programming
 Housing
 Media consumption and perceptions of ethnic groups (to capture impacts from ACIP’s
Result 4, Positive Messaging on Ethnic Issues)  List experiment question on exposure to violence related to armed illegal groups  Participation and community activities  Perceptions of the ACIP program (added only at mid-term)  Household income and transfers  Household expenditures and food security (rural only)  Characterization of land ownership, sale and use for productive projects (rural only)  Savings and debts (rural only)
1 Controlling for additional individual and household characteristics, even if these were balanced in the baseline, is also a good
idea as this would improve the precision of the estimates.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 5
 Training and work histories, including formality and unemployment (urban only)
We trained team members in data collection methods, ethics and logistics, and data collection
was undertaken over four months’ time. There were significant delays owing to the need for
formal prior consultation with some indigenous resguardos, and with the remoteness of some
sites. The level of attrition was high enough to prohibit using the same sample and design for a
third impact evaluation measure in 2017. More detail on actual attrition is included below.
Survey analysis
Assuming participants were successfully matched with similar controls at the baseline, midline
attrition may be nonrandom and hence the comparability of the final sample for the analysis may
be compromised. Hence, we will first check if attrition is correlated with any baseline
characteristic differentially in the treatment and the control groups. If this is the case, and for
consistency with the baseline, we will pre-process the data and conduct CBPS in order to
construct a balanced sample for the analysis.
Second, we conduct difference-in-differences to estimate the impact of the Program on a number
of outcomes of interest. This method allow us to estimate the differential gains (between the
baseline and the midline measurements) that Program beneficiaries obtain in outcomes related to
material wellbeing, relative to the control group. The typical difference-in-differences
specification is of the form:
€
Yit = a + b1Treatedi + b2Midlinet + b3(Treated × Midline)
it +d'Xi +eit, where Y is the outcome of interest, Treated is a dummy variable that identifies Program
beneficiaries, Midline is a dummy variable that identifies midline responses, and X is a vector of
individual and household characteristics, especially those that were unbalanced at baseline. 3 is
the coefficient of interest as it identifies how participating in ACIP increased wellbeing relative
to the baseline in excess to any change in wellbeing that the control group may have experienced
in the same period. This approach is followed for analyzing results 3 and 4 of the evaluation, across the indicators established at baseline, as follows:
Table A.3: Indicators for urban program
Inidcators Variables
Employment  Employment in 2012 and 2013  Unemployment in 2012 and 2013.  Unemployment duration in months in 2012 and 2013  Worked hours per week in 2012 and 2013.
Formality  Formal jobs.  Social security benefits  Contract type
Income  Monthly income paid in the job in 2012 and 2013
Quality of
Employment  Occupation in 2012 and 2013  Company Sector in 2012 and 2013  Position(salary worker, self employed, employer, domestic worker) in 2012 and
2013
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 6
Source: Econometría S.A.
For the rural sample, the indicators were as follows in Table A.4:
Table A.4: Indicators for rural program
Dimension Indicators Variables
Productive unit
 Productive Unit Characteristics  Area of the farm/productive unit (s)  Property type of the farm/productive unit(s)  Distribution of uses in the land  Trasnport Acces to the farm /productive unit.  Time needed to Acces to the farm /productive unit.  Economic Activities of the Productive unit  Main and secondary activities  Product propose (trade, gift, community)  Total earnings of main activity  Main commercial destiny of products  Percepcions of Productive Unit.  Perception of change between 2012 and 2013  Perception of advantages and difficulties  Desired spending of returned earnings of the project  Land trade  Land purchases  Land sales  Land assigned by community  Land purchases by the community
Debt and
saving  Savings  Savings possession in 2012 and 2013  Savings actual amount  Savings formality degree  Debts and credit  Productive unit debts  Amount of productive unit debts  Source of productive unit debts  Pourppose of household debts in 2012.
Legality culture  Coca planting affinity  List experiment
Household
living
conditions
 Housing  Dweling  Electricity  Property  Household members characteristics  Education level  Job status  Income generation to the household  Household spending  Food weekly spending  Total monthly spending  Monthly cash transfers to dependent households  Income  Monthly income paid in the job  Monthly government transfers  Monthly other no monetary incomes
Food
sovereignty  Perception of food insecurity in household  Insecurity household scale
Women
empowement
 Decision making  Expenditure  Productive activities  Land tenure  Titles  Use of time  Principal activity during the week  Secondary activity during the week  Participation  Women participation on organizations
Source: Econometría S.A.
Sample Attrition
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 7
One sensitive aspect of the evaluation is the sample attrition that occurred between the baseline
and this midline, as we discuss in the limitations section below. In the urban case, around 32% of
the interviewees could not be re-interviewed. Of this group, 16% could not be contacted again,2
11% refused to be interviewed, and 5% were not available.3 Such a large sample attrition
generates concerns about the evaluation, because if the absence of data is correlated with
observable or non-observable attributes, the program’s impacts on the outcome variables would
be biased. The objectives of this section are to determine whether there is indeed evidence for
concluding that the sample attrition is not random, to propose a technique for weighing the
effects of this problem, and to verify the robustness of the results.
Indeed, the first step is to verify whether the sample attrition is correlated with the attributes of
the interviewees and with their status as participants in the program. For this purpose, a
regression is estimated using the entire baseline sample, in which the dependent variable is
dummy that is equal to 1 if the individual could not be re-interviewed at midline, and 0
otherwise. As dependent variables, we use treatment status (which is equal to 1 for program
participants) and the different attributes used to characterize the interviewees. In Figure A.1 we
present the coefficients associated with this regression, which reflect the correlation between
sample attrition and treatment status and attributes.4
Figure A.1: Correlation between attrition, treatment and attributes
The results are reassuring. The sample attrition is not correlated with treatment status. Also, there
is no correlation between the sample attrition and any of the attributes, except one: age. The
probability of losing an interviewee at midline is greater for the youngest individuals. This result
is intuitive and not surprising. Given that young people are more mobile and have less economic
and employment stability, it is to be expected that they will change their residence and telephone
number more frequently.
2 No one in the household responded or answered the telephone, and the relatives did not know of the interviewee’s whereabouts. 3 They traveled to another city, or were in prison or the army, etc. 4 The regression table associated with this graph is presented in Annex D.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 8
Thus, the results suggest that after controlling for the age of the interviewees, the sample attrition
is random and would not skew the estimate of the impacts. In order to determine whether the
results are robust to the sample attrition, we determined the common support for the age variable,
that is, we eliminated the observations of the treatment whose age did not have an equivalent pair
in the control group were eliminated, and vice versa. In other words, the pairing was refined in
order to ensure equivalence in the variable that explains the sample attrition. By eliminating
observations that are not in the common support for age, this variable stopped being correlated
with the sample attrition, as reflected in Figure A.2. This Figure shows that by restricting the
analysis to this common support, the sample attrition is not correlated with treatment status or
any attribute.
Figure A.2: Attrition, treatment and attributes. Common support for age
The last step in this analysis consists of re-estimating the effects of the program on the outcome
variables of interest, but restricting estimates to the sample that survives the common support for
age. Figure A.3 shows that, in general, the results are robust to this problem. The models were
estimated for employability; job search; study status; part and full time work; written contract;
verbal contract; EPS, pension and ARL affiliation; and income from formal employment.5
5 The coefficient for income does not appear in the graph because it is in another scale. The results of all of the estimates are
contained in Appendix xx.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 9
Figure A.3: Robustness checks
Again, ACIP was found to have a positive and significant effect on the probabilities of being
employed; looking for work; having a written contract; and health, pension and ARL affiliation;
and on income from formal employment. The effect on the probability of studying is negative.
All of the results coincide with the analysis in which we do not account for the sample attrition,
except for the variables of part time and full time work. The coefficients continue to have the
same signs as before (positive and negative, respectively), but they are no longer significant. This
fact is not surprising because, in any case, these results were not very robust in the original
analysis and the magnitudes were very low.
Qualitative measures
Two indices were created with companion instruments, to measure highly qualitative data on
progress within institutions and organizations, using a quantitative yardstick. From
Econometría’s Final Baseline Report, the design of these two results measures was as follows:
To measure the baseline situation of this results, a structured interview will be
implemented for 7central State institutions, 4 departamental and 12 municipal institutions
that are intended to recive the intervention and 2 departamental and 3 municipal
institutions that will not be part of the Program; this instrument, develop by CONSUCOL,
will alow, besides exploring the individual questions and secondary information of each
instution, to construct a Institutional Capacity Index of Ethnic Care (ICIAE). For the
organizations, a semi-estructured interview will complement the information of the
ECOA, deepening on women and youth participation; the instrument will be applied to 45
organization intended to be part of the Program.
The ICAE was used in two versions, one for areas with an ethnic majority, and one for areas
without an ethnic majority population. The ICAE is comprised of the following dimensions and
indicators (the instruments can be seen in Annex G):
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 10
Table A.5: Breakdown of the ICAE items
Dimensions Indicators Variables
Public Policy and Planning Norms Issued  Laws  Ordinances  Agreements  Decrees
Policies included in the Development Plan  Existence chapter or ethnic or differential focus program in
the PD with certain characteristics (clear goals, resource
allocation, etc.
Policy documents in addition to the
Development Plan  Existence of policy document of the national entity, territorial
or specific entity (Policy Variable work ethnic / territorial
employment plans ethno-sensitive) (Variable ethnic GSP
and SGR)
Programs and projects  Existence of ethnic or differential approach in programs  Existence of investment projects ethnic or differential
approach them
Action Plans  Existence of plan of action with ethnic component
Monitoring implementation and results  Monitoring reports financial and product development plan
(global) and entity  Reports of effects and impacts of the development plan
(global) and entity
Fiscal Resources: Budget and
implementation
Operation  Amount ethnic units operating resources  Participation in total budget authority  Relative growth to the previous period
Investment  Total investment resources for ethnic communities  Share of total investment of the entity  Relative growth to the previous period
Organization and human resource Unit responsible  Existence dependency or group to ethnic affairs  Dependence level in the organizational structure  Sufficiency of physical resources available
Human Resource  Number of staff exclusive or partial plant dedicated to ethnic
affairs  Number of contractors dedicated to exclusive or partial
ethnic affairs  Hierarchical level  Professional level  Knowledge and experience of officials responsible for policy
matters differential ethnic / Linking organizational social
movements and ethnic communities
Information Systems Diagnostics  Existence of date analysis of ethnic communities status
Records, censuses and surveys  Existence of records care operations ethnic communities  Censuses and surveys that incorporate the ethnic
dimension
Information  Existence management reporting, monitoring and evaluation
of actions and outcomes of care for ethnic communities.
Transparency and access  Site availability information list on Ethnic Communities
Coordination Existence and operation of instruments and
coordination spaces  Plans articulators levels of government in response to ethnic
communities  Spaces for coordinating activities within and between levels
of government.
Participative Management Prior Consultation  Inquiries made  Results of previous consultations
Spaces for participation  Existence of policy participation spaces and activities to
assist ethnic communities  Type of participation in such spaces (decision, advocacy,
consultation, information)
Accountability  Type of accountability  Frequency
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 11
Products Services offered (subsidies, assets, educational
quotas, credit, training, etc.)  Units offered during the year
Hedges  Coverage of ethnic communities
Source: CONSUCOL SAS (2013), in Econometría’s Final Baseline Report
Sixteen institutions (slated for intervention) were interviewed with this instrument at baseline,
and ten at midline. Two institutions had been dismantled, and four refused interviews. The
midline evaluation included Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development; Governor’s offices of Guajira, Cauca and Cesar; and Mayor’s offices of Quibdó,
Maicao, Santa Marta, Barranquilla, Silvia, Cartagena and Valledupar. The Mayor’s office of
Valledupar and the Governor’s office of Cesar were to serve as control, but there were too few to
serve as an adequate comparison.
The ICAE was developed to quantify the highly qualitative results of institutional strengthening
that differed greatly by site. While the index can show a comparable picture of change across
institutions, the great variability between sites – such as those with and without an ethnic
majority, or within one of those groups, or even between institutions at the national, departmental
or municipal level – makes makes it difficult to assert with confidence that that comparative
picture is complete and robust. Another important consideration is the respondent from each
institution who answers the questionnaire. If it is the same person as at baseline, the changes cited
will likely be more accurate and reliable. But with the high level of institutional turnover, this
could not be guaranteed, despite the data collectors’ best efforts to find the original respondent.
The instrument is also very long and demanding, in particular seeking information (documents,
budgets, etc.) from among varied sites and personnel. All of the data needed to complete the
questionnaire do not reside in one person, but across a set of geographically linked institutions
and offices. This further brings into question the robustness of the data collected: when reports,
budgets and other documents were not accessible, the only choice in the index is to count their
lack as a “no” in the index, which brings the dimension and overall scores down – even if, in fact,
that document exists. Several respondents declined to answer the questionnaire and resistance
was linked to the difficult nature of the instrument and time required.
The ECOA similarly includes a set of indicators over several dimensions designed to capture
organizational capacity at two points in time. The questions, however are different: rather than
asking yes/no or scale questions, the organization leaders who answer the questionnaire are asked
to name three strengths and three weaknesses across a set of dimensions. Their answers at
baseline are then compared at midline to detect differences in the perceptions of what
characteristics are organization strengths and which are weaknesses. The dimensions under
scrutiny are the following:  Democracy and participation
 Autonomy and administration
 Cultural identity and social and human development  Territorial management and control  Representation and advocacy
The ECOA instrument asks other questions about each dimension but the primary quantitative
data come from the naming of strengths and weaknesses. The organizations that answered the
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 12
questionnaire in 2015 (37 of the original 42 interviewed at baseline) are found in Annex E. Table
A.4 shows the dimensions and indicators of the ECOA, and the variables queried in tabular form.
Table A.6: Breakdown of the ECOA items
Dimensions Indicators Variables
Governability and
Autonomy
Democracy and participation
 Frequency in conducting meetings  Preparation of assemblies  Participation in the assemblies  Results of the assemblies  Monitoring of the assemblies agreements  Training efforts arising from the meeting  Results of committees formed by order of the assemblies  Women participation in committees  Youth participation in training  Term period in management positions  Women participation in leadership positions  Youth participation in leadership positions  Rotation of manager positions  Training to renew manager positions  Carrying out trainings  Frequency of directors’ meetings  Decision making process  Records of proceedings  Internal regulations  Topics that managers communicate regularly  Means used to communicate  Other authorities or influential leaders in the organization  Relationship between managers with other actors
Autonomy and administrative
management
 Organizations own plan evidence.  Interconnection between local and municipal – departmental development
plans.  Level of involvement in the formulation of the local plan  Implementation progress in of the local plan.  Systematization process  Management Accounting Records for the last two years.  Accounting Records  Petty cash management  Bank accounts management  Financial Statements  Procedure Manuals  Control and Auditing  Tax liabilities  Training in administrative and accounting  Assets of the organization  Operational equity capital  Organizational budget
Cultural identity and human development
 Communities’ members’ knowledge of the organization plan.  Communities’ awareness of fundamental rights or higher laws  Legal procedures or social mobilization actions taking place to ensure
recognition of their ethnic group.  Preserve cultural identity  Identification of goods, resources or traditions considered vital for cultural
cohesion  Primary education access management  Secondary education access management  Technical Education access management.  College access management for  Project productive management  Project infrastructure management  Service Project management  Social Security Project Management  Women participation in the organization  Youth participation in the organization
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 13
Dimensions Indicators Variables  Conflict management in communities
Management and control of the territory
 Ethnic Territory Status  Land Management Plan  Cartographic Boundary Territory  Environmental Management Plan  Delimitation of sacred sites and / or spiritual territory  Mechanisms for managing territorial disputes  Areas of environmental preservation  Food Sovereignty Areas in the Territory  Accomplishment of land use plan and environmental management plan of
the territory  Knowledge of regulations to protect the territory  Internal agreements to protect the territory
Incidence and political
interlocution
Political representation
 Representation in CMP
 Representation in CTP
 Representation on advisory boards or departmental tables  Representation in Municipal Commissions  Representation on Boards  Participation in public policy debates in the Municipal Council  Participation in public policy debates in the Departmental Assembly  Participation in public policy debates in Congress  Participation in Alliances  Participation in public policy formulation process  Training process for public policy advocacy
Advocacy
 Enactment of ethnic rights in political participation  Ethno education ethnic rights and culture exercise  Exercise of ethnic rights regarding Own Health  Implementation of ethnic rights in Childhood - Youth  Implementation of ethnic rights in Women  Knowledge and diffusion of Victims Law
 Knowledge and diffusion of anti-discrimination law
 Knowledge and diffusion of the Restitution Law
 Social Control - Oversight  Actions to enforce the rights  Prior Consultation  Specific Justice  Knowledge and dissemination of Women Act  Knowledge of mechanisms to exercise their rights
Source: CONSUCOL SAS (2013), in Econometría’s Final Baseline Report
The ECOA is also a long and involved instrument, which consolidates responses generally from
one group leader. It has two main weaknesses. First is the format of asking leaders what three
aspects of a given dimension he or she considers strengths and weaknesses. This is not a ranking
of a list of elements or aspects, but rather a longer list from which the strengths and weaknesses
are chosen. It is complicated and the results subjective as a result, and something that may have
been a strength at baseline may continue to be a strength, objectively, but be ignored in favor of
another aspect. In this way, answers we might access about each asect are subsumed under a very
subjective method that is fraught with challenges for the respondent.
The second weakness is that a leader answers the questions without input on the dimensions from
a wider variety of members of the group. As a result, the richer information that might emerge,
particularly from historically underrepresented groups within an organization (youth, women,
sub-groups) are lost. As with the ICAE, the value of the instrument lies in the detail of variables
within each dimension; however, the weaknesses of the instrument make it difficult to interpret
improvement and decline with certainty.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 14
The evaluation team also conducted in-depth interviews with 76 leaders, officials, and ACIP
staff, and 14 focus groups with indigenous and Afro-Colombian participants. These activities
utilized instruments (Annex G) that touched on the array of topics and activities related to the
ACIP interventions.
Table A.7: Interviews and Focus Groups
Men Women Totals
Interviews with Afro-Colombian leaders 17 10 27
Interviews with indigenous leaders 21 7 28
Interviews with municipal officials 2 5 7
6
Interviews with departmental officials 2 1 3
Interviews with national officials 1 1 2
Interviews/groups discussions with ACIP team members 4 5 9
Focus groups with indigenous respondents 6
Focus groups with Afro-Colombian respondents 8
Qualitative analysis
Three different methods are used to analyze the data collected through the tools described above
for the qualitative component of the evaluation: descriptive, comparative and content analysis.
Descriptive Analysis: It aims at finding evidence and points of reference to understand: (i) how a
particular situation or process happened, (ii) which events and circumstances where definitive for
its occurrence and (iii) which were the stakeholders involved. However, it does not intend to
explain the reasons why a particular course of events took place or why a certain set of results
was obtained. For the purpose of this evaluation, descriptive analysis allowed the qualitative team
to provide a detailed picture of the processes that have taken place through the implementation of
ACIP, documenting its strengths, the obstacles it has faced and identifying possible opportunities
for its improvement. Inputs for this type of analysis will be obtained through in-depth interviews
and focus groups.
Comparative Analysis: It aims at evidencing the relationships, similarities and differences
between projects with common objectives and characteristics, or between outcomes of the same
intervention. This analysis was used to provide a qualitative explanation of the results obtained
through quantitative tools. Comparison was also used to analyze how circumstances have
changed over time, aiming at identifying improvements, barriers and regressions that have
happened through the implementation of the project. Furthermore, this enhances the possibilities
of making adjustments to the development of activities, targeted both at institutions and
organizations. Inputs for this type of analysis were obtained through semi-structured interviews
(designed at baseline), in-depth interviews and focus groups.
Content Analysis: It aims at identifying how and why a particular state of things came to be. It
allows to further explain the findings resulting from the comparative and descriptive analysis. For
6 Two of these were comparison sites, which are not used in the analysis as the sample size was too small to be indicative.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 15
this evaluation, this type of analysis was useful during the revision of documents and strategies
specified previously described. Inputs for this type of analysis were obtained through focus
groups and in-depth interviews.
Study limitations
The evaluation design followed in this study has certain limitations. First, the design does not
allow us to determine a causal effect of the program on the State’s attention on ethnic issues
(Result 1) or ethnic organizations strength (Result 2). Under the technical definition of the term,
the analysis of these results does not correspond to an impact evaluation. Instead, the analysis
corresponds to a performance evaluation, in which the evolution of certain outcomes is tracked
over time, in order to determine if a particular result is seen or not, but without evidence that
supports a causal link from the intervention per se. For Results 3 (economic opportunities) and 4
(positive messages on ethnic issues) an impact evaluation is in fact conducted, as quasi- experimental techniques are employed in both cases. However, for Result 4, only a selection of
the original design was repeated – in fact, the impact evaluation component. There was an
additional sample at baseline, in which telephone surveys were conducted of non-ethnic citizens.
Unfortunately, this element was not rigorously replicable. Because results would therefore not
provide useful evidence of a change over time in positive messages about ethnic issues among
non-ethnic populations, this element was excluded from the midline measurement.
Second, the main of limitation of the study is the high degree of attrition in each component. In
the case of Result 1, for instance, in this midline the team was able to interview 10 out of 16
entities who were originally surveyed during the baseline. Two of these six entities were not
interviewed because they no longer exist, the others because they refused the interview. Similarly
in the case of Result 2, just 37 of the original 42 organizations were interviewed. The five
interviews that were not interviewed at midline were lost because of logistical challenges and the
unwillingness of some organizations to be interviewed.
Nonetheless, the highest level of attrition was suffered in the quantitative survey carried out to
measure Results 3 and 4, as about 30% of the interviewees could not be re-interviewed. This was
true for the urban sample as well as for the rural. Some of them could not be found, particularly
among the urban attrition; among the lost rural sample were a large number of refusals to be
interviewed, and respondents who were unavailable. Despite these issues, corrective measures
were adopted to assure comparability and robustness of the evaluation. The indexes of R1 and R2
were adjusted and recalculated so that baseline and midline results were comparable. And in the
case of the quantitative survey, statistical techniques were employed in order to correct the
pervasive consequences of attrition.
As noted in the text, attrition imposes two costs for this type of evaluations. First, it may bias
results to interview respondents who are not a representative sample of the universe of
participants. To address this issue, we employ matching techniques that reveal that results are
quite robust. The second effect is that the reduction in sample size imposes costs in terms of the
precision at which impacts are calculated. Table A.8 shows the exact sampling costs of attrition.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 16
Table A.8: Effect of Attrition on Sampling Error
Difference (from baseline to midline and
between treatment and control) that we
want to be able to detect
Sampling error
at baseline
Sampling error
at midline
Percent increase in
sampling error
40% 3.2% 3.9% 22%
20% 3.9% 4.8% 23%
15% 4.0% 4.9% 23%
10% 4.1% 5.1% 24%
5% 4.1% 5.1% 24%
It is fair to conclude that attrition is costly in this case, but also that the cost is moderate. For
different levels of treatment effect, as revealed by the table, the percentage increase in sampling
error is within the 22-24% range. Even when seeking differences as small as 5% from baseline to
midline, the new sampling error reaches acceptable errors. It is important to note that many of the
differences found in this evaluation, especially for the urban sample, are above 20%. For such
differences sampling error after attrition is lower than 5%.
For the final measure or endline in 2017, nearly all of those interviewed in the midline will have
to be located and interviewed again to maintain the level of rigor that meets impact evaluation
standards for USAID. As in this round, those conducting the evaluation should attempt to reach
each 2015 respondent by telephone prior to going to the field, at approximately three months
prior to field work. The level of failure at midline in reaching respondents by phone (because of
unworking numbers, refusals and unanswered calls) nearly perfectly mirrored the actual attrition
found in the field. Therefore, this round of phone calls in 2017 will serve to alert the evaluation
team prior to field work as to whether the third round is feasible, or if attrition continues to be
high.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 17
ANNEX B: ADDITIONAL ICAE
FIGURES
Figure B.1, below, breaks down the results of the ICAE by dimension and by type of institution
for entities without an ethnic majority: national, departmental and regional.
Figure B.1 Average ICAE results by dimension, for non-ethnic majority population
At the departmental level, there were advances in public policy and planning, investment
resources, and human and organizational resources, and setbacks in information systems and
participatory management. Finally, at a municipal level, there were advances in public policy and
planning, and human and organizational resources, and setbacks in investment resources,
information systems and participatory management. In Annex B we present the results broken
down by dimension for each institution interviewed, with the aim of determining the strengths of
each entity, as well as their areas for improvement.7
In Figure B.2, institutions with an ethnic majority. At a departmental level, there are increases in
public policy and planning, information systems and participatory management, and reductions in
investment resources, human and organizational resources, and capabilities and projects. At a
municipal level, there are advances in public policy and planning, human and organizational
resources, information systems, participatory management, and capabilities and projects, and
declines only in investment resources.
7 Note that the sample size for national versus departmental and municipal entities is too small to support rigorous comparisons.
7
12
10
14
12
6
10
7
6
11
7 7
10 10 9
11
20
15
5
8
7
12
8
9
8
9
10
9
3
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
Public Policy and
Planning
Investment
Resources
Organization and
Human Resources
Information
Systems
Participatory
Management
National baseline
National midline
Governors baseline
Governors midline
Mayors baseline
Mayors midline
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 18
Figure 1.6 Average ICAE results by category, for ethnic majority population
Results of the ICAE for the national institutions interviewed in both the baseline and the midline
surveys, in this case, the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development (MADR). The decline in the score for the MADR is pronounced.
Figure B.3 ICAE- National-level institutions, overall results
Scores for national institutions based on the scope of attention to the needs of ethnic groups.
7
4
13
12 12
6
15
0
5
15
13
2
5
12
6
6
10
5
8
6
9
9
14
8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Public Policy and
Planning
Investment
Resources
Organization and
Human Resources
Information
Systems
Participatory
Management
Capabilities and
Projects
Governors baseline Governors midline Mayors baseline Mayors midline
16
65
40
59
50
54
0 20 40 60 80 100
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development
Ministry of Interior
National
Baseline
Midline
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 19
Figure B.4 ICAE- National-level institutions, results by dimension
Scores for departmental institutions in the baseline and midline, in this case for the governments
of Cauca and La Guajira.
Figure B.5 ICAE Departmental-level institutions, overall results
Scores for departmental institutions based on the scope of attention to the needs of ethnic groups.
4
0 1
5
6 6
11 12
17
13
7
20
14
8
16
7
13
7
11 11
0
5
10
15
20
25
Public Policy and
Planning
Investment
Resources
Organization and
Human Resources
Information
Systems
Participatory
Management
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development midline
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development baseline
Ministry of Interior midline
58
51
55
43
53
48
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Governor's office of
Cauca
Governor's office of La
Guajira
Governors
Midline
Baseline
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 20
Figure B.6 ICAE Department-level institutions, results by dimension
Scores for municipal institutions in the baseline and midline, in this case for the municipalities of
Maicao, Quibdó, Santa Marta, Barranquilla, Silvia and Cartagena, as shown in Figure B.7. Figure B.7 ICAE Municipal-level institutions, overall results
Scores for municipal institutions based on the scope of attention to the needs of ethnic groups.
7
4
13 12 12
6
15
0
5
15
13
2
7 7
10 10 9
11
20
15
5
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
Public Policy and
Planning
Investment
Resources
Organization and
Human Resources
Information
Systems
Participatory
Management
Capabilities and
Projects
Governor's office of La Guajira midline Governor's office of La Guajira baseline
Governor's office of Cauca midline Governor's office of Cauca baseline
35
77
60
23
29
24
41
62
53
43 39 35 33
44
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Mayor's office
of Maicao
Mayor's office
of Quibdó
Mayor's office
of Santa Marta
Mayor's office
of Barranquilla
Mayor's office
of Silvia
Mayor's office
of Cartagena
Total
Midline Baseline
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 21
Figure B.8 ICAE- Municipal-level institutions, results by dimension
8
12
10
15
18
8
14
7
0
5 5,4
14
9
9 10
5
12
13
16
18
12
8 8
11
9
10
4,8
12
14 14
10
11
8
17
2
13
0
10
12
1
0 0
5
9
2 3
11
5
4
0
1
0
17
8
4
6
12
0
11
7
0
13
4
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Public Policy and
Planning
Investment Resources Organization and
Human Resources
Information Systems Participatory
Management
Capabilities and
Projects
Mayor's office of Maicao baseline Mayor's office of Maicao midline Mayor's office of Quibdó baseline
Mayor's office of Quibdó midline Mayor's office of Santa Marta baseline Mayor's office of Santa Marta midline
Mayor's office of Barranquilla baseline Mayor's office of Barranquilla midline Mayor's office of Silvia baseline
Mayor's office of Silvia midline Mayor's office of Cartagena baseline Mayor's office of Cartagena midline
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 22
ANNEX C: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE
2. To what extent has GOC attention to the needs of ethnic minorities increased?
This question, which refers to Result 1, asks whether the program has affected State institution in terms of the following aspects: i) developing and implementing pro-minority
policies, ii) improving state planning and investment of public resources in ethnic communities and iii) ensuring that variables on ethnic minorities are captured in state
monitoring. EVAL collected data on 10 treated and 2 non-treated (comparison) institutions at national, regional and municipal levels, to reconstruct the Institutional Capacity
Index of Ethnic Care (ICAE) at midline. The analysis also includes the results from interviews with national and local public servants.
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
2.1 Institutions surveyed at midline obtained an overall average
score of 43.7 out of 100 on the ICAE (Institutional Capacity for
Attention and Ethnic Care) at midline, slightly lower than the
score of 46.8 obtained at baseline. Scores were more mixed
among the six dimensions of the ICAE (capabilities and
projects, participatory management, information systems,
human and organizational resources, investment resources,
and public policies and planning) but in general the trend was
a slight decrease on the index. Only four of ten treated
institutions showed an overall gain.  Average ICIAE percent change, Overall: -6.8%
 Average ICIAE percent change, National: -20.6%
 Average ICIAE percent change, Departmental: 21.1%
 Average ICIAE percent change, Municipal: -9.0%
The sample of sixteen government offices at baseline was reduced to 10 at
midline. Two government offices closed, and four refused the interview:
the Governor’s Office of Chocó, the Mayor’s Office of Bojayá, the Mayor’s
Office of Uribía, and INCODER. However, whether the evaluation team
included or excluded the six offices that did not complete the second
interview, the score was almost precisely the same.
There were 2 national, 2 departmental, and 6 municipal government
offices in the midline sample.
(2.1 - 2.4) ACIP’s activities
have had significant effects in
crucial dimensions of
attention to ethnic minorities,
such as public policy planning
and formulation, and not in
others, like implementation
of policies and the existence
of investment resources.
For the majority of
institutions interviewed,
overall scores fell from
baseline to midline, indicating
a general decrease in
institutional capacity to
attend to the needs of ethnic
minorities.
A major difference in all
scores is found between state
institutions in ethnic majority
R2.1 ACIP should focus its
efforts on supporting the
implementation of public
policies that were formulated
with its assistance. For this
purpose, it should: 1. Design
mechanisms and/or tools for
monitoring public policies 2.
Implement the public policy
oversight mechanisms that
have already been
established. 3. Continue
socializing the public policies
and other instruments with
local organizations and
leaders.
Technical and logistical
partnerships with Mayor’s
and Governor’s Offices
should be strengthened on
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 23
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
The total number of agencies treated by ACIP was 58. sites and in those places
without an ethnic majority,
reflecting a higher level of
intervention from ACDI/VOCA
and of motivation among
those institutions serving
majority ethnic populations.
this point, to ensure that
implementation and
monitoring continue after the
close of the program.
Establish veedurías (citizen
oversight committees) among
affected groups to monitor
and support the
implementation and
monitoring of the new
policies.
2.2 The ICAE score for entities with an ethnic majority is 13 points
higher overall than for entities without such a majority, in
contrast to what occurred in the baseline, where the scores
were equal.
2.3 Among ICAE dimensions, a significant positive change
occurred in public policies and planning, for entities both with
and without an ethnic majority. The most significant negative
change was in investment resources. The figures are as
follows (positive findings are in italics):
Sites with ethnic majorities:
Capabilities and projects: 32% midline, 29% baseline
Participatory management: 77% midline, 59% baseline
Information systems: 61% midline, 44% baseline
Organization and human resources: 42% midline, 45%
baseline
Investment resources: 23% midline, 50% baseline
Public policy and planning: 57% midline, 33% baseline
Sites without ethnic majorities:
Participatory management: 34% midline, 47% baseline
Information systems: 22% midline, 53% baseline
Organization and human resources: 45% midline, 44%
baseline
Investment resources: 57% midline, 55% baseline
Public policy and planning: 42% midline, 35% baseline
The results are the same whether all 16 institutions
interviewed at baseline are compared (ICAE 46.9), or only the
ten re-interviewed (ICAE 46.8). The ICIAE represents one, imperfect, measure of state
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 24
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
attention to ethnic minorities; this is broken down by ethnic
and non-ethnic majority sites, and by dimensions, to unpack
what has changed. Other more qualitative measures follow.
2.4 The scores for national entities show little advance. For the
midline it was not possible to interview some of these
entities, such as INCODER which is a vital project partner, and
another two that disappeared: the Presidential Offices of
Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Affairs. The evaluation team
perceived great reluctance on the part of INCODER to be
interviewed for the evaluation.
2.5 The National Public Policy on Gender Equality, approved in
2013, has a component for women, Afro-Colombians and
indigenous people, thanks to the participation of their
delegates in the roundtables, which was made possible by
ACIP support (Kambiri interview).
(2.3, 2.5 – 2.12) Policies have
been formulated
(instruments, methodologies,
etc.) for ethnic minorities in
most sites visited and at all
levels (though to a lesser
extent at municipal level), but
the results in terms of the
implementation of these
policies is not strong. Policies
were only recently delivered
and approved in many cases,
so ACIP still has time to
support implementation.
Implementing new public
policies is more difficult than
proposing and creating them.
This affects many of the
policies that came about as a
2.6 In October 2014, the Ministry of the Interior issued Decree
1953, “by which a special regime is created in order to
implement the Indigenous Territories with respect to the
administration of the traditional systems of the indigenous
peoples, until the Congress issues the law referred to by
Article 329 of the Political Constitution.” Per an interview with
Asociación de Cabildos Indígenas del Norte de Cauca (ACIN),
this decree was supported by ACIP.
2.7 The qualification and training of the staff of the Secretariat of
Indigenous Affairs of the Department of La Guajira
strengthened its capacity to propose work structures and
indigenous components for the departmental development
plan, thanks to the support of ACIP.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 25
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
2.8 ACIP supported the Land Restitution Unit in formulating the
methodology for the development of the ethnic territory
characterization studies that are necessary for the filing of
land restitution petitions.
result of ACIP intervention.
Some time remains in the
project to be able to ensure
implementation of some or all
of the policies recently
created as a result of ACIP’s
support. Since this
shortcoming is predictable,
however, it is evident that
programming efforts should
be targeted toward the
thornier tasks of
implementation.
2.9 The Secretary of Planning and the Secretary of Government of
Lloró did not know how to provide relevant information in
response to the survey. Several interviews were conducted
with different officials in the Governor’s Office of Chocó, but it
was not possible to obtain information in related to the R1
instrument.
2.10 In Barranquilla and Cauca, the evaluation and monitoring
processes have not been supported as yet because of the
little time since the approved policies have been introduced.
The Governor’s Office of Cauca and the Mayor’s Office of Cali
report that they have not approved any public policies related
to ethnic issues since their receipt of support from ACIP.
As of the field visit (in May 2015), none of the instruments
(Raizal public policy, Raizal Consultation Protocol, and
Development Plan Monitoring System of Cartagena with
regard to ethnic issues) had been implemented because of
their recent delivery (March 2015), nor had the Afro- Colombian Public Policy of Cartagena (2012) been
implemented, according to some leaders of three
organizations attached to the Gavilaneo Chapter, which has
monitored the same.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 26
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
2.11 ACIP supported formulation of public policies, 52 at Q4 end,
FY158 and their inclusion in municipal, departmental and
national development plans.  National: ACIP TA to MinInt and DNP on 115 FPIC processes with Afro- Colombian communities.  Cauca: collaboration with national gender policy  Barranquilla: public policy for Afro-descendants in Mayor’s office
 Santa Marta, Chocó and Quibdó: ACIP-supported information
systems.  Logistical support for meetings and events for the formulation of
policies, advice to the staff of territorial entities, and well-received
workshops and/or training for nearly 1,300 government personnel.  Interview data from Barranquilla, Cartagena, Cali, Lloró and Cauca
indicate no implementation as yet. In some cases the policies were
said to be newly passed, and had not had time to be implemented yet.
2.12 ACIP leveraged significant funds through public sector sources – USD1.43 billion at the end of the fourth year of the project –
and private sector sources – USD 18 million. Their public
sector goal was reached and the private sector goal was
exceeded by 38%. Sources included national-level Ministries,
departmental and municipal governments, specialized
agencies (SENA and CORALINA.) Specific efforts include:  In 2012 ACIP reports TA to the government of Chocó to access the
Gran Darien Contrato Plan, leveraging USD615 million for efforts to
fight extreme poverty across the region.  ACIP assisted the government in Cauca to access USD11.6 million over
eight projects funded by royalties.  ACIP supported three Raizal groups in securing organizational
strengthening grants, with cost-share from the department and the
local environmental authority.  Through Contrato Plan, ACIP leveraged USD3.6 million for the
8 Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP), Quarter 4 – FY2015, July-September. October 31, 2015, pp. 8-9.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 27
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
construction of a hospital in Acandí, 85% of whose population is Afro- Colombian, indigenous or Raizal
2.13 ACIP has provided logistical support to the Governor’s Office
of Cauca in carrying out events with the participation of ethnic
groups, but not in implementing public policies that had
previously been formulated.
(2.13 – 2.15) Part of the
support to policy formulation
has been ACIP’s support to
Afro-Colombians and
indigenous individuals and
groups to attend events and
participate in a variety of
spaces for collaboration with
government. This support has
been fundamental to their
participation and is more than
just logistical assistance but
rather using the program’s
influence to bring
policymakers and participants
together, and make plans and
policies.
This support becomes all the
more important in the light of
this resistance to ethnic￾focused programming (finding
2.28) and the sometimes
tenuous nature of
government spaces for
inclusive participation (finding
3.19).
Where government
legitimacy is low, and/or
there is no champion for
R2.2 Given ACIP’s success to
date with these challenging
efforts, we recommend the
support be continued where
opportunities arise or can be
triggered by ACIP’s
intervention.
2.14 ACIP supported meetings and awareness-raising sessions in
relation to the formulation of the Afro-descendant public
policy of the Mayor’s Office of Barranquilla ("Public Policy to
Ensure Respect for the Rights of the Black, Raizal, Palenquera
and Afro-Colombian Populations in the District of
Barranquilla"). This policy was approved in December 2013.
There is no evidence of the implementation of this policy or of
the effective awareness-raising of the Mayor’s Office (the
Council responsible for differential issues has never held a
meeting).
2.15 With support from ACIP, the Municipal Mayor’s Office of
Quibdó convened a group of women from different
organizations and associations to participate in the
formulation and development of the public policy for women.
And with technical support from ACIP, the Mayor’s Office of
Quibdó is currently formulating a youth public policy, which is
expected to be developed before the end of the current
mayoral term of office. However, the municipal
administrations of Lloró and Bojayá have not provided specific
information about ACIP’s relevance with respect to the
formulation of specific plans or policies.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 28
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
inclusive programming,
organizational participation
must become opportunistic.
2.16 The Governor’s Office of Cauca increased the resources
allocated to their budget item “Afro-Colombian and
Indigenous People in Territorial Coexistence” 41%, from 185
million COP in 2013 to 260 million in 2014. Only Cauca
itemized their budget by programs specifically aimed at ethnic
minorities; investment plans generally categorize budgeted
resources by strategic lines that are supposed to cover
minorities.
(2.16 – 2.21) Plans and funds
are destined across sectors,
while programming by
ethnicity is based on
populations – a fundamental
challenge for tracking. A
related problem is
information systems that are
not designed to track by
populations, nor are the
systems linked in functional
ways.
There is evidence that the
secretariats and governor’s
offices have allocated
investment resources to
programs concerning ethnic
minorities. But it is harder to
see that budgeted resources
were executed for the benefit
of minorities in specific
programs. The resources that
reach this population through
departmental investments in
categories such as housing,
economic development and
culture are very limited and
R2.3 In the final phase of its
operations, ACIP should work
with a subset of cooperative
institutions to develop
ethnic-focused investment
plan tracking and execution.
Results from such a pilot
would be helpful both for
USAID and for the GOC.
ACIP should support
development plans that
cross-link specific
components and programs
for the minority population,
since there are particular
investment requirements for
this population.
Another important route of
action is through the planning
and execution of
expenditure-monitoring
systems and community
oversight (veedurías) of
implementation. Oversight
could be enhanced and
communitized through
training participating
2.17 The municipal administration of Quibdó proposed as a four- year goal the management of approximately $584b COP,
which was 28.45% higher than the goal for 2013. There is no
evidence that the Governor’s Office of Chocó or the
municipalities of Lloró and Bojayá have carried out any
planning or investment of public resources.
2.18 The progress report on the goals of the Departmental
Development Plan with respect to Raizal issues and the
process of designing the Development Plan Monitoring
System of Cartagena showed that ethnic issues are part of the
strategic lines of the secretariat responsible for these issues in
that city, but not of the most of the other territorial
secretariats and directorates.
2.19 There is evidence of an increased budget for the ethnic
population in the Department of La Guajira (a majority
population) with respect to the execution of the 2008-2011
Investment Plan. However, the investment plan is broken-
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 29
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
down by strategic line rather than by ethnic component or
population group. Thus, the investment plan does not allow
for an estimate of the resources allocated to the
department’s ethnic minorities.
not itemized so not verifiable.
Investment plans in the
department development
plans do not always specify
specific investments for in
minority population issues.
Some plans, such as those of
La Guajira, include these
investments, but actual
expenditures are assigned to
categories of culture or
human development. The
assumption is that ethnic
minorities gain from these
line items, but monitoring
systems do not capture
execution or amounts for
minorities.
While it is true that this
methodology is designed to
include the ethnic variable in
a cross-cutting manner, it
runs the risk of homogenizing
processes and hiding actual
targeted investments.
organizations.
2.20 With support from ACIP, the Governor’s Office of Cauca
formulated six royalty projects in three thematic lines (ethno- education, culture, and productive projects). Only the two
projects related to ethno-education were approved by the
OCAD. In addition, this Governor’s Office and the Mayor’s
Office of Silvia have had specific budgets for activities related
to ethnic groups, which were planned with the preparation of
their development plans and supported with their POAIs.
2.21 The Mayor’s Office of Barranquilla has continued to finance
the employment program following the departure of ACIP,
although the new phase is not focused only on the Afro- descendant population. The Mayor’s Office financed the first
phase of the program with 700m COP, which corresponded to
19% of the budget. However, the Mayor’s Office of
Barranquilla is not specifically monitoring the budget
execution or the projects for the Afro-descendant population.
2.22 The Mayor’s Office of Barranquilla does not have a specific
group or office for the indigenous and Afro-descendant
populations, or officials who are dedicated exclusively to
ethnic issues. The Mayor’s Office of Quibdó has one staff
official and two contractors dedicated to attending to issues
(2.22 - 2.27) Some municipios
and departments have
increased staff dedicated to
assisting minority ethnic
population (employees or
R2.4 ACIP efforts to build
capacity of personnel in
partner institutions should
continue, across the
intervention sites with
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 30
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
of the minority ethnic population. There is an “Ethnic Affairs”
office attached to the Secretariat of Government, with an
assigned professional and an indigenous contractor.
service contractors), as does
at least one national body.
While this was not a stated
goal of ACIP, it can be seen to
reflect greater dedication to
the issues.
ACIP strengthens capacities of
the personnel hired to assist
the ethnic population.
Dedicated administrative
personnel are necessary and
leave installed capacity in the
offices, secretariats, Mayor’s
Offices and Governor’s
Offices. It also reduces the
number of training processes
required by the turnover of
personnel.
Some evidence suggests that
not all working relationships
with local institutions were
viewed positively by local
members, for lack of
coordination and for unclear
role assignment.
municipios and departments,
to the extent possible as the
program comes to an end.
ACIP should track turnover in
its partner institutions
throughout the life of the
project to have a hard
estimator of this potential
impact on cost and capacity.
For any project activities that
remain with institutions, ACIP
should redouble efforts to
establish institutional
agreements and
collaborations in which the
parties’ roles and
responsibilities are clear, to
strengthen processes across a
given entity.
2.23 The Governor’s Office of Chocó has one employee responsible
for ethnic issues, specifically indigenous issues. Several offices
interviewed had had no staff increase on these issues
(Mayors’ and secretariats’ offices of Maicao and Santa Marta
for example.)
2.24 The Land Restitution Unit (LRU) and the Governor’s Office of
Cauca have specific personnel for responding to the needs of
ethnic groups. The LRU’s work team was created thanks to the
support of ACIP and other international cooperation agencies.
2.25 The Office for Afro-Colombian Affairs of the municipality of
Riohacha increased its human resources for attending to the
population, from three people in 2013 to five in 2015 (due to
a departmental restructuring rather than to the specific
support of ACIP.) Training and counseling provided at a
municipal level has focused on installing capacity in each
institution.
2.26 The assistance provided by ACIP to the Mayor’s Office of
Cartagena is perceived by the officials interviewed as
continuous and enriching. On the other hand, officials and
contractors in the Governor’s Office of San Andrés believe
that they were not supported or integrated in the formulation
of public policy instruments and reports undertaken by the
Raizal consultants hired by ACIP, but rather that their only
role was to provide documents and logistical support to the
consultants.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 31
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
2.27 According to some national and departmental officials, some
agreements made with ACIP generated tensions,
misunderstandings, a lack of coordination, different
expectations of the work and difficulties in carrying it out,
given that the agreements were not clear about the roles and
responsibilities of the parties or how they were to coordinate
for the teamwork.
2.28 One of the perceptions shared in the interviews of various
local actors (officials, ACIP consultants, leaders) in San Andrés
and Cartagena and that came out of the training provided to
officials and contractors on ethnic rights and the Monitoring
System of Cartagena is that there still is still a lot of resistance
by officials and contractors to providing attention to ethnic
issues and a differential approach, because they view this as
discrimination and that it entails additional work that they do
not want to assume.
(2.28) Resistance in the
coastal context comes from
historically bad relationships
and discrimination directed at
Afro-Colombians. It is
currently aggravated by a
particular mayor, and by lack
of national-level guidelines on
differential attention to
minority groups.
R2.5 This issue seems well
out of the hands of ACIP, in
terms of what can be done to
address the problem.
Also see R2.2, above.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 32
2a. To what extent has the capacity of the GOC to protect and grant ethnic minorities their legal and political land rights increased?
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
2a.1 The INCODER interlocutors designated for the interview were
unwilling to be interviewed formally, to be taped, or to
complete the questionnaire about their participation in ACIP.
One functionary with whom our team spoke was willing to
answer only a few minutes of questions, to which he gave
very negative responses. He said he didn’t understand why
ACIP was intervening in the theme of land rights, where “it is
INCODER’s mission, where we have the technical capacity
and the knowledge, and in which ACIP has made no
contribution.” He acknowledged that INCODER has made no
substantive advances in the formalization of territories for
ethnic communities. He also mentioned “resenting the
requests from ACIP (for reports, stories, presentations, etc.)
and the lack of ACIP technical contribution, “because in the
end the ones who put in the majority resources was
INCODER” (cited by the respondent as 11b COP versus ACIP’s
4b COP.)
In late November, the president announced that INCODER
would be abolished and replaced with two new institutions
(from local press.) This adds considerable uncertainty to
processes for formalizing and titling collective and/or
individual ethnic territories, at least in the near term.
(2a.1 – 2a.8) Although the
ethnic groups enhanced their
territorial empowerment and
management of rights
through their participation in
the studies and procedures
for titling, expansion or
formalization of reservations
or collective territories,
INCODER did not often
formalize the protection and
guarantee of such rights.
INCODER’s failure to make
progress in these processes
adds to the communities’
distrust of the institutions
and reduces the credibility of
the work of ACIP in these
matters. This is a setback in
terms of community￾institution coordination,
which is fundamental for
advancing in the processes
for guaranteeing rights.
R2a.1 ACIP should continue
work with the ethnic groups
on the territorial
empowerment processes,
and to increase its work with
the institutions. This means:
1) early and engaged
relationships, supported by
USAID, with the newly
forming institutions that will
replace INCODER; 2)
monitoring the processes
with support from the
communities; and 3)
supporting the control
entities in the enforcement
of compliance.
This kind of advocacy support
by ACIP at this time, as the
program winds down, would
make known the land issues
that are important to ethnic
organizations – who may not
be able to advocate at the
national level en masse.
Working as well and as
quickly as possible with the
new institutions as possible
also could create
opportunities to move ACIP’s
2a.2 ACIP worked on both titling processes (with INCODER) and
restitution processes (with the Land Restitution Unit). In
contrast to the work with INCODER, ACIP work in
supporting communities with their “damages and
infringements” model has led to progress in initiating a series
of restitution land claims in the courts.
By the first quarter of FY2016, ACIP had, according to its
M&E, met or surpassed all LOP land-related targets under
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 33
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
four indicators: Land cases supported (125%); Collective
territories formalized (100%); Rural hectares formalized
(100%); and Households with formalized land (100%)
already-prepared land
processes along prior to the
close of the program. ACIP
can take advantage of the
new institutions’ potential
political will to do what
INCODER could not, quickly
and publicly.
2a.3 Indigenous professionals from Cauca have worked under the
project to formalize 20 properties. These processes are
subject to INCODER, which for its own reasons or capacity
gaps did not carry them out. Therefore, only the first phase of
the project could be implemented, for which the operators
and ACIP were responsible. Next steps depended on
INCODER.
2a.4 ACIP has worked diligently on some 44 processes in total
(including the 20 noted in 2a.2) with ethnic communities to
formalize the title, expansion or demarcation of collective
territories or resguardos. INCODER has issued a resolution in
only four. Of the six titling processes in which ACIP provided
support to Community Councils (CCs) in Bolivar, only three
have resulted in the issuance of titles (Palenque, Boquilla and
Orika); and orders granting titling have been issued in only
seven of 15 proceedings (11 for continental CCs and four for
insular CCs), but without further progress. Thus, a resolution
has been issued in only three of 21 ACIP-supported titling
proceedings. Also, in three expansion projects (one involving
the Kogui-Malayo-Arhuaco Reservation, and two phases of
the Kankuamo Reservation project), only the first phase of
the expansion of the Kankuamo Reservation has been
formalized. Further land titling processes successfully
concluded since the end of data collection include:  The Rio Naya Afro-Colombian Community Council achieved
formal land title to an estimated 177,000 hectares of ancestral
territory, providing land rights to more than 18,500 Afro- Colombians who reside there
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 34
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
 The indigenous council Eperara Siapidara del Naya secured land
title to 756 hectares, benefiting 58 families.
Of processes with the LRU, ACIP reports supporting 11
restitution processes with TA to the LRU; six of these have
been sent to judges
2a.5 According to leaders interviewed in Cartagena, and an INCODER
contractor, the three collective titles granted in the Caribbean region
(Palenque, Boquilla and Orika, as noted in 2a.3) were granted as a result
of factors external to the program, despite ACIP support. Two were
granted for political reasons (President Obama’s 2012 visit and the
Colombian President’s wish to demonstrate gains for the Afro-Colombian
population), and the last resulted from Constitutional Court Decision 680
of 2012.
2a.6 According to the leaders who participated in the San Andrés
Focus Group and the interviewed INCODER contractor, the
original study of land tenure in San Andrés, Providencia and
Santa Catalina was to be carried out over two years, given the
complexity of the territorial issues on the islands. However,
the study was approved for only six months, which, according
to them, means that the results, while important inputs, are
preliminary and need to be enhanced to produce convincing
figures and conclusions.
2a.7 Focus group participants in Cartagena and San Andrés, and
leaders interviewed elsewhere, say that INCODER does not
have the political will to formalize the collective titling of
black communities.
2a.8 During the performance of the INCODER–ACIP agreement,
there was high personnel turnover (four different INCODER
managers), preventing fluid dialogue, and affecting the
mechanisms, processes and results.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 35
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
2a.9 According to the participants in the Cartagena focus group, as
well as other interviewed leaders of ASOCOC, despite the
awareness-raising work that has been performed, there is
significant resistance to collective titling in a handful of
communities. This small number of communities do not
consider it to be part of their customs, due to the prevalence
of private family tenancy, and because they see great
economic opportunities for their land. Added to this is the
fact that self-recognition as Afro-Colombian is still resisted by
several in the community.
(2a.9) The concept of
collective titling (Law 70)
more easily fits the realities
and ethnic traditions in the
Pacific region than some in
North Caribbean. Hence, the
resistance of Afro-Caribbean
sectors of Cartagena to this
concept, the tensions in the
communities, and the
importance of tenancy
studies, such as the one for
the Archipelago, for
understanding and defining
concepts of territorial
protection.
R2a.2 Before collective
titling, ACIP should conduct
community processes for
reflecting on shared, local
concepts of a given territory
and pursue titling efforts (or
elect not to) based on
community wishes. ACIP and
the communities should
evaluate together whether
collective titling is
appropriate for their
circumstances, or whether
other territorial protection
models are more
appropriate.
2a.9 The LRU has made progress in land restitution processes for
ethnic groups. The LRU has carried out 38 characterizations
of ethnic communities as a preliminary step in land
restitution proceedings. Fourteen land restitution petitions
have been filed, and the special land restitution jurisdiction
has issued one ruling (Emberas - Alto Andageda).
(2a.9 – 2a.11) The LRU
director has spent several
years in his post and is widely
considered a strong leader of
this function. The LRU staff
are generally clear with
communities on what is
expected in order to make
progress on a given land case,
particularly by comparison
with other work with
INCODER. They also enjoy the
government’s backing as they
work with victims’ groups.
Other land cases (particularly
Please see R2a.1
2a.10 The LRU’s methodology for the development of territorial
and community demarcations was implemented by
conducting consensus-building processes with the
communities and reporting the results of each phase of the
restitution process.
2a.11 ACIP contributed to the formalization and delimitation of
Afro-Colombian and indigenous territories, helping improve
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 36
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
self-governance:  ACIP’s support to CRIC to draft petitions for 20 proceedings for the
recognition, demarcation or expansion of resguardos in Cauca
 ACIP-supported conflict resolution between two indigenous
communities that allowed them to demarcate their territorial limits.  The Kogui-Malayo-Arhuaco resguardo of the Sierra Nevada de Santa
Marta has trained personnel to carry out processes for legalization
and expansion, thanks to ACIP’s technical support. The resguardo is
developing a procedural manual in order to disseminate the
knowledge obtained in the project.
with INCODER) have
proceeded slowly, over a
period of multiple years, and
with the current abolishment
of INCODER promise to
remain problematic until new
institutional arrangements
are established.
3. To what extent did Community-based Organizations participate in policy design and enforcement processes (i.e., FPIC)?
Questions 3 and 4 are connected to Result 2 and its goal is to corroborate whether the program has strengthened CBOs. Instruments used reconstruct the Ethnic
Organizational Capacity Assessment (ECOA) index, whose purpose is to measure the capacity of ethnic organizations to advocate for their rights, work autonomously,
conduct necessary administrative and management tasks, establish territorial control, and carry out necessary political representation. The index data are complemented
with information gathered from interviews with 37 CBO leaders and focus groups with members.
4. To what extent has governance improved in ethnic territories?
ACIP seeks to strengthen State institutions and CBOs in order to improve governance in ethnic territories. Consequently, this question is connected to both Results 1 and
2, using data collected for ICAE and ECOA, plus the interview and focus group evidence mentioned for questions 2 and 3.
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
3.1 Several Raizal leaders and organizations participated in the
formulation, discussion and approval of the Raizal public
policy and the Raizal Prior Consultation Protocol,
supported by ACIP. The Wayuu Painwashi organization
participated in prior consultation processes with technical
advice from ACIP.
(3.1 – 3.3) FPIC processes were
strongly supported and
communities participated in
solidifying these processes by
establishing rules and
procedures and increasing
their capacity for
management.
R3.1 No recommendation
noted – ACIP should continue
to support this component.
3.2 ACIP also supported these processes with industrial and oil
companies. There is evidence of installed capacity in terms
of the ethnic communities’ management and knowledge of
the prior consultation policy.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 37
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
3.3 The change from baseline to midline in the ECOA index
score for organizations’ management of rights indicates
that organizations think these processes are much more a
strength than they did prior to ACIP.
4.1 The results of the ECOA index show that in terms of
democracy and participation, the main strength identified
by organization leaders is preparation of assemblies, while
the main weakness is participation by young people. Participation in the formulation of public policies is
recognized as a strength, but weaknesses are recognized in
terms of participation in Congressional debates. Illustrative
changes in perceptions of strengths and weaknesses
follow:  20% more see youth participation as a weakness  11% more see frequency of assemblies as a weakness  9% more see women’s participation as a strength
 12% more see preparation of assemblies as a strength
Average percent changes in proportion of women and youth
holding leadership positions in different types of treated
organizations:  Local Afro-Col %change women: %change youth:  Regional Afro-Col %change women: %change youth:  Local Indig %change women: %change youth:  Local Indig %change women: %change youth:  CSOs %change women: %change youth:  Women’s orgs %change women: %change youth:
EVAL interviewed 37 of 42 organization leaders interviewed at
baseline. ACIP intervened in 197 organizations.
(4.1 – 4.4, 3.4 to 3.9) Many
organizations demonstrate
significant advances with
respect to participation in
assemblies and participation in
the formulation of public
policies. Wide evidence
suggests that the inclusion of
young people is weak. In
general, the ECOA findings
suggest leaders’ much greater
awareness of their
organizations’ shortcomings
and willingness to learn.
ACIP’s support has focused on
creating meeting opportunities
within the organizations,
which has increased the
participation of their
members. These opportunities
to contribute and participate
are not yet sustainable or
formalized within the
organizations, but at midterm,
this is still a possibility. Women’s participation has
R3.2 ACIP should promote the
formalization of opportunities
for open dialogue in the
organizations, to sustain that
participation formally. This
can be done through
modifications of the
organizations’ bylaws, or
through commitments of the
traditional authorities in their
customary processes.
4.1b ACIP reports show involvement with youth organizations:  Youth Platform which comprises 30 organizations and 1,400
members, and which participated in the development of Quibdó’s
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 38
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
youth public policy.  Helping Youth Organization in Providencia and Santa Catalina
 Fundación SER AFRO in Santa Marta with technical assistance for
public policy involvement and leveraging funds for projects.  Activities with these organizations included leadership training,
cultural and sport activities, unique educational opportunities, and
support to youth chapters of those organizations.
improved in many aspects and
from many perspectives,
including in appreciation of
their leadership roles.
4.2 The frequent open meeting opportunities provided in the
different projects (training workshops, meetings, exchanges,
assemblies, etc.) supported by ACIP for the AMEN Movement,
Gavilaneo Council and ASOPRADUSE enabled members of
grassroots organizations to approach leaders, share knowledge
and information, and strengthen ties and decision-making.
4.3 The Wayuu Indigenous Community of the Epinayu Clan
maintained that its processes for participation and democracy
were not affected by the development of the project.
3.4 The Mayor’s Office of Quibdó brought together different
women’s groups and associations in the municipality to
formulate the public policy for women, with the logistical
and technical support of ACIP. 3.5 ACIP trained women’s civil society organizations in
Barranquilla and they then participated in the formulation
of the public policy for the Afro-descendant population.
However, they were not invited to participate, and were
not involved, in its implementation.
3.6 Red Munorca was trained on public policy issues, enabling
it to participate actively in the formulation of the
departmental public policy on women.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 39
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
3.7 Several Afro-Colombian women’s organizations, with
support from ACIP and the Presidential High Commission
for Afro-Colombian Affairs, organized a parallel event on
the occasion of the World Summit of Afro-Colombian
Mayors held in the city of Cali in 2013.
3.8 With the support of ACIP, the Ministry of the Interior, the
Ministry of Communications and the Presidential High
Commission for Afro-Colombian Affairs held an
international conference on “Afro-descendant Women – Democracy and the Consolidation of Political Agendas for
Afro-Colombian Women,” from April 10 to 13, 2013, with
the participation of 100 Afro-Colombian women leaders.
3.9 ECOA for leadership, illustrative ECOA scores:  17% more see the way decisions are made as a strength
 8% more see leadership rotation as a strength
 7% more see leaders’ communication as a strength
 15% more see women’s participation in leadership roles as a
strength
 5% more see youth participation in leadership roles as a
weakness  12% more see leaders’ relationships with other stakeholders
as a weakness  7% more see frequency of meetings with leaders as a
weakness  13% more see capacity building for leadership roles as a
weakness
4.4 ECOA for autonomy and administration, illustrative figures:  25% more see training in admin and accounting as a strength
 9% more see the organization’s financial statements and
procedural handbooks as a strength
 13% more see having and working on their plan as a strength
(3.10, 4.4 – 4-9) ACIP
supported training and
strategic planning processes,
the formulation of procedural
R3.3 ACIP efforts to build
organizational capacity should
continue, to the extent
possible as the program
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 40
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
 27% more see organization’s budgets as a weakness (which
focus group respondents linked to the infrequency of
assemblies, as there were no funds to promote and manage
the meetings.)  17% more see their plan’s articulation with local territorial
plans as a weakness  17% more see the systematization of org processes as a
weakness  8% more see their own mgt over the last two years as a
weakness
At midline as at baseline, respondents see the lack of
capital for their projects as the most important weakness,
affecting all operations, plans and activities.
manuals and other
administrative, accounting and
financial aspects that have
improved the capacities of the
organizations in the
Departments of Bolívar, San
Andrés and Cauca. However,
organizations in Chocó, Cauca
and La Guajira stated that they
need to be further
strengthened in these areas.
At this midterm point, given
the ECOA score and other
evidence, the organizations
still have weaknesses in other
areas. These can continue to
be addressed in the remainder
of the intervention, but some
are higher order tasks and
capacities that will take time to
develop and consolidate.
comes to an end. For content,
the survey data as well as
discussions with organizations
individually would provide
important inputs.
As part of the close-out
process the ACIP team should
work with organizations to
get ready for the end of the
program – linking them with
sources for further support
and capacity building per
their identified needs – so
they are able to continue
their growth and
improvement toward self- sufficiency.
4.5 The formulation of management plans (life plans) in several
organizations (as attested in the completion of the ECOA
questionnaire and in focus groups) with support from ACIP has
improved knowledge about the management and control of the
territory. However, this knowledge has not necessarily been
applied, as not all of the plans have been implemented.
4.6 In terms of governance and autonomy in Chocó, ACIP
contributed to the formulation of the ethno-development plans
with the Senior Community Councils, in order to think about and
plan the territory based on the needs of the Afro-Colombian
population.
4.7 In the framework of the project implemented with ACIP, the
AMEN Raizal Movement in San Andrés, ASOPRADUSE in
Palenque, ASOCOC (Association of Community Councils of
Cartagena), FUNSAREP and some other organizations associated
with the Gavilaneo Council of Cartagena developed accounting,
administrative and financial training and organizational
processes in order to strengthen their sustainability and
autonomy.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 41
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
4.8 Red Munorca modified its internal rules with support from ACIP,
in order to increase the participation of its members in decision- making processes.
4.9 ACIP’s contribution to strengthening administrative autonomy
has had varied results. While there are positive results in some
organizations, almost all of the organizations state in interviews
that they feel they do not have sufficient administrative
capacities to manage themselves. One example is the Wayuu
community of the Epinayu Clan, whose leader stated that its
processes for administrative autonomy were not affected by the
development of the project. In another example, social
organizations interviewed in Northern Cauca (Red Munorca,
Casa del Niño, UAFROC) received training in strategic planning
and administrative, accounting and financial matters. However,
according to their responses to the ECOA questionnaire,
weaknesses in these areas persist.
3.10 In the framework of the project carried out with ACIP, the AMEN
SD Raizal Movement coordinated the Raizal Pre-Congress and
Congress, at which more than 500 Raizals and guests of the
Governor’s Office defined and ratified central aspects for the
organization of the Raizal people: 1) structuring and members of
a Raizal authority; 2) review and approval of a draft
departmental Raizal public policy and Prior Consultation
Protocol; and 3) definition of a plan for the proposal of the Raizal
Statute (a law for the protection of the Raizal people).
3.11 Cultural identity and human and social development: illustrative
ECOA:  15% more see managing community tensions as a
strength
 18% more see members’ awareness of the org’s plan as
a strength
 10% fewer see cultural preservation as a weakness
(3.11, 4.10 – 4.12) ACIP
strengthened the cultural
identity of ethnic territories
through projects that
recovered the ancestral
knowledge of the
R3.4 ACIP should continue to
support community initiatives
to strengthen cultural
identity, coordinating its
efforts with the initiatives
developed at a national level
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 42
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations  5% fewer leaders called identifying vital elements of
cultural cohesion a strength at midline than at baseline
 Fewer see promoting any kind of education as a strength
communities. by the Ministry of Culture
through its heritage and
population directorates. This
is especially appropriate given
the short time till the end of
ACIP.
Where possible, ACIP should
provide organizations with tools
that enhance their sustainability,
such as training in the formulation
and management of projects, or
help them lay out a plan to get this
kind of capacity building from other
sources after the end of ACIP.
4.10 With logistical and financial support from ACIP, the AMEN Raizal
Movement in San Andrés, ASOPRADUSE in Palenque, ASOCOC,
FUNSAREP and other organizations associated with the
Gavilaneo Council of Cartagena developed workshops on ethnic
rights and the formulation of projects to empower their
communities and promote the enforceability of their rights.
Interviews with members demonstrate that they developed
these workshops in a differentiated manner, based on their own
needs and interests, and used their own trainers.
4.11 The Cooperativa Multiactiva Indígena Wayuu del clan Epinayu
(COOPWACE) stated that it had reestablished and strengthened
its cultural identity and organizational autonomy thanks to the
support provided by ACIP in improving the community’s
cemetery.
4.12 The six indigenous chapters in Cali (Inga, Yanacona, Quichua,
Guambiano, Nasa and Kofán) report that they were
strengthened with the support of ACIP in the recovery of their
cultural identity, as they sought to combat uprooting through
ancestral knowledge.
3.12 A public policy on indigenous people is being developed in
the municipality of Cali and roundtables are being held for
this purpose at the invitation of the Mayor’s Office.
(3.12 – 3.17) ACIP enabled
groups to participate in the
public policy formulation
processes conducted by the
territorial entities and the
national government, and lead
processes of capacity building
Please see R3.3
3.13 In the framework of the projects carried out with ACIP, ASOCOC and some Afro-Colombian organizations of the
Gavilaneo Chapter in Cartagena participated and presented
proposals (such as those related to the regulation of
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 43
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of Law 70) in important national policy
settings in which issues concerning the Afro-Colombian
population were discussed and decided, such as the Afro- Colombian Pre-Congress and Congress of Quibdó and the
National Commission on Prior Consultation.
and empowerment to enable
organizations to participate in
these opportunities, as well as
in discussions of specific ethnic
minority issues and application
processes, mainly in the large
cities.
These events were fostered
less in intermediate and small
cities and municipalities.
3.14 The Kankuamo and Kogui Malayo - Arhuaco indigenous
chapters participated in the formulation of public policies
through representatives of political parties and
organizations, such as CRIC and MAIZ.
3.15 The Mayor’s Office of Quibdó brought together different
women’s groups and associations in the municipality to
formulate the public policy for women, with the logistical
and technical support of ACIP. 3.16 ACIP trained women’s civil society organizations in
Barranquilla and they then participated in the formulation
of the public policy for the Afro-descendant population.
However, they were not invited to participate, and were
not involved, in its implementation.
3.17 In the framework of the project carried out with ACIP, some Afro-Colombian organizations associated with the
Gavilaneo Chapter held meetings with their leaders and
the Mayor’s Office of Cartagena in order to monitor the
Afro-Colombian Public Policy of Cartagena, which has been
in effect since 2012. However, the implementation of this
policy has not gone beyond the celebration of the
“Candanga” (a cultural event) on Afro-Colombian Day
(from interviews with ASOCOC and the Gavilaneo Chapter).
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 44
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
3.18 Management and territorial control: illustrative ECOA
scores:  14% more see their knowledge of relevant laws as a strength
 12% more see the demarcation of sacred sites as a strength
 31% more see the territorial management plan as a weakness  30% fewer see agreements to protect territories as a strength
(3.18, 4.13-16) Percentages of
positive change were quite low
overall. Respondents seem to
feel very weak in this area in
particular. This, combined with
the null or negative
institutional response to their
attempted actions related to
land, make this component of
organizational strengthening
especially weak – more for
external factors than for ACIP’s
intentions.
The development of plans for
the monitoring or
characterization of the
territory improved the
organizations’ knowledge
about this, as can be seen in
the Departments of San
Andrés, Chocó and Cauca.
However, there is evidence of
the need to enhance and apply
the knowledge acquired.
Formulating a plan is a
concrete task that is fully or
almost fully in the hands of the
organizations themselves;
however, implementation
comprises a series of external
R3.5 Use the advent of new
institutional arrangements
and political will around land
issues to push these agenda
items in as many cases as is
feasible between now and the
end of the program. Please
see also R2a.1.
ACIP should focus its
intervention until the end of
the program on supporting
the organizations’
implementation and
monitoring plans formulated
with its support. It can do this
directly, or by including this in
the municipalities’
development plans or as
technical annexes to their
land use plans. Organizations
require support with
advocacy and working with
government to put their plans
into action.
4.13 The formulation of management plans (life plans) in several
organizations (as attested in the completion of the ECOA
questionnaire and in focus groups) with support from ACIP has
improved knowledge about the management and control of the
territory. However, this knowledge has not necessarily been
applied; not all plans have been implemented. Interview
evidence suggests that some organizations have very little
knowledge about the routes of access to and enforceability of
their civil and territorial rights, per focus group responses. There
are definite gains in how to formulate plans, what categories to
include, and in knowing what their plans can do for them – which is a much broader and more hands-on understanding than
they had previously.
4.14 Community members report that the development of the Land
Tenure Study (San Andrés and Providencia), as well as the
studies and procedures on titling petitions and proceedings
developed by the AMEN Movement and ASOCOC, enabled
community members to learn about their territory and its
problems.
4.15 ACIP contributed to the formulation of the ethno-development
plans with the Senior Community Councils, in order to think
about and plan the territory based on the needs of the Afro- Colombian population. These plans address control of the
territory, the use of natural resources, and the types of
exploitation of natural resources.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 45
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
4.16 Through ACIP, the Association of Community Councils of
Northern Cauca (ACONC) was able to register 5,000 families in
its territories (out of approximately 21,000), and this
information was sent to the Governor’s Office and the
Constitutional Court. This characterization of the families was
required by a 2009 Court decision.
factors and challenges as well
as longer time horizons.
3.19 Management of rights: illustrative ECOA scores:  28% more see ethnic rights in ethno-education and
culture as a strength
 8% see knowledge of how to implement their rights as a
strength
 5% see ethnic rights in political participation as a
strength
Plus gains in knowledge of Victims’ Law (10%), Restitution Law
(11%), Anti-Discrimination Law (3%) and Women’s Law (2%) and
fewer saying these are weaknesses  19% more see ethnic rights in childhood and
adolescence as a weakness  6% more see ethnic rights in health as a weakness  10% more see citizen oversight groups as a weakness  10% fewer see actions for implementing rights as a
strength
(3.19 – 3.23) There are
valuable knowledge gains
reported that show that the
ethnic organization
respondents have
appropriated their capacity
building on rights
management. At the same
time, the improvements are
often in areas of knowledge
and awareness, and less so in
the area of action and change.
Despite strong efforts at policy
participation and inclusion in
many events, some
government offices proved
less willing to create spaces for
participation, or to create
spaces that were functionally
hollow.
These conclusions parallel the
findings and conclusions on
policy formulation with, as yet,
no strong evidence of
R3.6 Prioritize elements of
rights management for the
remaining ACIP term, by
organization, and work to
show concrete progress
before the program ends.
Ensure that organizations
have begun to think about
how to find resources and
how to advocate after the
close of the program.
3.20 There is evidence (leader interviews and ECOA questions, focus groups) of the existence of municipal and
departmental processes for coordination with social
organizations. However, some respondents report that
these processes are not operating or functional,
particularly in terms of working on the design and
implementation of public policies. One example is in
Chocó, where organizations report very limited political
participation. Respondents reported that institutions there
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 46
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
are not interested in including them in their processes. implementation (among
institutions, ex.2.13-2,21),
creation of development plans
without having been able to
apply them (among
organizations, ex. 4.15), and
the partial effects on food
security and expenditures in
the rural economic
opportunities result of the
intervention. This is not
unexpected, given that ACIP
has not finished yet, but their
time remaining is short.
Organizations, even strong
ones, have little confidence in
their abilities to manage and
demand their rights. Outside
of leadership, there is very
little understanding of how
rights can be accessed.
3.21 In line with government structures and how organizations
can participate, there is more space for participation
around formulation of projects and/or policies, and less
space when organizations are not project operators.
Veeduría or citizen oversight groups would be one
mechanism through which organizations could continue to
be involved in what happens with plans after they are
formulated.
3.22 The Governor’s Office of Cauca and the Mayor’s Office of
Cali do not provide opportunities for formulating public
policies directly related to ethnic groups, according to
focus group respondents. However, the Cauca Governor’s
Office has provided opportunities for ethnic groups to
participate in the formulation of the public policy in
women.
3.23 The advocacy capacity of the organizations visited in Chocó
are limited (from interviews and the ECOA questionnaire).
Activities that effectively ensure participation in politics,
public control and the guarantee of rights were limited.
5. To what extent has ACIP increased economic opportunities for Afro-Colombian and indigenous populations?
This question is associated with Result 3 of the intervention, and is answered through the survey (treatment and control in a quasi-experimental impact evaluation
design) and through focus groups with respondents.
Rural area: Program contribution to value chain sustainability and market alliances?
Technical assistance, infrastructure and equipment to support productive projects to increase economic opportunities for ethnic minorities.
Urban area: To what extent has the Program increased formal employment for ethnic minorities?
Job training programs and links with employers in the private sector.
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 47
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
URBAN
5.1 ACIP operates from a job supply perspective: partnerships are
formed with companies and then the required labor and skills
are sought. For example, in Aguablanca, 256 young people
graduated as shoe manufacturing technicians (out of 270 who
began the training process), and 203 were hired by companies
in the sector for at least six months.
(5.1 – 5.6) The training offered in
ACIP’s urban program gave
many participants important
new economic opportunities, in
large part because of
ACDI/VOCA’s efforts to partner
proactively with companies
looking to hire new employees
with the right skill sets. There
were a few respondents from
the urban program who said
they would prefer different
types of training: technical or
technological training, help with
being entrepreneurs, and more
challenging skills sets. Other
training programs worldwide
have failed for providing content
that doesn’t meet the needs of
business, resulting in trained
people without work.
R5.1 Input from participants could
provide additional lines of training
that call for other types of
business partnerships.
This could complement ACIP’s
successful supply with a
demand perspective (analyze
young people’s training
expectations in order to seek
and strengthen public-private
partnerships that will create
the jobs requested by the
youth population).
5.2 In Quibdó (in a focus group), two operators worked together to
coordinate for the purpose of formalizing employment in the
commercial sector and for the improved employability of young
people.
5.3 In the framework of the project supported by ACIP, the main
business partner for the hiring of ethnic personnel was one of
the most solid and well-positioned companies in San Andrés (La
Riviera), which, like other partners, was highly motivated to
continue with the process.
5.4 ACIP gave a presentation of the Program and a workshop on
labor inclusion to human resource managers of the companies
in the employability project in San Andrés, but these did not
cover ethnic-related issues, rights, or approaches, or the
reasons for their importance.
5.5 ACIP helped to launch “Invest in Chocó,” a public-private
initiative of the Governor’s Office of Chocó, the Mayor’s Office
of Quibdó and the Chamber of Commerce of Chocó. Its main
objective is to promote the economic development of the
Pacific region through mechanisms for attracting and retaining
private investment and improving competitiveness. “Invest in
Chocó” seeks to promote business and economic development
in the area, and to increase medium- and long-term economic
opportunities in the region, from a supply perspective.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 48
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
5.6 The operator in Barranquilla, Gente Estratégica, changed its
training model in order to adapt it the objectives of the
program. The Barranquilla Mayor’s Office is partially funding
the new phase of the program, although there was no clarity
regarding the sustainability of the model. Gente Estratégica
reported that the goal is to be able to obtain international
cooperation funds and to place an emphasis on established
partnerships.
5.7 Young Afro-Colombian and indigenous participants state
that the lessons learned in the training offered improved
their opportunities for obtaining a job. There is evidence
that some beneficiaries have stayed and/or been
promoted in the companies that hired them, and that
others have found other jobs on their own.
(5.7 – 5.15) There is abundant
evidence that ACIP has
increased the economic
opportunities of urban
participants: they are more
likely to be employed, in the
formal sector, with access to
health care and pension, and
with greater income. Positive
training impacts are being
channeled through formal
employment.
ACIP enabled the great
majority of the beneficiaries
to find formal and stable
employment, which ensured
them a minimum wage and
access to social security in
health and pensions. The
income dividend for women
was less than half that of
men, however.
The jobs generated were
R5.2 Variations by site (see the
findings at left and in the
report) and for women should
be further investigated and
addressed. In particular ACIP
should look into the lower
wage dividend that women
have gained as a result of
participation – to discover
what might explain it, and how
to combat this differentiation.
One possible differentiator –
child care – was addressed in
San Andrés, and other sites
may benefit from attention to
this detail. Examine whether
the lack of child care may
affect women’s employability.
5.8 For the urban sample, the training provided by ACIP has had a
positive and significant impact on the employability of the
beneficiaries.
Participants are 22% more likely to be employed than control
respondents. Overall, women, and those respondents in Bogotá
are more likely to be seeking work, which is not necessarily
negative: focus group respondents spoke of greater
employability and seeking better-paying jobs after training.
Another finding also shows that the program has a slight
positive effect on the likelihood that participants are working
part time (5%), which would also support job seeking among
many participants. However, women’s and Bogota
respondents’ job-hunting may also reflect difficult job market
conditions for those respondents. The data do not speak to this
topic.
Participants were also not likely to be studying, compared to
control respondents – as they are more likely working.
Participants’ income averages between 90,000 and 100,000
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 49
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
COP more than control respondents’; for women, though, the
difference is less than half that strong.
formal and stable, and the
training improved the
employability of young
people. The program thus
helped to improve the
beneficiaries’ income.
5.9 The beneficiaries, such as a focus group with CDP del Cuero in
Cali, noted that their income increased as a result of the formal
jobs that they obtained following training. In general,
beneficiaries state that ACIP helped to improve their income.
As a result, many were able to gain access to financial services
(the banking and credit system) and State services (subsidies,
programs) and others to afford further education. 5.10 Income from formal employment is between $90,000COP and
$100,000 COP (around $28 USD, depending on exchange rate)
per month. The difference in women’s salaries is about half
($56,000COP less, on average.) Men, Afro-Colombians,
indigenous and participants in Cali all have greater income than
their control groups.
Average percentage change in estimated income of Afro- Colombian and indigenous families in targeted rural areas:  Total:  Cesar and Magdalena:  Chocó:  Afro-Colombian:  Indigenous:
5.11 For urban participants, the ACIP training had a positive and
significant impact on participants’ chances of having a written
contract (true at the 95% confidence level for all except Bogota
respondents). ACIP also had a positive and significant impact on
respondents’ affiliation with the health, pension and
occupational risk insurance system: Women, Afro-Colombians,
and those in Cali are significantly more likely to have health
care, though the magnitude is low. Women, Afro-Colombians,
and those in Bogotá and Cali are significantly more likely than
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 50
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
control respondents to be affiliated with the pension system.
There is also some evidence that participants are more likely to
be affiliated with the ARL, though not in Barranquilla.
ACIP had no effect on having a verbal contract, common in
some informal jobs.
5.12 The evidence collected from the focus group of the urban
employment program in Barranquilla and from interviews with
some operators demonstrates that the program increased the
participants’ skills (both soft and hard skills) and job
opportunities. The participants valued the fact that the
program enabled them to move from informal work to formal,
and to improve their savings. 5.13 The focus group participants from the urban employment
program in Barranquilla indicated that they now have access to
more formal and secure sources of income.
The beneficiaries of the project with CDP del Cuero reported
that they were pleased with the employment formalization
process that followed their completion of the training stage.
This process provided them with new and better-paid job
opportunities.
5.14 ACIP reports 9,195 trainees have passed through their program
at the end of FY15. This is 88% of its life of project goal.
Combined with the rural participants, ACIP had an average of
55% women between the two programs.
Targeted employers report a 90% increase in their hiring of
Afro-Colombian and indigenous personnel, in FY 2015.
5.15 Most of the beneficiaries of the employability project in
San Andrés are women (68 out of 73), many of whom are
single mothers and/or heads of households, who have
been or will be hired for jobs with demanding and
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 51
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
extensive hours (sales people, waitresses, and
bartenders).
5.16 In order to facilitate the training and continued
beneficiary participation (many are single mothers and/or
heads of households), the employability project in San
Andrés implemented solutions for externalities that were
not part of the project, such as requesting that ICBF
provide child care during trainings, or a transportation
subsidy, given the financial difficulties and vulnerability of
the population served. 5.17 The training topics did not always meet young people’s
desires and expectations. The beneficiaries state that they
would appreciate other types of training (technical or
technological studies, entrepreneurship) and a higher
level of quality and rigor.
(5.17 – 5.18) There were a
few respondents from the
urban program who said they
would prefer different types
of training: technical or
technological training, help
with being entrepreneurs,
and more challenging skills
sets. Other training programs
worldwide have failed for
providing content that
doesn’t meet the needs of
business, resulting in trained
people without work.
R5.3 Please see R5.1. Also, be
explicit in informing
participants of the
employment nature of the
training being undertaken
5.18 In the employability process in Cartagena led by ASOCOC,
some leaders of the Association stated that some of the
beneficiaries lacked motivation and dropped out because
they were interested in getting help for the creation of
their own enterprises, rather than in being employed in
the fields for which training was offered.
RURAL
5.19 A few indigenous productive projects in Chocó noted
failed productive projects in part due to their remoteness
from markets, and in part because the style of agriculture
(5.19 – 5.20) Some ACIP
activities with indigenous
partner communities raise the
R5.4 As one of its close-out
activities, ACIP regional staff
should assess the degree to
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 52
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
varied from their traditional methods such as planting
very small plots within forests, as opposed to larger
swaths cut clear for particular crops to which they were
not accustomed.
question of how well the
project staff was able to
incorporate new projects into
these distinctive cultures.
Though not widespread
across ACIP’s interventions,
these concerns seem
important enough to
investigate further.
which projects were
incorporated into indigenous
life in the communities they
served. This is an opportune
time to review the
appropriateness and
effectiveness of decisions
taken. We suggest that staff
across regions check projects in
other regions, to allow fresh
eyes to conduct the review,
and that they include
community members in the
reviews to ensure multiple
perspectives.
5.20 An Arhuaco project respondent reported that the
productive project there was chosen by the implementer
without consulting the community about how well it did
or did not fit into their cultural system and goals.
5.22 According to several fishermen who participated in the focus
group in Providencia, the strengthening of their associations
and their increased production have enabled them to fortify
their independence, since, unlike fishermen who work on
industrial boats, they keep all of the profits and decide how,
when and where they will practice their trade.
(5.22 – 5.27) ACIP
strengthened organizations
and the skills of rural
producers in managing their
productive activities by
providing specialized
technical assistance. There is
evidence that the program
installed technical capacities
in the organizations and/or
communities.
Some gaps continue to
persist, including a perceived
need for longer term TA to
R5.4 From now till the
program’s close, ACIP should
ensure that all productive
projects are deeply integrated
into their respective value
chains. In any case, the chief
conclusion of the evaluation is
that, contrary to experiences in
many other countries, the
strategy designed to promote
economic opportunities for
Colombia’s ethnic minorities
has been successful. In the
medium and longer term, the
benefits promise to be even
5.23 ACIP strengthened the skills of rural producers in managing
their productive activities (cacao with ASOPROCAT and Pacifico
Productivo) by providing specialized technical assistance.
5.24 Difficulties were encountered in the development of
market partnerships and in accessing the areas, which are
often very remote and lack roads and infrastructure. This
was said to be true for some in the Sierra Nevada area and
a few indigenous projects in Chocó.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 53
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
5.25 Members of the Kankuamo people of the Sierra Nevada de
Santa Marta state that they have increased their operating
capacity for the production of quality organic coffee because of
the technical assistance provided by ACIP to coffee producers
in the area. They created effective processes for the selection
and drying of coffee in order to improve the production
purchased by their organization’s cooperative. The technical aid
provided for the production and selection processes effectively
increased the indicators in the product’s value chain. The
organization notes that it now has a product that is developed,
packaged and compliant with all of the required technical
conditions for mass marketing.
cover later-yield crops and TA
on management of
productive projects, including
administration and
accounting (see also findings
3.11 and 4.11-4.13.) A final
need in some cases is further
assistance with
commercialization of the
products.
greater, as the productive
projects begin to bear fruit.
Meetings with the producers
on their TA needs could
fruitfully be had as this final
implementation period
commences. Abundant
openness to their stated needs,
to the degree possible, is
recommended.
5.26 The interviews and focus groups provided evidence of the
persistence of significant administrative and accounting
weaknesses in the productive projects.
5.27 The Wiwa community in the Department of La Guajira states
that the support provided to the cacao production processes
was not sufficient, given that the implementation of what they
learned requires technical support for the ongoing
maintenance of the plantings.
5.28 ACIP has helped to maintain and boost productive projects as
income-generating opportunities, by strengthening the
organizations’ technologically-enhanced production and
marketing of cacao.
(5.28 – 5.36) ACIP has made
an important contribution by
reactivating, equipping,
maintaining and/or enhancing
productive projects through
the strengthening of the
organizations, further
supporting the production
and marketing links in the
value chain of products such
R5.5 Examine market
partnerships across all
productive projects and ensure
that these are stable prior to
program’s end.
In medium- and longer-term
projects, such as late-yield
crops, support producers with
interim income generation
activities, as they cannot
5.29 Locals were hired to provide technical assistance in (at least)
Valledupar, Villa Rica, and Cauca. Participants noted this
positively.
5.31 ACIP supported 3,279 rural households with these productive
projects. 100% of life of project goal.
For the rural sample, the survey data shows that the program
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 54
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
has had a positive impact on the food security of the
beneficiary households and on the ability of the beneficiary
households to pay for food. On average across the rural
sample, food security has improved on the Latin American and
Caribbean Scale of Household Food Security. Overall and for
men and for indigenous respondents, the ability of respondents
to purchase food for consumption has also increased. For
women, the ability to pay for food has not increased, but the
sample size of female-headed households in the rural sample
(since the sample is participating households, rather than
individuals, only women-headed households are considered
“women” in the data analysis) is low.
Average percent change in estimated rural income:  Total:  Cesar/Magdalena:  Chocó:  Afro-Colombian:  Indigenous:
as cacao, coffee and fish.
Notwithstanding the
foregoing, in some projects,
some links in the productive
chain were neglected, which
could threaten the
sustainability of the
productive projects and the
stability of the producers’
income: in five of the projects
visited for the evaluation,
there was generally less
support for the marketing and
distribution links. In at least
one project, supplies and
assistance were provided
without the inclusion of
sustainability components.
The intervention in the
countryside has had a
significant impact on crucial
fronts, such as food security,
with impacts on household
income still pending. But the
time horizons for many of
ACIP’s productive projects are
longer, so this is not
unexpected.
reliably and solely live off
traditional farm produce during
the years necessary to await
these cash crops’ production.
5.31 The project in Tadó contributed 36 million COP, (between
$11,000 and $12,000 USD, depending on exchange rate)
which was invested in protection kits (cap, mask, gloves,
boots, and leggings). The contribution of ACIP replaced a
contribution that the Governor’s Office failed to make
under a Productive Partnership managed by ASOPROCAT
(proposal and guarantee: 550 million in labor and land, equivalent of $180,000 USD) with La Nacional de
Chocolates (training), the SENA (10 million, or around
$3,300 USD), CodeChocó (60 million, or nearly $20,000
USD), and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development (440 million, or nearly $1.5M USD). There
are valuable, strong value chain partnerships available for
the participants to link into; obstacles include the type of
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 55
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
GOC failing described here, but can be overcome as it was
in this case.
5.32 While some of the project’s efforts were aimed at helping
Asopesboth and Pesproislas market their products
(management of new customers in San Andrés and the
renegotiation of terms and prices with a purchaser in
Providencia), most of the activities were aimed at reactivating,
equipping, organizing and promoting the fishing production of
the two associations, since they had been practically inactive.
5.33 In one of the projects visited (Tadó: ASOPROCAT), focus group
respondents said the organizations developed their own
market partnerships with Nacional de Chocolates, FEDECACAO,
and Ministries, without support from ACIP.
5.34 The lionfish (pez león) mitigation campaign, with its linked
strategy of raising the awareness of fishermen - capture,
arrange and stock – generating partnerships, and
marketing in three restaurants in Providencia, and
promoting consumption by tourists, focused its efforts on
enhancing the visibility of the problem and the
merchandising, losing sight of sustainability, as the catch
today is very scarce.
5.35 Beneficiaries of the project with Asprofinca reported that
they received no support or training for the marketing of
their products. TA with the Wiwa community in La Guajira
did not include a component for the sustainability of the
value chain or market partnerships for marketing and
distribution.
5.36 According to the information provided by the technical
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 56
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
team and the participants, the traditional farm model
improved family food security by diversifying food
available on their land. Other reports cited three main
focus areas for the traditional farm model: i) soil
improvement; ii) sowing; and iii) product harvesting.
5.37 The rise of mining in Chocó caused come families to
neglect agriculture. Today, with the decline in mining
activity and the Chontaduro (peach palm) blight that has
existed since 2010 (cucarrón picudo – red palm weevil),
the people report serious food security problems. Most
staple foods come from other parts of the country
(Risaralda, Antioquia, and Caldas).
5.38 For the rural sample, the quantitative evidence shows that
the program has not had an impact on either the income
or the expenses of the beneficiary households.
(5.37 – 5.41) Rural income
continues to be a major
challenge, in part (but not
completely) because of late- yield crops in some projects.
The traditional farm model
has helped by ensuring
dietary diversity and food
security, but it is not enough
for the families to ensure
sufficient income. This puts
these families and
communities at risk of
abandoning agricultural work
for family consumption
and/or for cash crops, in
order to take day labor work
Please see R5.5.
5.39 Although not yet sustainable, the income of the members
of Pesproislas and Asopesboth who participated in the
fishing campaigns conducted by the project did increase,
providing the associations with surpluses of 4.2m COP
(Pesproislas – equivalent to around $1500 USD depending
on exchange rate) and 6.4m COP (Asopesboth – about
$2100 USD.)
5.40 Beneficiaries of the project with Asprofinca in the
municipality of Villarica state that they have improved
their income by having a greater variety of products to
market under the traditional farm model. However, they
report that their income is still insufficient, and so they
say they have to seek other sources of income.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 57
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
5.41 Focus group respondents and interviewees say they need
to perform multiple agri jobs (daily work) and non- agricultural jobs (informal) in order to be able to pay HH
expenses beyond food. Some indigenous respondents call
their situation is critical. Their crops are of very low
production (they are primitive, and plantain does not
grow well) and do not ensure an adequate food supply. Respondents in Chocó said that the traditional farm model
allowed them to have sufficient and varied food, but that
they also required cash income to pay debts and services.
For this reason, their agriculture work was not sufficient,
as they did not yet have cash crops coming to fruition.
to cover cash costs.
6. How effective were the strategies in empowering women and youth?
Women and youth empowerment are cross-cutting elements of the intervention. As such, our response to this question combines methods noted for the previous
questions, using equity focused and gender sensitive lenses that also examine the participation and outcomes for youth. E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
6.1 The training program for the generation of income in the
urban component requires that 60% of the participants be
women. In the training provided by CDP del Cuero in Cali,
65% of the 256 graduates were women.
(6.1 – 6.2) ACIP ensured the
participation of women in
programming including the
urban employability
programs through the use of
quotas. There is some
evidence of also helping
provide child care to
participants, though it
appears localized. Quotas are
a valid tool but may not be
sufficient if training and/or
Please see R6.1 and R6.2.
6.2 Only five of the 73 beneficiaries of ACIP’s Employability
Project in San Andrés are men, and the project’s training
process does not include any module related to gender. The
employment program in Barranquilla guaranteed a 60%
quota for women participants, offering them training and
professional practice opportunities.
6.3 Only men participated in the rural focus groups conducted in
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 58
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
Chocó. No evidence was found there of any strategy for the
empowerment of women and young people in the
productive projects. The information collected on the ECOA
form showed the low participation of young people and
women in the decision-making of the organizations and
communities.
job conditions make no
allowances for child care.
(6.3 – 6.6) There are cultural
norms in many of these
communities that dictate
roles for women that are not
as inclusive as the
programming would
otherwise support. Some
ethnic communities dictate
who participates, and some
of these exclude women.
Organizing by households
rather than individuals (as in
the rural economic
opportunities program)
makes a quota system for
women’s participation less
feasible.
6.4 There was no evidence of participation by women or young
people in the rural economic opportunities programming and
the strengthening of productive processes of the Kankuamo
people.
6.5 While women in rural did participate in productive projects,
these projects were generally aimed at family units. Male
heads of households more commonly made decisions on how
the family would participate, and the women provided the
labor. Some projects’ respondents said that male leaders
tended to benefit more from the technical skills that were
taught.
6.6 In the municipality of Lloró, the current Vice President of one
community council is a woman. The OREWA Association
stated that there are women governors in its communities.
6.7 The three visited projects in San Andrés, Cartagena and
Palenque related to organizational strengthening provided
training on gender and women’s rights, including, in one
case, the right to physical integrity, gender relations and
expressions of femininity. The training was usually offered to
members of organizations or the general community.
According to interviews conducted with leaders, ACIP asked
that women comprise at least 40% of the participants in
(6.3 – 6.5, 6.7 – 6.12) There is
strong evidence that some
communities continue to
leave women out of
programming, restrict or
resist their participation, or in
other ways push back against
women’s involvement.
R6.1 In the final phase of the
program, work directly with
a selection of women’s
organizations to meet
capacity building priorities
and make a plan for where
the organizations can
continue to seek resources
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 59
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
trainings. However, the training sessions were held without
regard to the number of men and women, since some
leaders and officials believed that this request was “discriminatory” and that the training should be open and
mixed, “as we are all equal,” in the words of one respondent
The capacities of some
women’s organizations were
strengthened, but there is a
strong perception among
them that the support ended
too soon, or was too tightly
connected to a single issue.
and find training after ACIP
ends.
ACIP should undertake
conversations with their
community partner
organizations about what
gender equity means to
them, and internal
discussions about their own
recommendations for how
to broach these themes in
future programming with
Afro-Colombian and
indigenous populations.
Another recommended
exercise is to review the
employment programming. The significant difference in
outcomes for women and
men deserve to be
investigated thoroughly: are
there important differences
in the jobs or job conditions
for which men and women
were trained? What could
operators do differently to
attract women to the
program, such as child care
assurances or varied training
and job opportunities? Are
there other ways of
6.8 Members of the Kogui resguardo said that processes for
women’s and youth participation were included in the
projects’ operating plans, but that implementing them posed
a risk to their culture and cosmogony because of the
ancestral roles of women in the community.
6.9 Although 80% of the members of ASOPRADUSE (Productive
Association of Palenquero Candies and Ethno-Tourism
Services) are female heads-of-households who have achieved
some economic independence, they say this has not resulted
in greater women’s participation or influence in public
discussions or decision-making processes, nor in a reduction
of violence.
6.10 Most of the members of the local professional teams hired
for the majority of projects supported by ACIP in San Andrés,
Cartagena and Palenque were women. Four of the six
members of the main team studying land in San Andrés were
women; the three leaders of the public policy development
team were women; the author of the Raizal book is a young
woman; three of the six members of the team involved in the
project with FUNSAREP-Gavilaneo Council in Cartagena were
women; and the majority of the members of the
ASOPRADUSE-Palenque project team were women. This was
found in other geographic regions as well: ACIP made
significant and sustained use of women in programming.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 60
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
6.11 ACIP support favored the influence of women’s organizations
in the formulation of the public policy for the Afro-Colombian
population in Cauca. The program strengthened the
capacities of related women’s organizations, but there is no
evidence of sustainability, report participants, who want
more capacity building for public policy advocacy.
outreach to women that
were not explored? Is there
any follow-up measure or
measures that could assist
women to maintain their
employment after training?
And what explains the
significant salary
discrepancy? This “after- action review” could
significantly improve follow- on activities and should be
done while staff are still
with the project and able to
comment knowledgeably on
the decisions and challenges
encountered.
6.12 With the exception of affirmative action for providing women
and young people with access to the urban employment
programs, the interviews conducted did not evidence the
existence of a clear strategy for incorporating gender and the
participation of women and young people as cross-cutting
issues.
6.13 The five young people interviewed at the company Romulo
who obtained their jobs through the training provided by the
program said that they were able to open bank accounts,
obtain social security, and help their families have greater
income.
(6.13 – 6.16) Targeted youth
in employability
programming made
significant gains –
employment, formality,
affiliation, and increased
income. The limitations of
those findings are also, then,
the limitations of the
program with regard to youth
– such as less significant gains
for women participants.
R6.2 The team recommends
a strong focus on youth
participation in future
programming, if this
continues to be important to
USAID; the 2012 Youth
Policy suggests that it will.
Adapt these guidelines in
line with what youth
respondents are interested in
– such as creating their own
organizations or chapters
instead of holding leadership
positions in the organizations
6.14 Twenty-five young people from the District of Aguablanca
who were trained in leadership and political participation by
Fundación Siempre Unidos, through ACIP, were candidates
for local council seats in Cali in the elections held on October
25, 2015.
6.15 The issue of young people was not a structural part of the
visited projects in San Andrés, Providencia, Cartagena and
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 61
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
Palenque, beyond the fact that some young people
participated in certain activities, or the fact that a section on
youth and another on women were discussed for the
development of the Raizal public policy.
of their elders.
ACIP should undertake
conversations with their
organizations about what
youth participation means
to them.
In the after-action review
recommended above, ask
about discrepant
employment program
participation among
Indigenous communities,
along similar lines of inquiry.
6.16 Young people were targeted to participate in the
employability and training projects in the urban area of
Quibdó, as across all urban program sites. However, there
was weak youth participation in the organizational
strengthening and governance activities.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 62
7. To what extent has ACIP increased positive perception about ethnic issues?
This question examines ACIP’s Result 4: The program intends to improve self-identification among minorities, and the treatment and control survey samples for R3
included a module for this theme.
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
7.1 The quantitative evidence suggests that rural R3
respondents have improved their perception that the
government is concerned about ethnic issues, and on
participation in activities to claim collective rights.
Urban R3 respondents feel they have more participation in
activities to claim collective rights, and greater knowledge
about traditions and culture.
Programs that aim to increase awareness may have a side
effect: participants come to realize “what they don’t
know,” thereby answering questions about that realm they
don’t know with greater uncertainty than before the
program. Results in this data collection seem to reinforce
that pattern: while R3 respondents report greater
awareness, they report less knowledge of cultural
traditions than they reported at baseline.
Average percent change in perceptions of Afro-Colombian
and indigenous persons of their socio economic and
political inclusion:  Total:  Total urban:  Urban female:  Urban male:  Bogotá:  Barranquilla:  Cali:  Total rural:  Rural indigenous:  Rural Afro-Colombian:  North:  Pacific:
(7.1 – 7.8) The program has had
interesting effects on self- recognition and the perception
that members of minority
groups have of themselves.
These effects were found on
indirect beneficiaries of the R4
interventions, based on the
baseline design.
Rural R3 beneficiaries have a
better perception of the State’s
concern for their issues, and
greater participation in claiming
their collective rights. Urban R3
respondents don’t perceive
improved attention to ethnic
needs, nor do they report now
participating more in claiming
ethnic rights. Urban R3
respondents do, however, see
impact in recuperating
knowledge of their cultural
traditions, while rural
respondents do not. These
different perceptions likely stem
from the nature of the context
and R3 interventions in rural and
urban areas. Some principal
indicators of program success –
R7.1 The campaigns
undertaken to increase
participation in activities to
claim collective rights
should continue. Work with
rural communities to
increase knowledge about
traditions and culture, in
the degree possible before
program close.
Seek out best practices,
maintain realistic
expectations about impact,
and design strong and
replicable evaluative
methods to track progress.
This recommendation
applies to the remainder of
the ACIP program but even
more so to longer-term
efforts to change messages
about ethnicity.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 63
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
7.2 Survey data show that the program has not had an impact
on urban or rural R3 respondents’ feelings that
discrimination exists against ethnic minorities, or that
ethnic minority issues are ignored. R3 participants also
continue to feel, in the same measure, they are
discriminated against in terms of jobs, despite the positive
findings for Result 3 in this evaluation.
perceptions of discrimination or
that their problems are ignored
– showed no improvement
among either rural or urban R3
respondents.
Perceptions over which the R3
respondents have less control – whether others discriminate
against them, whether others
ignore their problems, whether
others will or will not accept
them into employment – seem
unaffected to date. These
perceptions are harder to affect
and moving the needle will take
time.
7.3 According to several officials and Afro-Colombian leaders
from Cartagena and its Community Councils, although
advances have been made in ethno-territorial processes in
recent years, self-recognition as Afro-descendant or black is
still problematic and is rejected by some.
7.4 ACIP equipped a radio station for young Afro-Colombians
that broadcasts programs in which they can talk about their
customs, problems, music and history. By providing
support to local media and holding awareness-raising
workshops for journalists, the program seeks to increase
the positive perception of ethnic issues and minorities’ self- recognition.
7.5 In Quibdó, ACIP helped the COCOMACIA radio station stay
on the air by repairing an antenna and upgrading
transmission equipment.
7.6 According to officials and leaders in San Andrés, self- recognition as Raizal has been strengthened with the loss
of the sea territory, considered “ancestral territory”, to
Nicaragua. This has increased claims related to the need to
understand and address the Raizal community differently
from the Afro-descendant community. Hence, their Raizal
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 64
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
public policy, the development of a particular Raizal prior
consultation protocol, the definition of a Raizal Authority,
and the resurgence of their proposal for the enactment of a
special law for the Raizal people.
7.7 Six indigenous chapters in Cali (Inga, Yanacona, Quichua,
Guambiano, Nasa and Kofán) report that they were
strengthened with support from ACIP in the recovery of
their cultural identity, seeking to combat uprooting
through ancestral knowledge.
7.8 Strengthening productive capacities of the communities
and organizations included the recovery of traditional
seeds for crops such as corn, plantain, pineapple, and sugar
cane, and coordinating this with the rescue of traditional
cultivation practices. The program also sought to
strengthen the production of aromatic and condiment
plants to recover traditional use.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 65
8. To what extent program participants (both beneficiaries or institutions) report having a positive perception about the
Program?
Perceptions on the program were evaluated through the methods and tools described above: the survey, in-depth interviews, and focus groups.
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
8.1 84% of rural beneficiaries of ACIP economic opportunities
activities, and 93% of urban, would recommend ACIP to a
friend or relative.
One a scale of one to five, with one meaning “not at all”
and five meaning “fully,” rural participants’ most common
response was a three; for urban respondents, the most
common response was a four.
In field work, the team observed the complex contexts in
which ACIP is being developed, since there are processes in
the region that generate and exacerbate communities’
vulnerability. This includes the presence of mechanized
mining, illegal armed actors, territorial disputes between
armed actors, the state of roads, and geographical
complexity.
(8.1) Urban and rural
participants have positive
perceptions of the program,
with somewhat better
perceptions in the city. The
results in the urban projects
were more immediate, while
rural projects are at times
delayed by the needs of crops,
explaining some of that
variance. There are arguably
more challenges in the rural
context as well, making those
projects more difficult to carry
out successfully in the same
amount of time.
Please see R8.1, R8.2, R8.3,
R3.3, R3.4, R5.1 and R5.4.
8.2 The Mayor’s Office of Cali signed an agreement with the
Singer Foundation to train young people as high
performance clothing workers, asking it to follow the
employability obligation model applied in the program with
ACIP.
(8.2 – 8.3) Evidence supports
ACIP’s success in many
municipios, and with companies.
R8.1 Produce simple model
handbooks of the
employability program for
distribution prior to the
close of the program, as a
stimulus to adopting and
continuing the work after
ACIP ends. 8.3 The Mayor’s Offices of Barranquilla and Quibdó have
increased the staff dedicated to assisting this population,
and have expressed satisfaction with the assistance of
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 66
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
ACIP. 8.4 Members of the Arhuaco Reservation of the Sierra Nevada
de Santa Marta state that they have a positive perception
of the program, although they would like the support to be
provided for a longer period of time, since they feel their
productive project requires more long-term support.
(8.4 – 8.6) There are
opportunities for improvement
in the duration and expectations
of the projects. Rural outcomes
are slightly weaker, likely owing
to the delay in fruition of some
productive projects. There is a
significant perception that TA
ended too soon on these.
R8.2 Provide greater clarity
about the scope of the
projects so as not to
disappoint expectations.
Where late-yield crops are
part of projects, plan for
extended TA, even if
sporadic, to support
participants’ concerns.
Please see also R3.3, R3.4,
and R5.4.
8.5 Local ACIP personnel and the local ethnic consultants hired
for certain processes or products have knowledge about,
and experience in, community and social processes, and
are recognized and respected by the communities. In
general, rural beneficiaries report positive perceptions of
the ACIP program support. However, many highlight the
brevity of this support in light of the needs of the farming
families in terms of technical knowledge, income
generation and food security.
8.6 Respondents reported that the program carried out by RED
MUNORCA for training women in participation processes
ended because ACIP discontinued a second phase that had
been promised at the beginning of the project. Other
beneficiaries reported similar cuts to planned programs.
8.7 The perception of women’s organizations has not been as
positive, as they feel that the support received was tied to
given activities and they do not feel they alone can sustain
the project’s activities.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 67
E.Q. Findings Conclusions Recommendations
8.8 Most of the supported communities and institutions state
that the requirement to submit regular reports makes the
program rigorous and serious. However, they request more
training prior to implementation in order to be able to
prepare these reports. They state that this would facilitate
the administrative processes and speed up administrative
management, since the reports would be returned less
often.
(8.8) Participants and partners
value reporting, but wish for
more understanding about how
to do it correctly, to reduce
repeated requests to get their
reporting right.
R8.3 Simplify reporting
requirements to the extent
possible. Create simple
accompanying materials
with examples to ease the
process for partners.
8.9 Some urban beneficiaries would like to see other types of
training, such as technical or technology related, or
entrepreneurship.
(5.1 – 5.6, 8.9) This is discussed
in detail in HCR section 5.
Please see R5.1
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 68
ANNEX D: REGRESSION TABLES
D.1 Economic Opportunities in the City
Table D.1: Treatment effect on Employability
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas bogota bquilla cali
treated -0.158*** -0.167*** -0.142*** -0.207*** -0.170*** -0.150* -0.137** -0.225*** -0.124***
(0.0212) (0.0271) (0.0321) (0.0483) (0.0302) (0.0827) (0.0588) (0.0431) (0.0435)
midline 0.108*** 0.109*** 0.116*** 0.107* 0.114*** 0.136 0.213*** 0.0821 0.0858
(0.0288) (0.0345) (0.0419) (0.0585) (0.0408) (0.0986) (0.0749) (0.0557) (0.0539)
interaction 0.215*** 0.217*** 0.194*** 0.258*** 0.201*** 0.243** 0.115 0.228*** 0.256***
(0.0383) (0.0410) (0.0501) (0.0699) (0.0466) (0.120) (0.0859) (0.0646) (0.0658)
edad 0.00415* 0.00344 0.00619* 0.00516* -0.00365 0.00245 0.0131*** -0.000402
(0.00232) (0.00292) (0.00364) (0.00277) (0.00699) (0.00603) (0.00492) (0.00353)
mujer -0.133*** -0.129*** -0.123** -0.0409 -0.214*** -0.147***
(0.0224) (0.0254) (0.0589) (0.0448) (0.0375) (0.0361)
auto_indigena 0.0938* 0.106* 0.0276 -0.414** 0.418*** 0.00545
(0.0490) (0.0618) (0.0810) (0.168) (0.135) (0.0765)
auto_afro 0.0492 0.0480 0.0214 -0.422** 0.104** -0.00815
(0.0407) (0.0483) (0.0713) (0.166) (0.0528) (0.0639)
hh_size -0.00589 -0.00961 0.00129 -0.00595 -0.0138 -0.0134 -0.00254 0.00213
(0.00533) (0.00726) (0.00791) (0.00640) (0.00979) (0.00954) (0.00935) (0.00877)
jefe 0.0890** 0.0334 0.233*** 0.0655 0.145 0.0883 0.0323 0.161**
(0.0385) (0.0485) (0.0662) (0.0438) (0.0954) (0.0703) (0.0638) (0.0662)
hijo_jefe 0.0319 0.0311 0.0308 0.0256 0.0693 0.00944 0.0356 0.0450
(0.0296) (0.0388) (0.0464) (0.0326) (0.0807) (0.0532) (0.0520) (0.0501)
padre_jefe 0.0579 0.0120 0.0972 0.0506 0.0675 0.0967 0.0773 0.0325
(0.0502) (0.0624) (0.0851) (0.0551) (0.154) (0.106) (0.0775) (0.0856)
noimigrant -0.0452** -0.0537* -0.0169 -0.0397 -0.128** -0.0443 0.00235 -0.00785
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 69
(0.0228) (0.0283) (0.0392) (0.0255) (0.0634) (0.0501) (0.0459) (0.0370)
victima 0.0280 0.0353 -0.00241 0.0265 0.00670 0.0252 -0.141* 0.0297
(0.0359) (0.0459) (0.0570) (0.0407) (0.0904) (0.0675) (0.0801) (0.0550)
receptor_sub -0.126*** -0.0915** -0.189*** -0.127*** -0.116 -0.164* -0.120** -0.0911
(0.0384) (0.0452) (0.0708) (0.0432) (0.118) (0.0947) (0.0571) (0.0661)
educacion -0.00127 0.00449 -0.0258 -0.00155 -0.0570** 0.0291 0.00572 -0.00331
(0.0112) (0.0142) (0.0188) (0.0127) (0.0285) (0.0294) (0.0285) (0.0156)
hijos 0.0102 -0.0101 0.0551** 0.00992 0.0293 0.0164 0.00454 0.0228
(0.0140) (0.0184) (0.0238) (0.0160) (0.0385) (0.0281) (0.0220) (0.0255)
Constant 0.283*** 0.229** 0.133 0.264 0.262** 0.811*** 0.571** -0.0762 0.300**
(0.0174) (0.100) (0.123) (0.166) (0.107) (0.255) (0.289) (0.219) (0.152)
Observations 2,368 1,887 1,175 712 1,472 277 513 640 734
R-squared 0.077 0.113 0.084 0.166 0.106 0.164 0.137 0.163 0.110
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table D.2: Treatment effect on the probability of looking for a job
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas bogota bquilla cali
treated -0.0804*** -0.0928*** -0.0957*** -0.0868*** -0.0748*** -0.146** -0.191*** -0.0587** -0.0689**
(0.0144) (0.0190) (0.0236) (0.0319) (0.0203) (0.0597) (0.0470) (0.0255) (0.0295)
midline 0.0327 0.0198 0.00515 0.0449 0.0506* -0.122 -0.0925 0.0841** 0.0125
(0.0211) (0.0254) (0.0331) (0.0407) (0.0300) (0.0745) (0.0620) (0.0407) (0.0370)
interaction 0.0945*** 0.107*** 0.118*** 0.0934* 0.0886** 0.171** 0.221*** 0.0853* 0.0651
(0.0277) (0.0301) (0.0379) (0.0508) (0.0344) (0.0817) (0.0686) (0.0503) (0.0447)
edad 0.00232 0.00191 0.00325 0.00268 0.00409 0.00369 0.00120 0.00411
(0.00169) (0.00222) (0.00269) (0.00200) (0.00513) (0.00482) (0.00262) (0.00256)
mujer 0.00286 0.00960 -0.0199 0.0177 0.0139 -0.0186
(0.0160) (0.0181) (0.0412) (0.0328) (0.0276) (0.0250)
auto_indigena 0.0191 -0.000163 0.0326 -0.107 -0.153*** 0.0216
(0.0358) (0.0459) (0.0599) (0.253) (0.0569) (0.0493)
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 70
auto_afro 0.0301 0.0321 0.0219 -0.0723 0.00679 0.0301
(0.0299) (0.0376) (0.0512) (0.253) (0.0471) (0.0403)
hh_size 0.00181 -0.00311 0.00822 0.000801 0.00382 0.00723 0.00348 -0.00174
(0.00371) (0.00492) (0.00568) (0.00434) (0.00829) (0.00754) (0.00656) (0.00591)
jefe -0.0387 -0.0474 -0.0270 -0.0290 -0.0630 0.00406 0.00282 -0.0965*
(0.0291) (0.0384) (0.0468) (0.0342) (0.0615) (0.0545) (0.0519) (0.0493)
hijo_jefe -0.0345 -0.0361 -0.0241 -0.0333 -0.0581 -0.0371 -0.00150 -0.0630
(0.0242) (0.0329) (0.0355) (0.0270) (0.0625) (0.0425) (0.0447) (0.0420)
padre_jefe -0.0623* -0.0541 -0.0716 -0.0678 -0.0336 -0.0502 -0.00775 -0.138***
(0.0372) (0.0482) (0.0586) (0.0421) (0.0996) (0.0761) (0.0656) (0.0528)
noimigrant -0.00617 -0.00983 -0.00444 -0.0243 0.0817** 0.0391 0.0196 -0.00557
(0.0165) (0.0204) (0.0290) (0.0186) (0.0412) (0.0395) (0.0349) (0.0242)
victima -0.00884 0.0315 -0.0708* -0.0175 0.0596 -0.0106 0.133 -0.0101
(0.0271) (0.0360) (0.0421) (0.0321) (0.0540) (0.0504) (0.0838) (0.0360)
receptor_sub 0.0503 0.0503 0.0521 0.0706* -0.0238 0.0806 0.0697 -0.00364
(0.0318) (0.0367) (0.0643) (0.0383) (0.0694) (0.0741) (0.0539) (0.0420)
educacion -0.00727 -0.00892 -0.00576 -0.0134 0.00870 -0.0485** -8.56e-05 -0.0160
(0.00828) (0.0109) (0.0134) (0.00990) (0.0176) (0.0224) (0.0189) (0.0116)
hijos -0.0222** -0.0210 -0.0180 -0.0262** -0.0149 -0.0298 -0.0224 -0.0259
(0.00966) (0.0129) (0.0153) (0.0110) (0.0262) (0.0198) (0.0155) (0.0170)
Constant 0.120*** 0.123* 0.174* 0.0501 0.168** 0.0680 0.486 0.00863 0.175*
(0.0126) (0.0703) (0.0899) (0.120) (0.0736) (0.193) (0.306) (0.137) (0.0958)
Observations 2,368 1,887 1,175 712 1,472 277 513 640 734
R-squared 0.027 0.032 0.038 0.033 0.044 0.053 0.057 0.082 0.032
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table D.3: Treatment effect on the probability of working part time or less
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas bogota bquilla cali
treated -0.0319*** -0.0146 -0.0218 -0.00233 -0.0227 0.0579 0.0404 -0.0388 -0.0245
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 71
(0.0115) (0.0146) (0.0174) (0.0266) (0.0168) (0.0355) (0.0320) (0.0260) (0.0227)
midline 0.0351** 0.0376* 0.0381 0.0288 0.0586** 0.0101 0.0389 0.0939** -0.00134
(0.0170) (0.0203) (0.0260) (0.0337) (0.0247) (0.0370) (0.0395) (0.0399) (0.0283)
interaction 0.0553** 0.0462* 0.0479 0.0472 0.0428 0.0159 0.0204 0.0394 0.0634
(0.0233) (0.0250) (0.0318) (0.0407) (0.0285) (0.0564) (0.0459) (0.0440) (0.0389)
edad 0.00389*** 0.00476** 0.00259 0.00502*** 0.00130 0.00991*** 0.00472* 0.00110
(0.00147) (0.00198) (0.00205) (0.00179) (0.00286) (0.00344) (0.00274) (0.00223)
mujer 8.40e-05 0.00322 -0.0487* -0.00934 -0.0106 0.0110
(0.0131) (0.0155) (0.0281) (0.0239) (0.0249) (0.0202)
auto_indigena -0.0285 -0.0499 -0.00531 -0.472* 0.156 -0.0374
(0.0311) (0.0409) (0.0478) (0.271) (0.122) (0.0489)
auto_afro -0.0165 -0.0208 -0.00882 -0.429 0.0420 -0.0426
(0.0281) (0.0374) (0.0424) (0.271) (0.0354) (0.0429)
hh_size 0.000173 0.00383 -0.00355 0.00184 -0.00475 0.00112 -1.53e-06 -0.00224
(0.00352) (0.00546) (0.00427) (0.00440) (0.00477) (0.00611) (0.00795) (0.00423)
jefe 0.0151 0.0422 -0.0201 -0.00257 0.0617* 0.0682* -0.0351 0.0135
(0.0234) (0.0282) (0.0421) (0.0285) (0.0340) (0.0376) (0.0506) (0.0350)
hijo_jefe 0.0219 0.0305 0.00881 0.00323 0.132*** 0.0685** 0.0121 0.000387
(0.0173) (0.0208) (0.0293) (0.0202) (0.0386) (0.0287) (0.0383) (0.0269)
padre_jefe 0.0302 0.0704* -0.0421 0.0101 0.122 0.0502 -0.00867 0.0500
(0.0322) (0.0422) (0.0453) (0.0358) (0.0980) (0.0604) (0.0550) (0.0582)
noimigrant -0.00204 -0.00321 0.00610 0.00258 -0.0476 -0.0269 0.0418 0.00635
(0.0143) (0.0179) (0.0256) (0.0162) (0.0329) (0.0309) (0.0285) (0.0227)
victima -0.0169 -0.0241 0.00130 -0.0467* 0.00406 -0.0608 -0.00296 0.0200
(0.0233) (0.0296) (0.0377) (0.0250) (0.0597) (0.0425) (0.0635) (0.0353)
receptor_sub 0.0230 0.0375 -0.0241 -0.00912 0.153* 0.0112 -0.0467 0.0943*
(0.0275) (0.0336) (0.0434) (0.0298) (0.0842) (0.0502) (0.0421) (0.0536)
educacion 0.00130 0.000417 0.00317 -0.00257 -0.000937 0.00404 -0.00795 0.00234
(0.00672) (0.00906) (0.0103) (0.00723) (0.0221) (0.0186) (0.0219) (0.00817)
hijos -0.00307 -0.0147 0.0111 -0.000150 0.00163 -0.0292* 0.00558 0.00810
(0.00903) (0.0123) (0.0150) (0.0106) (0.0210) (0.0162) (0.0160) (0.0145)
Constant 0.0643*** -0.0487 -0.0813 -0.0134 -0.0700 -0.0339 0.185 -0.0906 0.0456
(0.00949) (0.0637) (0.0871) (0.0846) (0.0663) (0.167) (0.304) (0.158) (0.0951)
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 72
Observations 2,368 1,887 1,175 712 1,472 277 513 640 734
R-squared 0.018 0.022 0.033 0.017 0.028 0.091 0.060 0.051 0.036
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table D.4: Treatment effect on the probability of working full time or more
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas bogota bquilla cali
treated 0.0319*** 0.0146 0.0218 0.00233 0.0227 -0.0579 -0.0404 0.0388 0.0245
(0.0115) (0.0146) (0.0174) (0.0266) (0.0168) (0.0355) (0.0320) (0.0260) (0.0227)
midline -0.0351** -0.0376* -0.0381 -0.0288 -0.0586** -0.0101 -0.0389 -0.0939** 0.00134
(0.0170) (0.0203) (0.0260) (0.0337) (0.0247) (0.0370) (0.0395) (0.0399) (0.0283)
interaction -0.0553** -0.0462* -0.0479 -0.0472 -0.0428 -0.0159 -0.0204 -0.0394 -0.0634
(0.0233) (0.0250) (0.0318) (0.0407) (0.0285) (0.0564) (0.0459) (0.0440) (0.0389)
edad -0.00389*** -0.00476** -0.00259 -0.00502*** -0.00130 -0.00991*** -0.00472* -0.00110
(0.00147) (0.00198) (0.00205) (0.00179) (0.00286) (0.00344) (0.00274) (0.00223)
mujer -8.40e-05 -0.00322 0.0487* 0.00934 0.0106 -0.0110
(0.0131) (0.0155) (0.0281) (0.0239) (0.0249) (0.0202)
auto_indigena 0.0285 0.0499 0.00531 0.472* -0.156 0.0374
(0.0311) (0.0409) (0.0478) (0.271) (0.122) (0.0489)
auto_afro 0.0165 0.0208 0.00882 0.429 -0.0420 0.0426
(0.0281) (0.0374) (0.0424) (0.271) (0.0354) (0.0429)
hh_size -0.000173 -0.00383 0.00355 -0.00184 0.00475 -0.00112 1.53e-06 0.00224
(0.00352) (0.00546) (0.00427) (0.00440) (0.00477) (0.00611) (0.00795) (0.00423)
jefe -0.0151 -0.0422 0.0201 0.00257 -0.0617* -0.0682* 0.0351 -0.0135
(0.0234) (0.0282) (0.0421) (0.0285) (0.0340) (0.0376) (0.0506) (0.0350)
hijo_jefe -0.0219 -0.0305 -0.00881 -0.00323 -0.132*** -0.0685** -0.0121 -0.000387
(0.0173) (0.0208) (0.0293) (0.0202) (0.0386) (0.0287) (0.0383) (0.0269)
padre_jefe -0.0302 -0.0704* 0.0421 -0.0101 -0.122 -0.0502 0.00867 -0.0500
(0.0322) (0.0422) (0.0453) (0.0358) (0.0980) (0.0604) (0.0550) (0.0582)
noimigrant 0.00204 0.00321 -0.00610 -0.00258 0.0476 0.0269 -0.0418 -0.00635
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 73
(0.0143) (0.0179) (0.0256) (0.0162) (0.0329) (0.0309) (0.0285) (0.0227)
victima 0.0169 0.0241 -0.00130 0.0467* -0.00406 0.0608 0.00296 -0.0200
(0.0233) (0.0296) (0.0377) (0.0250) (0.0597) (0.0425) (0.0635) (0.0353)
receptor_sub -0.0230 -0.0375 0.0241 0.00912 -0.153* -0.0112 0.0467 -0.0943*
(0.0275) (0.0336) (0.0434) (0.0298) (0.0842) (0.0502) (0.0421) (0.0536)
educacion -0.00130 -0.000417 -0.00317 0.00257 0.000937 -0.00404 0.00795 -0.00234
(0.00672) (0.00906) (0.0103) (0.00723) (0.0221) (0.0186) (0.0219) (0.00817)
hijos 0.00307 0.0147 -0.0111 0.000150 -0.00163 0.0292* -0.00558 -0.00810
(0.00903) (0.0123) (0.0150) (0.0106) (0.0210) (0.0162) (0.0160) (0.0145)
Constant 0.936*** 1.049*** 1.081*** 1.013*** 1.070*** 1.034*** 0.815*** 1.091*** 0.954***
(0.00949) (0.0637) (0.0871) (0.0846) (0.0663) (0.167) (0.304) (0.158) (0.0951)
Observations 2,368 1,887 1,175 712 1,472 277 513 640 734
R-squared 0.018 0.022 0.033 0.017 0.028 0.091 0.060 0.051 0.036
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table D.5: Treatment effect on the probability of having a written contract
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas bogota bquilla cali
treated -0.0415*** -0.0484*** -0.0309 -0.0721** -0.0582*** -0.0427 -0.105** -0.0578* 0.000290
(0.0140) (0.0185) (0.0215) (0.0349) (0.0208) (0.0541) (0.0433) (0.0337) (0.0248)
midline 0.169*** 0.197*** 0.172*** 0.238*** 0.182*** 0.272*** 0.244*** 0.154*** 0.209***
(0.0236) (0.0288) (0.0341) (0.0513) (0.0346) (0.0790) (0.0692) (0.0476) (0.0414)
interaction 0.139*** 0.131*** 0.123*** 0.141** 0.122*** 0.187* 0.127* 0.112** 0.139***
(0.0329) (0.0343) (0.0411) (0.0610) (0.0391) (0.100) (0.0748) (0.0550) (0.0528)
edad 0.000557 0.00311 -0.00255 0.00264 -0.0157*** -0.00616 0.00505 -0.000342
(0.00180) (0.00233) (0.00284) (0.00220) (0.00530) (0.00525) (0.00324) (0.00265)
mujer -0.0693*** -0.0758*** -0.0571 -0.0551 -0.123*** -0.0482
(0.0196) (0.0227) (0.0479) (0.0398) (0.0337) (0.0300)
auto_indigena 0.0589 0.0400 0.0511 -0.473*** 0.0964 -0.0534
(0.0385) (0.0496) (0.0647) (0.166) (0.124) (0.0555)
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 74
auto_afro 0.0298 0.000746 0.0561 -0.510*** 0.0713* -0.0131
(0.0315) (0.0376) (0.0576) (0.165) (0.0406) (0.0475)
hh_size -0.00546 -0.00287 -0.00611 -0.00533 -0.00697 -0.0113 -0.00487 0.00488
(0.00441) (0.00576) (0.00685) (0.00545) (0.00774) (0.00698) (0.00797) (0.00759)
jefe 0.0672** 0.0692* 0.0957 0.0457 0.123 0.100* -0.0166 0.124**
(0.0324) (0.0398) (0.0591) (0.0377) (0.0773) (0.0602) (0.0565) (0.0548)
hijo_jefe 0.0412* 0.0564* 0.0102 0.0277 0.0911 0.0410 0.0424 0.0331
(0.0244) (0.0310) (0.0393) (0.0275) (0.0653) (0.0447) (0.0468) (0.0397)
padre_jefe 0.00301 -0.0131 0.0204 -0.00961 0.0158 -0.0366 -0.0284 0.0729
(0.0440) (0.0522) (0.0796) (0.0485) (0.145) (0.0954) (0.0646) (0.0771)
noimigrant -0.00498 0.0120 -0.0203 0.00650 -0.137** 0.001000 0.0160 0.0170
(0.0188) (0.0226) (0.0331) (0.0210) (0.0527) (0.0463) (0.0395) (0.0282)
victima 0.0231 0.0395 -0.0200 0.0319 -0.0505 -0.0327 -0.0595 0.0249
(0.0337) (0.0420) (0.0558) (0.0379) (0.0898) (0.0653) (0.0737) (0.0516)
receptor_sub -0.129*** -0.104*** -0.153** -0.121*** -0.205* -0.111 -0.0817 -0.150***
(0.0338) (0.0384) (0.0717) (0.0381) (0.109) (0.0883) (0.0498) (0.0577)
educacion 0.0158 0.0138 0.00948 0.0146 0.00465 0.0744*** 0.0290 0.00165
(0.0102) (0.0128) (0.0175) (0.0117) (0.0278) (0.0246) (0.0247) (0.0141)
hijos -0.00389 -0.0366*** 0.0440** -0.00371 0.0490 0.00389 0.0104 -0.0196
(0.0118) (0.0141) (0.0207) (0.0137) (0.0304) (0.0237) (0.0188) (0.0193)
Constant 0.0942*** -0.00277 -0.102 0.0923 0.00236 0.472** 0.437* -0.210 0.0225
(0.0113) (0.0823) (0.102) (0.134) (0.0923) (0.206) (0.258) (0.183) (0.120)
Observations 2,368 1,887 1,175 712 1,472 277 513 640 734
R-squared 0.108 0.129 0.116 0.156 0.115 0.235 0.181 0.111 0.159
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table D.6: Treatment effect on formal labor income
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas bogota bquilla cali
treated -72,799*** -86,161*** -73,518*** -105,145*** -96,362*** -50,764 -106,672*** -100,772*** -45,128**
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 75
(12,666) (15,796) (17,836) (30,215) (17,774) (48,320) (38,184) (27,180) (21,634)
midline 141,382*** 165,486*** 162,175*** 172,412*** 176,117*** 129,317** 225,720*** 152,790*** 146,649***
(22,853) (26,630) (31,737) (45,553) (33,220) (63,175) (62,945) (44,442) (38,383)
interaction 93,981*** 90,212*** 70,823* 125,919** 72,706** 168,620** 28,200 81,708* 122,088**
(29,288) (30,544) (36,739) (51,493) (36,077) (82,217) (66,344) (47,127) (49,759)
edad 1,867 2,940 1,218 2,645 -4,375 3,018 6,701** -979.1
(1,551) (1,938) (2,475) (1,853) (5,299) (4,390) (3,051) (2,281)
mujer -83,437*** -83,110*** -76,771* -43,727 -145,184*** -71,479**
(16,951) (20,144) (40,981) (33,174) (28,516) (28,009)
auto_indigena 68,542** 77,889** 13,043 -199,043** 159,580 9,007
(30,394) (36,560) (54,738) (84,821) (100,053) (44,263)
auto_afro 59,177** 58,192** 32,856 -180,498** 69,247* 22,435
(24,739) (26,872) (48,842) (83,875) (35,786) (35,277)
hh_size -5,373 -4,304 -3,800 -7,727* -1,974 -9,166 -487.6 -275.6
(3,553) (4,631) (5,549) (4,213) (7,345) (6,637) (6,881) (5,297)
jefe 45,976 28,663 108,235** 24,287 99,395 48,545 20,417 95,341**
(28,688) (35,151) (52,550) (32,644) (73,239) (57,998) (45,942) (44,077)
hijo_jefe 14,885 12,998 9,722 17,031 2,171 -15,498 40,179 21,878
(20,499) (26,504) (31,872) (22,823) (52,255) (38,827) (36,366) (31,900)
padre_jefe 36,230 21,139 30,552 36,610 -1,577 36,292 18,631 96,118
(46,926) (63,089) (63,712) (53,915) (113,321) (82,708) (53,973) (106,105)
noimigrant -31,128** -32,366* -13,757 -28,858 -74,503* -32,046 8,925 5,262
(15,562) (18,887) (27,155) (17,769) (40,409) (35,767) (31,368) (22,106)
victima -2,846 3,191 -27,905 -708.6 -30,173 9,919 -104,516* -21,325
(26,832) (33,085) (44,758) (30,629) (77,020) (56,434) (56,454) (40,839)
receptor_sub -117,370*** -92,677*** -149,641*** -118,785*** -114,779 -151,988** -89,321** -115,445***
(27,371) (32,100) (53,968) (31,053) (90,220) (65,179) (43,139) (42,706)
educacion 12,628 16,503 -5,347 15,861 -18,298 54,879** 13,275 -727.3
(9,344) (11,748) (16,164) (11,139) (22,173) (23,259) (23,475) (12,645)
hijos -2,222 -30,877** 48,956** 2,763 10,153 -6,753 8,312 -7,428
(10,695) (12,210) (20,136) (12,984) (26,834) (22,034) (18,002) (16,741)
Constant 133,398*** 41,321 -65,265 139,712 78,497 390,562** 75,020 -139,265 120,239
(10,404) (73,808) (91,687) (120,762) (85,094) (193,895) (202,417) (167,467) (106,446)
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 76
Observations 2,368 1,887 1,175 712 1,472 277 513 640 734
R-squared 0.089 0.120 0.104 0.158 0.118 0.155 0.162 0.155 0.115
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table D.7: Treatment effect on health care affiliation
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas bogota bquilla cali
treated -0.0256 -0.116 -0.0823 -0.165 -0.0796 -0.325* -0.168 0.350* -0.297***
(0.0655) (0.0813) (0.111) (0.118) (0.0936) (0.174) (0.138) (0.189) (0.107)
midline 0.219*** 0.226*** 0.230** 0.233*** 0.188** 0.410*** 0.253** 0.187 0.233**
(0.0535) (0.0637) (0.0921) (0.0893) (0.0759) (0.148) (0.110) (0.118) (0.107)
interaction 0.202** 0.250*** 0.265** 0.208 0.236** 0.257 0.269* -0.166 0.445***
(0.0809) (0.0927) (0.129) (0.135) (0.108) (0.205) (0.160) (0.202) (0.133)
edad -0.0106** -0.00724 -0.0157** -0.00737 -0.0251*** -0.0121 -0.00195 -0.0104
(0.00467) (0.00666) (0.00664) (0.00593) (0.00748) (0.00888) (0.0115) (0.00690)
mujer -0.0686* -0.105** 0.0997 -0.0521 -0.105 -0.119*
(0.0405) (0.0468) (0.0904) (0.0691) (0.0845) (0.0674)
auto_indigena 0.166* 0.128 0.223 0.196 -0.134 -0.0199
(0.0933) (0.130) (0.136) (0.276) (0.203) (0.137)
auto_afro 0.151* 0.0394 0.280** 0.139 0.165 0.0904
(0.0816) (0.110) (0.122) (0.271) (0.145) (0.112)
hh_size -0.00427 0.00229 -0.00563 0.000330 -0.0181 -0.00775 -0.00106 -0.000871
(0.00973) (0.0141) (0.0147) (0.0107) (0.0280) (0.0184) (0.0165) (0.0159)
jefe 0.151** 0.142 0.128 0.153* 0.107 0.128 0.0686 0.218*
(0.0723) (0.106) (0.101) (0.0853) (0.162) (0.119) (0.169) (0.119)
hijo_jefe 0.107 0.0604 0.123 0.0859 0.0594 0.0713 0.113 0.176*
(0.0666) (0.104) (0.0909) (0.0811) (0.147) (0.107) (0.152) (0.105)
padre_jefe 0.0602 -0.0985 0.231* 0.0704 0.0337 -0.0247 -0.0301 0.238*
(0.0872) (0.129) (0.119) (0.103) (0.225) (0.151) (0.186) (0.136)
noimigrant 0.0144 0.0576 -0.0446 0.0353 -0.188* 0.102 0.0531 -0.00505
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 77
(0.0448) (0.0612) (0.0659) (0.0516) (0.0969) (0.0722) (0.117) (0.0720)
victima -0.0197 -0.00701 -0.0342 0.0142 -0.0886 -0.0995 -0.0588 -0.00498
(0.0518) (0.0757) (0.0766) (0.0602) (0.106) (0.0831) (0.196) (0.0818)
receptor_sub -0.118 -0.0908 -0.218 -0.0527 -0.459** 0.00968 0.0153 -0.265**
(0.0725) (0.0859) (0.143) (0.0822) (0.181) (0.127) (0.127) (0.125)
educacion 0.0435** 0.0404 0.0537* 0.0380* 0.0961*** 0.0726 0.0808 0.0151
(0.0192) (0.0264) (0.0307) (0.0220) (0.0348) (0.0528) (0.0566) (0.0256)
hijos 0.0320 -0.00940 0.0604* 0.0180 0.107* 0.0440 0.00650 0.0466
(0.0263) (0.0413) (0.0343) (0.0302) (0.0581) (0.0444) (0.0560) (0.0457)
Constant 0.363*** 0.225 0.164 0.248 0.326 0.554 0.185 -0.290 0.352
(0.0385) (0.204) (0.284) (0.290) (0.222) (0.367) (0.474) (0.524) (0.287)
Observations 629 548 293 255 416 95 188 150 210
R-squared 0.120 0.147 0.155 0.176 0.122 0.357 0.201 0.155 0.215
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table D.8: Treatment effect on retirement benefits
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas bogota bquilla cali
treated -0.0623 -0.167** -0.110 -0.227** -0.161* -0.322* -0.182 0.0777 -0.278***
(0.0620) (0.0762) (0.104) (0.112) (0.0875) (0.173) (0.135) (0.200) (0.0911)
midline 0.218*** 0.225*** 0.229** 0.226** 0.180** 0.355** 0.230** 0.165 0.281***
(0.0531) (0.0632) (0.0899) (0.0896) (0.0762) (0.147) (0.114) (0.115) (0.104)
interaction 0.246*** 0.310*** 0.373*** 0.196 0.334*** 0.242 0.328** 0.0776 0.446***
(0.0786) (0.0885) (0.123) (0.131) (0.103) (0.203) (0.159) (0.216) (0.118)
edad -0.00520 0.00303 -0.0160** -0.00300 -0.0221*** -0.00723 0.00386 -0.00541
(0.00476) (0.00653) (0.00677) (0.00600) (0.00758) (0.00950) (0.0118) (0.00699)
mujer -0.0434 -0.0518 0.107 -0.00587 -0.0755 -0.103
(0.0407) (0.0476) (0.0923) (0.0712) (0.0883) (0.0654)
auto_indigena 0.226** 0.238* 0.240* 0.495** -0.102 0.0567
(0.0893) (0.122) (0.133) (0.222) (0.179) (0.130)
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 78
auto_afro 0.197** 0.192* 0.218* 0.431** 0.147 0.165
(0.0765) (0.0988) (0.120) (0.210) (0.135) (0.108)
hh_size -0.0172* -0.00531 -0.0275* -0.0127 -0.0343 -0.0162 -0.0241 -0.0111
(0.0102) (0.0141) (0.0152) (0.0114) (0.0270) (0.0180) (0.0190) (0.0155)
jefe 0.0894 0.0618 0.0558 0.101 0.0346 0.0782 0.117 0.107
(0.0737) (0.105) (0.108) (0.0871) (0.165) (0.124) (0.171) (0.115)
hijo_jefe 0.105 0.0190 0.128 0.0914 0.0376 0.0310 0.216 0.150
(0.0658) (0.102) (0.0906) (0.0796) (0.155) (0.109) (0.155) (0.103)
padre_jefe 0.104 -0.0941 0.330*** 0.112 0.121 -0.0646 0.122 0.311**
(0.0873) (0.124) (0.123) (0.103) (0.225) (0.154) (0.185) (0.127)
noimigrant 0.00260 0.0214 -0.0203 0.0208 -0.188* 0.0991 0.113 -0.0422
(0.0450) (0.0603) (0.0663) (0.0517) (0.0985) (0.0773) (0.115) (0.0699)
victima -0.0250 -0.0447 0.0185 -0.0129 0.0290 -0.103 0.000879 -0.0191
(0.0533) (0.0748) (0.0788) (0.0619) (0.0985) (0.0880) (0.197) (0.0808)
receptor_sub -0.145** -0.144* -0.153 -0.0377 -0.731*** -0.0184 0.0603 -0.349***
(0.0735) (0.0863) (0.134) (0.0820) (0.137) (0.150) (0.132) (0.115)
educacion 0.0373* 0.0290 0.0471 0.0331 0.0900** 0.0698 0.0388 0.0193
(0.0193) (0.0252) (0.0304) (0.0221) (0.0352) (0.0533) (0.0570) (0.0255)
hijos 0.0403 -0.0133 0.0728** 0.0233 0.138** 0.0452 -0.0108 0.0882*
(0.0268) (0.0408) (0.0341) (0.0305) (0.0591) (0.0461) (0.0543) (0.0448)
Constant 0.325*** 0.0990 -0.122 0.393 0.254 0.586 -0.205 -0.219 0.131
(0.0375) (0.199) (0.266) (0.293) (0.222) (0.368) (0.447) (0.531) (0.273)
Observations 629 548 293 255 416 95 188 150 210
R-squared 0.130 0.158 0.195 0.184 0.131 0.382 0.199 0.129 0.256
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table D.9: Treatment effect on ARL affiliation
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas bogota bquilla cali
treated -0.0126 -0.0656 -0.0136 -0.129 -0.0300 -0.259 -0.130 0.370* -0.218**
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 79
(0.0648) (0.0803) (0.109) (0.117) (0.0925) (0.171) (0.138) (0.190) (0.101)
midline 0.216*** 0.246*** 0.281*** 0.225** 0.213*** 0.444*** 0.256** 0.182 0.274***
(0.0533) (0.0633) (0.0900) (0.0899) (0.0755) (0.143) (0.111) (0.117) (0.102)
interaction 0.194** 0.208** 0.217* 0.172 0.208* 0.121 0.238 -0.175 0.396***
(0.0807) (0.0921) (0.127) (0.135) (0.108) (0.202) (0.162) (0.203) (0.128)
edad -0.00906* -0.00340 -0.0164** -0.00583 -0.0245*** -0.0122 -0.00227 -0.00896
(0.00468) (0.00654) (0.00660) (0.00586) (0.00751) (0.00916) (0.0115) (0.00659)
mujer -0.0614 -0.0855* 0.107 -0.0195 -0.101 -0.112*
(0.0406) (0.0471) (0.0906) (0.0737) (0.0847) (0.0637)
auto_indigena 0.146 0.156 0.158 0.189 -0.191 -0.0569
(0.0926) (0.127) (0.140) (0.241) (0.195) (0.126)
auto_afro 0.133* 0.0794 0.207 0.0886 0.0774 0.116
(0.0805) (0.107) (0.127) (0.236) (0.145) (0.112)
hh_size -0.0128 -0.00849 -0.0147 -0.00695 -0.0315 -0.0213 -0.0134 -0.00853
(0.0103) (0.0143) (0.0153) (0.0115) (0.0261) (0.0185) (0.0181) (0.0160)
jefe 0.0850 0.0653 0.0675 0.102 0.0406 0.0294 0.0336 0.175
(0.0725) (0.104) (0.103) (0.0853) (0.162) (0.122) (0.172) (0.117)
hijo_jefe 0.0652 0.0300 0.0700 0.0434 -0.0120 0.0251 0.104 0.120
(0.0669) (0.103) (0.0914) (0.0808) (0.151) (0.109) (0.155) (0.104)
padre_jefe 0.0797 -0.0770 0.235* 0.0916 0.0786 -0.0710 -0.0293 0.347***
(0.0867) (0.126) (0.120) (0.102) (0.240) (0.151) (0.182) (0.127)
noimigrant 0.0628 0.0954 0.0158 0.0759 -0.0932 0.114 0.0976 0.0439
(0.0447) (0.0605) (0.0670) (0.0512) (0.0985) (0.0789) (0.115) (0.0683)
victima -0.0348 -0.0484 -0.0311 -0.0352 0.0396 -0.135 -0.0753 0.0130
(0.0536) (0.0744) (0.0817) (0.0620) (0.100) (0.0875) (0.199) (0.0790)
receptor_sub -0.194*** -0.176** -0.249* -0.127 -0.603*** -0.0908 0.0337 -0.400***
(0.0718) (0.0868) (0.137) (0.0819) (0.148) (0.142) (0.128) (0.102)
educacion 0.0543*** 0.0369 0.0775*** 0.0428** 0.130*** 0.0898* 0.0829 0.0276
(0.0186) (0.0249) (0.0284) (0.0213) (0.0329) (0.0533) (0.0556) (0.0237)
hijos 0.0434 -0.0197 0.0887** 0.0222 0.139** 0.0712 0.0233 0.0534
(0.0267) (0.0405) (0.0341) (0.0303) (0.0593) (0.0463) (0.0557) (0.0445)
Constant 0.338*** 0.145 0.0661 0.215 0.250 0.345 0.163 -0.192 0.195
(0.0379) (0.202) (0.273) (0.296) (0.219) (0.372) (0.458) (0.526) (0.275)
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 80
Observations 629 548 293 255 416 95 188 150 210
R-squared 0.117 0.155 0.180 0.170 0.134 0.386 0.187 0.156 0.281
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
D.2 Economic Opportunities in the Countryside
Table D.10: Food security index
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas cesar choco magdalena
treated 0.869** 0.366 1.373** -0.0438 0.402 0.0801 0.399 0.165 -2.484***
(0.361) (0.360) (0.688) (0.435) (0.539) (0.488) (0.794) (0.410) (0.860)
midline 2.170*** 2.175*** 1.689*** 2.175*** 2.943*** 1.539*** 2.477*** 2.602*** -1.746*
(0.372) (0.363) (0.618) (0.454) (0.512) (0.533) (0.597) (0.430) (0.915)
interaction -1.038* -1.197** 0.00807 -1.316** -0.685 -1.412* -2.144* -0.0825
(0.566) (0.556) (1.136) (0.641) (0.765) (0.789) (1.280) (0.584)
edad -0.0638*** -0.0335 -0.0742*** -0.0228 -0.0907*** -0.0565*** -0.0218* -0.0276
(0.00982) (0.0208) (0.0113) (0.0139) (0.0141) (0.0195) (0.0111) (0.0357)
mujer -0.152 -0.671 0.353 1.850*** -0.316 -2.865*
(0.302) (0.416) (0.445) (0.564) (0.348) (1.546)
auto_indigena 4.503*** 5.792*** 3.740*** 3.259*** 6.535*** 5.653***
(0.697) (0.926) (0.899) (1.224) (0.612) (1.154)
auto_afro 6.843*** 7.156*** 6.371*** -1.495 4.948***
(0.680) (0.875) (0.887) (1.350) (0.576)
jefe 0.0822 -0.773 0.521 -1.874 1.116 1.888 -1.105 0.392
(0.831) (1.072) (1.208) (1.344) (0.954) (1.228) (0.882) (2.533)
noimigrant 0.936** -0.412 1.386*** -0.0456 1.722*** 0.339 -0.173 1.283
(0.373) (0.712) (0.431) (0.481) (0.578) (0.830) (0.390) (1.833)
educacion -0.503*** -0.698*** -0.359*** -0.348*** -0.686*** -0.642*** -0.212** -0.721**
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 81
(0.0908) (0.163) (0.112) (0.132) (0.126) (0.174) (0.0977) (0.309)
hijos 0.470*** 0.601*** 0.483*** 0.873*** 0.278*** 0.210 0.691*** 0.248
(0.0673) (0.129) (0.0776) (0.102) (0.0901) (0.155) (0.0714) (0.156)
o.interaction - o.auto_afro - Constant 9.671*** 7.356*** 6.199*** 7.738*** 12.76*** 13.26*** 4.971** 7.023*** 6.618**
(0.253) (1.232) (2.111) (1.611) (1.504) (1.259) (2.360) (1.123) (3.303)
Observations 1,672 1,591 453 1,138 666 916 377 1,008 206
R-squared 0.024 0.124 0.164 0.128 0.192 0.088 0.150 0.196 0.114
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table D.11: Food purchases
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas cesar choco magdalena
treated -0.109*** -0.0984*** -0.0977*** -0.0937*** -0.0302 -0.144*** -0.235*** -0.0260 -0.131**
(0.0175) (0.0184) (0.0330) (0.0224) (0.0193) (0.0277) (0.0555) (0.0179) (0.0556)
midline -0.0177 -0.00716 -0.0473 0.0133 0.123*** -0.120*** -0.237*** 0.121*** 0.00752
(0.0233) (0.0244) (0.0406) (0.0313) (0.0338) (0.0343) (0.0420) (0.0306) (0.0220)
interaction 0.0972*** 0.101*** 0.186** 0.0722* 0.0263 0.173*** 0.222*** 0.0277
(0.0304) (0.0322) (0.0762) (0.0385) (0.0492) (0.0409) (0.0637) (0.0419)
edad 0.000116 0.000306 0.000155 -6.44e-05 -1.97e-07 0.000783 -0.000598 -0.00125
(0.000551) (0.00127) (0.000621) (0.000754) (0.000799) (0.00146) (0.000638) (0.00116)
mujer 0.0135 0.0252 0.0206 -0.0388 0.0316 -0.0651**
(0.0186) (0.0242) (0.0278) (0.0424) (0.0215) (0.0315)
auto_indigena -0.0817 -0.178 -0.0325 -0.0988 0.0397 -0.0130
(0.137) (0.250) (0.161) (0.150) (0.0261) (0.0350)
auto_afro -0.111 -0.229 -0.0572 -0.0584 0.0190
(0.137) (0.250) (0.159) (0.144) (0.0218)
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 82
jefe 0.00442 -0.0170 0.0226 -0.0491 0.0236 -0.00447 -0.00689 0.0187
(0.0427) (0.0740) (0.0448) (0.146) (0.0430) (0.0813) (0.0589) (0.0253)
noimigrant -0.0323 -0.0584 -0.0263 -0.0375 -0.0270 -0.0714* -0.0466* -0.0120
(0.0199) (0.0383) (0.0234) (0.0303) (0.0257) (0.0429) (0.0243) (0.0175)
educacion 0.0156*** 0.0171 0.0149** 0.0155* 0.0135* 0.0290** 0.00883 0.00449
(0.00556) (0.0112) (0.00642) (0.00847) (0.00748) (0.0140) (0.00655) (0.0106)
hijos -0.00438 0.000412 -0.00543 -0.00183 -0.00614 0.00623 -0.00326 -0.00274
(0.00345) (0.00897) (0.00374) (0.00544) (0.00446) (0.0106) (0.00405) (0.00331)
o.interaction - o.auto_afro - Constant 0.142*** 0.182 0.308 0.112 0.0524 0.145** 0.266 0.0405 0.186**
(0.0156) (0.145) (0.268) (0.169) (0.163) (0.0608) (0.205) (0.0691) (0.0888)
Observations 1,672 1,591 453 1,138 666 916 377 1,008 206
R-squared 0.023 0.036 0.039 0.036 0.057 0.059 0.125 0.052 0.091
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table D.12: Treatment effect on family income
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas cesar choco magdalena
treated -120,529*** -66,779** -163,558*** -21,470 -25,347 -69,551 -103,927 8,392 -26,812
(34,520) (33,826) (59,122) (38,815) (54,915) (47,628) (108,210) (39,309) (69,192)
midline 142,439** 133,126* 69,390 162,855** 44,801 217,906** 121,571 110,236 478,615*
(65,428) (72,266) (132,098) (76,589) (85,646) (109,275) (152,215) (72,728) (289,597)
interaction 86,058 25,674 -10,245 16,136 76,201 -43,126 -127,178 -30,780
(93,048) (105,499) (185,435) (117,052) (134,057) (155,428) (201,673) (106,879)
edad 2,710* 5,208 1,847 726.4 3,974* 4,528 2,440* -5,477
(1,467) (3,782) (1,509) (1,617) (2,246) (3,984) (1,290) (8,454)
mujer 54,114 -27,888 109,829 101,750 -30,037 168,595
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 83
(48,800) (51,562) (71,507) (130,442) (45,972) (126,479)
auto_indigena 1,521 -28,798 25,141 230,648 -518,808 345,549*
(144,908) (338,323) (115,005) (164,360) (406,878) (185,218)
auto_afro 139,269 -17,450 225,547* -388,737 -250,418
(142,526) (311,174) (123,751) (247,846) (408,427)
jefe -99,644 100,534 -254,777** -90,177 -111,467 -156,999 -119,078 208,979
(87,372) (124,879) (117,021) (147,995) (102,344) (195,861) (106,465) (164,254)
noimigrant 126,533 216,142 85,956 102,000 139,270 220,405 130,640 -172,604
(78,463) (144,025) (91,970) (113,315) (108,658) (248,192) (83,145) (150,960)
educacion 106,617*** 110,991*** 103,235*** 82,068*** 119,504*** 138,891*** 83,125*** 101,103***
(13,419) (21,196) (17,552) (23,172) (14,359) (25,578) (16,533) (29,084)
hijos 31,646*** 42,108** 30,430*** 32,323** 31,775*** 39,679** 46,835*** 5,011
(7,890) (18,760) (9,192) (15,407) (8,848) (19,416) (11,340) (14,420)
o.interaction - o.auto_afro - Constant 617,399*** 74,646 -81,395 199,806 421,539** -29,761 -238,915 559,475 -286,485
(25,197) (207,322) (487,899) (182,998) (214,321) (164,138) (450,493) (423,623) (210,922)
Observations 1,672 1,591 453 1,138 666 916 377 1,008 206
R-squared 0.015 0.069 0.067 0.073 0.040 0.075 0.074 0.094 0.054
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table D.13: Treatment effect on total expenditure
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas cesar choco magdalena
treated -139,674** -93,048 207,726 -194,596** 372,874*** -384,283*** 118,566 -121,478 21,324
(67,659) (74,560) (127,590) (96,286) (107,579) (109,640) (135,126) (110,646) (64,531)
midline 222,720*** 161,265* 48,836 191,358 58,123 353,789** 150,875 137,863 100,991*
(81,741) (84,653) (83,341) (127,639) (78,086) (149,067) (92,528) (123,377) (60,672)
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 84
interaction 63,084 -17,171 -39,353 -19,254 56,375 -259,538 25,825 27,042
(113,628) (118,284) (216,038) (159,993) (165,085) (185,512) (210,271) (169,037)
edad 5,142*** 6,335** 4,228** 1,425 3,975 11,320*** 5,949*** -1,500
(1,570) (3,069) (1,905) (2,373) (2,423) (3,322) (2,122) (1,861)
mujer -137,766** -136,227* -210,964** 22,914 -248,376*** 66,135
(57,393) (77,381) (91,614) (96,633) (68,304) (124,450)
auto_indigena 320,545** 116,111 419,194*** 495,754*** 29,623 218,451***
(132,398) (261,824) (153,389) (136,232) (310,451) (68,246)
auto_afro 781,975*** 436,348* 918,185*** -53,355 403,186
(127,827) (255,961) (149,254) (162,003) (294,209)
jefe 117,217 108,384 105,985 -195,401 124,331 267,842 86,817 214,939***
(108,574) (153,860) (149,837) (438,018) (98,166) (178,680) (174,364) (60,949)
noimigrant 98,989 -42,303 140,921 -27,378 250,852 -105,055 65,476 102,213
(97,527) (89,252) (133,433) (97,814) (169,092) (102,764) (118,032) (78,793)
educacion 194,583*** 167,280*** 215,941*** 133,386*** 208,716*** 312,380*** 158,636*** 50,420**
(20,578) (26,907) (27,004) (25,438) (28,966) (51,837) (23,913) (23,133)
hijos 65,063*** 43,018** 78,100*** 67,785** 71,593*** 41,668** 107,746*** 6,958
(15,650) (20,985) (20,026) (28,346) (20,300) (19,987) (23,650) (8,633)
o.interaction - o.auto_afro - Constant 983,299*** -607,226*** -392,677 -729,803*** 707,360 -171,807
-1.639e+06*** -146,051 -189,636
(50,334) (217,227) (394,928) (259,797) (483,367) (204,972) (445,557) (371,415) (167,382)
Observations 1,672 1,591 453 1,138 666 916 377 1,008 206
R-squared 0.015 0.143 0.148 0.154 0.113 0.149 0.267 0.107 0.076
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table D.14: Treatment effect on productive activity
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas cesar choco magdalena
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 85
treated 0.222*** 0.163*** 0.309*** 0.0986*** 0.212*** 0.109*** 0.217*** 0.139*** -0.00121
(0.0187) (0.0174) (0.0353) (0.0188) (0.0293) (0.0208) (0.0478) (0.0195) (0.00572)
midline -0.148*** -0.153*** -0.135** -0.173*** -0.00676 -0.279*** -0.326*** -0.0116 -0.0768**
(0.0315) (0.0321) (0.0576) (0.0377) (0.0438) (0.0471) (0.0590) (0.0347) (0.0372)
interaction 0.0897*** 0.0883** 0.0656 0.114*** -0.0525 0.212*** 0.206** -0.0181
(0.0343) (0.0348) (0.0736) (0.0395) (0.0481) (0.0508) (0.0805) (0.0365)
edad -0.000696 0.000670 -0.00109 0.00138 -0.00231*** -0.000942 0.00181** 0.000278
(0.000665) (0.00182) (0.000689) (0.00104) (0.000876) (0.00178) (0.000758) (0.000525)
mujer -0.176*** -0.120*** -0.211*** -0.176*** -0.111*** 0.0182
(0.0220) (0.0298) (0.0324) (0.0529) (0.0236) (0.0130)
auto_indigena 0.380** 0.173 0.473*** 0.403*** -0.104 -0.0572
(0.148) (0.248) (0.178) (0.133) (0.0633) (0.0352)
auto_afro 0.454*** 0.308 0.511*** 0.000700 -0.207***
(0.146) (0.246) (0.176) (0.139) (0.0630)
jefe -0.0805* -0.235*** 0.0240 -0.0140 -0.0862** -0.175** -0.0400 0.00186
(0.0453) (0.0900) (0.0451) (0.188) (0.0345) (0.0824) (0.0596) (0.00723)
noimigrant -0.00910 -0.0677 0.0141 -0.0235 0.00716 -0.0481 -0.0238 0.0507*
(0.0245) (0.0550) (0.0248) (0.0343) (0.0344) (0.0726) (0.0245) (0.0271)
educacion -0.0214*** -0.0389*** -0.00741 -0.000915 -0.0302*** -0.0357** 0.00114 0.0143
(0.00562) (0.0140) (0.00578) (0.00785) (0.00750) (0.0162) (0.00515) (0.00934)
hijos 0.000888 0.00737 0.00181 -0.00636 0.00569 0.00642 -0.00364 0.00162
(0.00349) (0.0106) (0.00349) (0.00688) (0.00382) (0.0110) (0.00413) (0.00361)
o.interaction - o.auto_afro - Constant 0.776*** 0.624*** 0.715** 0.451** 0.789*** 1.140*** 0.676*** 1.014*** 1.004***
(0.0186) (0.161) (0.295) (0.189) (0.194) (0.0546) (0.211) (0.0910) (0.0512)
Observations 1,672 1,591 453 1,138 666 916 377 1,008 206
R-squared 0.150 0.204 0.194 0.136 0.123 0.297 0.296 0.139 0.073
Robust standard errors in parentheses
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 86
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table D.15: Treatment effect on productive land, percent change
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas cesar choco magdalena
treated 1.099*** 1.238** 2.389*** 1.141 0.412 0.728 1.604 1.593** 0.781
(0.408) (0.576) (0.916) (0.722) (2.421) (0.538) (1.537) (0.695) (0.700)
midline 1.557 -0.236 0.904 -0.634 1.541 -0.292 -0.914 0.835 1.998
(1.804) (2.466) (1.037) (3.328) (3.968) (0.692) (1.431) (3.107) (2.657)
interaction 9.393* 11.18* 6.463 12.14* 24.58* 0.807 0.507 15.09*
(5.057) (5.869) (5.076) (6.859) (12.99) (1.241) (2.037) (8.170)
edad 0.140 0.0142 0.171 0.157 0.0663*** 0.0626* 0.138 0.120
(0.124) (0.0586) (0.155) (0.273) (0.0187) (0.0321) (0.181) (0.0754)
mujer -2.713 -4.229 0.0109 -0.0615 -4.261 -0.886
(1.898) (3.387) (0.616) (1.663) (2.860) (1.169)
auto_indigena 1.321 1.935 2.504 2.603* -0.451 7.456*
(2.095) (2.441) (3.251) (1.551) (3.914) (4.049)
auto_afro 6.564** 3.053 8.991** 5.865
(3.070) (2.732) (4.575) (4.137)
jefe -4.339 -0.702 -4.617 -5.953 -1.162* 0.798 -6.922 -2.095
(3.039) (1.811) (3.084) (6.659) (0.672) (1.685) (4.485) (2.222)
noimigrant -0.175 0.724 -0.660 -0.826 -0.951 -0.481 -1.138 -2.743*
(4.516) (2.744) (5.941) (8.959) (0.588) (1.334) (5.756) (1.623)
educacion -0.159 -0.254 -0.182 -1.237 0.234 0.398 -0.522 0.518
(0.628) (0.268) (0.869) (1.565) (0.160) (0.357) (0.893) (0.608)
hijos -0.257 -0.262 -0.333 -0.116 0.0940 -0.0324 -0.251 0.0960
(0.319) (0.283) (0.403) (1.193) (0.0973) (0.291) (0.535) (0.141)
o.auto_afro - - o.interaction - Constant 3.347*** 0.304 1.577 -2.010 8.274 1.250 -2.939 4.069 -7.965
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 87
(0.328) (5.349) (3.109) (6.725) (9.511) (1.014) (3.280) (7.232) (6.837)
Observations 1,403 1,350 312 1,038 568 779 240 908 202
R-squared 0.014 0.024 0.081 0.024 0.037 0.017 0.018 0.029 0.032
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table D.16: Treatment effect on the probability of bank saving
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas cesar choco magdalena
treated 0.0203** 0.0187** 0.00822 0.0149 0.0311* 0.00929 0.00158 0.0227** 0.0269*
(0.00890) (0.00907) (0.0127) (0.0111) (0.0162) (0.0113) (0.0230) (0.0112) (0.0159)
midline -0.00447 -0.00376 0.00450 -0.00925 0.00930 -0.0145** -0.0168 0.00177 -0.0321*
(0.00591) (0.00660) (0.0109) (0.00892) (0.0112) (0.00732) (0.0113) (0.00935) (0.0185)
interaction -0.00986 -0.00885 0.0287 -0.0103 -0.0214 0.00179 0.0430 -0.0179
(0.0120) (0.0126) (0.0353) (0.0143) (0.0225) (0.0145) (0.0409) (0.0157)
edad 0.000351* 0.000338 0.000242 0.000255 0.000371 -0.000278 0.000290 0.000831
(0.000180) (0.000305) (0.000209) (0.000239) (0.000283) (0.000324) (0.000247) (0.00101)
mujer -0.00588 0.00418 -0.0139* -0.0198 -0.000870 -0.00462
(0.00692) (0.0122) (0.00752) (0.0139) (0.00883) (0.0115)
auto_indigena 0.00711 0.00937 0.00287 0.00377 -0.00864 0.0392
(0.00696) (0.00771) (0.0113) (0.00895) (0.0115) (0.0266)
auto_afro 0.0119* 0.0182 0.00715 0.0417** 0.00162
(0.00652) (0.0120) (0.0102) (0.0180) (0.00843)
jefe -0.0290 -0.00122 -0.0623 0.0111 -0.0385 -0.122 0.0128** 0.0230
(0.0319) (0.00768) (0.0601) (0.00878) (0.0388) (0.0915) (0.00635) (0.0188)
noimigrant -0.00353 -0.00554 -0.00177 -0.00294 -0.00315 -0.0321* 0.00175 -0.00684
(0.00846) (0.0130) (0.0105) (0.0129) (0.0117) (0.0174) (0.0109) (0.00971)
educacion 0.00492** 0.000223 0.00724** 0.00274 0.00637* 0.00174 0.00274 0.0159
(0.00218) (0.00156) (0.00302) (0.00280) (0.00327) (0.00506) (0.00225) (0.0155)
hijos 0.00319* -0.000715 0.00497** 0.00321 0.00364* -0.000137 0.00448* 0.00328
(0.00176) (0.00170) (0.00223) (0.00347) (0.00204) (0.00338) (0.00250) (0.00360)
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 88
o.interaction - o.auto_afro - Constant 0.00998** -0.00683 -0.0214 0.0272 -0.0353 0.0117 0.154 -0.0358** -0.140
(0.00445) (0.0349) (0.0182) (0.0605) (0.0221) (0.0428) (0.106) (0.0176) (0.0985)
Observations 1,672 1,591 453 1,138 666 916 377 1,008 206
R-squared 0.006 0.013 0.019 0.022 0.012 0.019 0.048 0.013 0.048
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table D.17: Regression Results for Government Awareness of Ethnic Issues (Rural)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas cesar choco magdalena
treated -0.120*** -0.111*** -0.171*** -0.0985** -0.104* -0.104** -0.0783 -0.0730* -0.219**
(0.0308) (0.0322) (0.0638) (0.0384) (0.0533) (0.0417) (0.0795) (0.0395) (0.0918)
midline 0.0120 0.00932 0.0421 -0.00281 -0.0829 0.111** 0.0725 -0.0236 0.313***
(0.0344) (0.0365) (0.0603) (0.0465) (0.0524) (0.0522) (0.0622) (0.0461) (0.0802)
interaction 0.182*** 0.179*** 0.127 0.195*** 0.258*** 0.0878 0.00692 0.175***
(0.0494) (0.0514) (0.113) (0.0607) (0.0788) (0.0702) (0.118) (0.0637)
edad 0.00183** 0.00259 0.00152 0.000102 0.00295** 0.00312 0.000263 0.000447
(0.000905) (0.00190) (0.00105) (0.00137) (0.00126) (0.00194) (0.00116) (0.00338)
mujer 0.0269 0.0707* -0.0290 -0.0457 0.0463 -0.227*
(0.0288) (0.0424) (0.0400) (0.0588) (0.0357) (0.133)
auto_indigena -0.392*** -0.477*** -0.362** -0.404*** -0.129 0.726***
(0.103) (0.0620) (0.150) (0.0606) (0.309) (0.106)
auto_afro -0.433*** -0.456*** -0.424*** -1.051*** -0.0418
(0.102) (0.0538) (0.149) (0.0918) (0.308)
jefe -0.0311 -0.0539 -0.0293 0.0482 -0.0780 -0.156 -0.0114 0.115
(0.0763) (0.111) (0.106) (0.180) (0.0824) (0.139) (0.0990) (0.195)
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 89
noimigrant 0.0223 0.0266 0.0277 0.0782 -0.0316 -0.0137 0.0810** -0.232*
(0.0353) (0.0653) (0.0423) (0.0496) (0.0512) (0.0872) (0.0412) (0.128)
educacion 0.0136* 0.00453 0.0172* -0.00855 0.0237** 0.0188 0.000536 0.0404
(0.00802) (0.0151) (0.00966) (0.0128) (0.0106) (0.0178) (0.00987) (0.0290)
hijos 0.0104* 0.0129 0.00957 0.0145 0.00722 0.0295** 0.00797 0.00592
(0.00596) (0.0131) (0.00680) (0.0100) (0.00767) (0.0140) (0.00751) (0.0149)
o.interaction - o.auto_afro - Constant 0.459*** 0.733*** 0.833*** 0.706*** 0.362* 0.320*** 0.823*** 0.425 -0.404
(0.0223) (0.143) (0.183) (0.195) (0.202) (0.110) (0.217) (0.328) (0.289)
Observations 1,672 1,591 453 1,138 666 916 377 1,008 206
R-squared 0.020 0.031 0.035 0.032 0.032 0.042 0.042 0.032 0.118
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, *p<0.1
Table D.18: Regression Results for Government Awareness of Ethnic Issues (Urban)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas bogota bquilla cali
treated -0.0572** -0.0724** -0.0782* -0.0687 -0.0726* -0.0726 -0.150** 0.0293 -0.120**
(0.0266) (0.0336) (0.0427) (0.0552) (0.0376) (0.0897) (0.0644) (0.0583) (0.0541)
midline -0.0990*** -0.120*** -0.126*** -0.108* -0.104** -0.190* -0.292*** 0.0360 -0.158***
(0.0303) (0.0367) (0.0469) (0.0602) (0.0432) (0.103) (0.0715) (0.0620) (0.0586)
interaction 0.0190 0.0569 0.0796 0.0223 0.0452 0.122 0.167** -0.0827 0.110
(0.0417) (0.0458) (0.0582) (0.0752) (0.0521) (0.123) (0.0849) (0.0780) (0.0730)
edad -0.00562** -0.00504 -0.00714*
- 0.00746*** -0.00172 -0.00876 -0.000959 -0.00946**
(0.00250) (0.00334) (0.00383) (0.00288) (0.00691) (0.00579) (0.00458) (0.00374)
mujer -0.0443* -0.0613** 0.0359 -0.0700 -0.000517 -0.0119
(0.0245) (0.0281) (0.0611) (0.0459) (0.0417) (0.0397)
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 90
auto_indigena -0.169*** -0.125* -0.228** -0.148 -0.233 -0.132
(0.0543) (0.0708) (0.0890) (0.262) (0.165) (0.0828)
auto_afro -0.0643 -0.0583 -0.0733 -0.137 -0.0200 -0.0876
(0.0460) (0.0576) (0.0791) (0.259) (0.0675) (0.0678)
hh_size 0.000969 0.00577 -0.00509 0.000157 -0.000664 -0.00444 0.00260 0.000283
(0.00584) (0.00805) (0.00850) (0.00688) (0.0138) (0.0101) (0.0104) (0.00971)
jefe 0.0333 0.0800 -0.0341 0.0536 -0.0926 0.0171 0.00913 0.0878
(0.0423) (0.0554) (0.0681) (0.0485) (0.0980) (0.0705) (0.0789) (0.0716)
hijo_jefe -0.0342 0.00128 -0.0836 -0.0168 -0.0921 -0.0810 0.000711 -0.0181
(0.0346) (0.0478) (0.0511) (0.0391) (0.0864) (0.0574) (0.0655) (0.0572)
padre_jefe -0.0310 0.0150 -0.0960 -0.00639 -0.323*** -0.0844 -0.0756 0.0112
(0.0524) (0.0681) (0.0852) (0.0593) (0.114) (0.0998) (0.0884) (0.0874)
noimigrant 0.0722*** 0.0794** 0.0550 0.0747*** 0.0623 0.0348 -0.0376 0.00430
(0.0255) (0.0320) (0.0434) (0.0286) (0.0677) (0.0507) (0.0534) (0.0416)
victima -0.0419 -0.00314 -0.0957* -0.0467 -0.0474 -0.000549 0.117 -0.00828
(0.0359) (0.0468) (0.0568) (0.0409) (0.0887) (0.0626) (0.0821) (0.0551)
receptor_sub 0.0453 0.0509 0.00622 0.0202 0.241** 0.148 -0.0506 -0.0769
(0.0417) (0.0490) (0.0832) (0.0468) (0.117) (0.0965) (0.0638) (0.0686)
educacion 0.000216 0.00417 -0.00547 0.00358 -0.0590* -0.0355 -0.0289 -0.0189
(0.0118) (0.0153) (0.0190) (0.0132) (0.0331) (0.0309) (0.0312) (0.0157)
hijos 0.0309** 0.0262 0.0403* 0.0469*** 0.00952 0.00717 0.0462** 0.00877
(0.0148) (0.0202) (0.0224) (0.0167) (0.0392) (0.0284) (0.0215) (0.0274)
Constant 0.547*** 0.743*** 0.587*** 0.923*** 0.692*** 0.867*** 1.167*** 0.807*** 0.965***
(0.0193) (0.114) (0.146) (0.182) (0.117) (0.271) (0.354) (0.257) (0.167)
Observations 2,368 1,887 1,175 712 1,472 277 513 640 734
R-squared 0.010 0.034 0.029 0.054 0.029 0.064 0.064 0.024 0.037
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, *p<0.1
Table D.19: Regression Results for Participation in Activities to Claim Collective Rights (Rural)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 91
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas cesar choco magdalena
treated 0.0626** 0.0246 0.0147 0.0317 0.0132 0.0559 0.293*** 0.00201 -0.0360
(0.0304) (0.0307) (0.0584) (0.0371) (0.0440) (0.0424) (0.0780) (0.0372) (0.0921)
midline -0.0105 0.0297 0.0313 0.0309 0.0370 0.0256 -0.00132 0.0398 0.494***
(0.0322) (0.0336) (0.0542) (0.0435) (0.0443) (0.0515) (0.0611) (0.0409) (0.0651)
interaction 0.0935* 0.0811* 0.0613 0.0829 0.0413 0.106 -0.0183 -0.0353
(0.0481) (0.0483) (0.100) (0.0577) (0.0677) (0.0692) (0.113) (0.0578)
edad 0.000671 0.00248 0.000212 0.000192 0.00125 0.00132 0.000977 0.00180
(0.000821) (0.00173) (0.000957) (0.00110) (0.00124) (0.00194) (0.000992) (0.00300)
mujer -0.0366 -0.0297 -0.0257 0.0712 -0.0388 -0.369***
(0.0265) (0.0352) (0.0406) (0.0574) (0.0318) (0.0835)
auto_indigena 0.394*** 0.422*** 0.386*** 0.381*** 0.310*** -0.0436
(0.0418) (0.0742) (0.0529) (0.0650) (0.0519) (0.0893)
auto_afro 0.176*** 0.217*** 0.165*** 0.139 0.114***
(0.0379) (0.0658) (0.0491) (0.0917) (0.0433)
jefe 0.00399 -0.0202 0.0221 -0.435** 0.0692 0.0776 -0.0579 0.112
(0.0804) (0.118) (0.110) (0.173) (0.0835) (0.130) (0.108) (0.201)
noimigrant 0.00662 0.0318 -0.00166 0.126*** -0.114** -0.0797 0.0747** -0.237*
(0.0328) (0.0589) (0.0399) (0.0430) (0.0492) (0.0823) (0.0370) (0.140)
educacion 0.0423*** 0.0542*** 0.0379*** 0.0428*** 0.0433*** 0.0339* 0.0501*** -0.0102
(0.00755) (0.0143) (0.00923) (0.0109) (0.0102) (0.0182) (0.00908) (0.0277)
hijos 0.0245*** 0.0330*** 0.0226*** 0.0222** 0.0227*** 0.0159 0.0257*** 0.00492
(0.00573) (0.0120) (0.00665) (0.00887) (0.00773) (0.0139) (0.00712) (0.0137)
o.interaction - o.auto_afro - Constant 0.327*** -0.182* -0.370* -0.156 0.438** 0.122 -0.298 -0.0876 0.317
(0.0210) (0.106) (0.199) (0.133) (0.191) (0.109) (0.213) (0.128) (0.282)
Observations 1,672 1,591 453 1,138 666 916 377 1,008 206
R-squared 0.014 0.095 0.099 0.087 0.071 0.048 0.097 0.083 0.228
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 92
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, *p<0.1
Table D.20: Regression Results for Participation in Activities to Claim Collective Rights (Urban)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas bogota bquilla cali
treated 0.0187*** 0.0106 -0.00354 0.0391** 0.0113 0.00608 0.0388** -0.000386 -0.00163
(0.00679) (0.00940) (0.0112) (0.0177) (0.00977) (0.0249) (0.0182) (0.0165) (0.0177)
midline -0.0541*** -0.0617*** -0.0755*** -0.0394 -0.0482*** -0.0989* -0.143*** -0.0630** -0.0222
(0.0141) (0.0177) (0.0225) (0.0295) (0.0186) (0.0506) (0.0441) (0.0288) (0.0229)
interaction 0.00932 0.0161 0.0363 -0.0202 -0.00525 0.0804* 0.0569 0.0105 0.00440
(0.0175) (0.0183) (0.0238) (0.0298) (0.0197) (0.0483) (0.0448) (0.0319) (0.0235)
edad 0.00233** 0.00198 0.00275* 0.00224** -0.00110 0.00433 0.000264 0.00199*
(0.000969) (0.00134) (0.00143) (0.00105) (0.00256) (0.00280) (0.00175) (0.00120)
mujer -0.00458 0.000881 -0.0324 -0.0252 0.00260 0.0158
(0.00973) (0.0108) (0.0197) (0.0198) (0.0181) (0.0131)
auto_indigena 0.0361 0.0174 0.0589 0.387 0.00240 0.0159
(0.0283) (0.0374) (0.0477) (0.235) (0.0977) (0.0333)
auto_afro 0.0482* 0.0472 0.0494 0.365 0.0768* 0.0258
(0.0253) (0.0312) (0.0445) (0.235) (0.0402) (0.0265)
hh_size -0.000677 0.000547 -0.00248 -0.000323 -0.00504 -0.00487 0.00204 -0.00362
(0.00233) (0.00381) (0.00239) (0.00252) (0.00533) (0.00517) (0.00310) (0.00372)
jefe 0.00127 0.0200 -0.0222 -0.00701 0.0288 0.0113 0.00335 -0.0235
(0.0149) (0.0214) (0.0208) (0.0171) (0.0297) (0.0310) (0.0228) (0.0230)
hijo_jefe -0.00191 0.00909 -0.0125 -0.00816 0.0539 0.0297 -0.0195 -0.00137
(0.0121) (0.0195) (0.0144) (0.0127) (0.0346) (0.0278) (0.0189) (0.0170)
padre_jefe -0.0357 -0.0285 -0.0351 -0.0351 -0.0407 -0.0554 -0.0459 -0.0149
(0.0278) (0.0375) (0.0409) (0.0282) (0.0941) (0.0757) (0.0389) (0.0340)
noimigrant -0.0150 -0.0159 -0.0120 -0.00420 -0.0701** -0.0353 -0.0532*** -0.00912
(0.00947) (0.0124) (0.0143) (0.00964) (0.0303) (0.0291) (0.0115) (0.0117)
victima 0.0242 0.0104 0.0432** 0.0128 0.0497 0.0524 0.00121 0.0311**
(0.0151) (0.0219) (0.0189) (0.0175) (0.0305) (0.0375) (0.0398) (0.0147)
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 93
receptor_sub 0.0111 0.00822 0.0311 0.0337* -0.0414 -0.0278 0.00672 0.0340***
(0.0193) (0.0239) (0.0283) (0.0182) (0.0645) (0.0558) (0.0308) (0.0108)
educacion -0.00521 -0.00875 -0.000910 -0.00302 -0.00940 0.0129 -0.00598 0.000754
(0.00426) (0.00606) (0.00603) (0.00458) (0.00945) (0.0163) (0.00992) (0.00417)
hijos -0.00860 -0.0130 -0.00534 -0.0113* -0.00209 -0.00773 -0.0102 -0.00409
(0.00562) (0.00857) (0.00722) (0.00604) (0.0100) (0.0121) (0.00962) (0.00858)
Constant 0.975*** 0.925*** 0.950*** 0.880*** 0.957*** 1.094*** 0.449* 1.000*** 0.923***
(0.00609) (0.0506) (0.0620) (0.0874) (0.0460) (0.109) (0.266) (0.0858) (0.0655)
Observations 2,368 1,887 1,175 712 1,472 277 513 640 734
R-squared 0.021 0.033 0.036 0.042 0.023 0.118 0.125 0.051 0.020
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, *p<0.1
Table D.21: Regression Results for Knowledge for Cultural Traditions (Rural)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas cesar choco magdalena
treated 0.0903*** 0.0768*** 0.0268 0.0917*** 0.120** 0.0385* 0.128*** 0.0766** -0.0132
(0.0236) (0.0238) (0.0492) (0.0283) (0.0493) (0.0233) (0.0365) (0.0339) (0.0117)
midline 0.0869*** 0.121*** 0.102*** 0.134*** 0.209*** 0.0347 0.0803** 0.164*** -0.01000
(0.0253) (0.0254) (0.0374) (0.0343) (0.0452) (0.0264) (0.0346) (0.0366) (0.0203)
interaction -0.0818** -0.112*** -0.0776 -0.130*** -0.146** -0.0674* -0.0757* -0.158***
(0.0346) (0.0348) (0.0790) (0.0423) (0.0658) (0.0369) (0.0399) (0.0504)
edad 0.00107 0.00140 0.000751 0.000734 0.000741 0.00110 0.00166* 0.000843
(0.000682) (0.00131) (0.000817) (0.00122) (0.000766) (0.00118) (0.000969) (0.000672)
mujer 0.0291 0.0548 0.0213 0.0583* 0.0401 0.00484
(0.0208) (0.0371) (0.0206) (0.0306) (0.0296) (0.00679)
auto_indigena 0.458*** 0.287 0.531*** 0.320* 0.791*** 0.00750
(0.147) (0.237) (0.168) (0.183) (0.0563) (0.0235)
auto_afro 0.278* 0.113 0.349** -0.550*** 0.637***
(0.147) (0.237) (0.169) (0.184) (0.0548)
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 94
jefe -0.0357 -0.0386 -0.0558 -0.135 -0.0202 0.00886 -0.0966 -0.0201
(0.0417) (0.0710) (0.0441) (0.136) (0.0405) (0.0660) (0.0596) (0.0171)
noimigrant 0.0387 -0.0265 0.0674** 0.0811** -0.00158 -0.0198 0.0754** 0.0167
(0.0244) (0.0470) (0.0288) (0.0388) (0.0283) (0.0479) (0.0304) (0.0125)
educacion 0.0242*** 0.0149 0.0273*** 0.0359*** 0.0152*** 0.0210** 0.0318*** 0.00475
(0.00532) (0.0101) (0.00621) (0.0104) (0.00573) (0.00943) (0.00759) (0.00604)
hijos 0.0124*** 0.00537 0.0149*** 0.00510 0.0164*** 0.0178*** 0.00943 0.00195
(0.00407) (0.00924) (0.00465) (0.00866) (0.00405) (0.00687) (0.00615) (0.00147)
o.interaction - o.auto_afro - Constant 0.786*** 0.274* 0.533** 0.205 0.577*** 0.793*** 0.352* -0.0903 0.965***
(0.0183) (0.157) (0.266) (0.178) (0.159) (0.0552) (0.211) (0.0898) (0.0455)
Observations 1,672 1,591 453 1,138 666 916 377 1,008 206
R-squared 0.014 0.093 0.075 0.108 0.061 0.028 0.136 0.069 0.020
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, *p<0.1
Table D.22: Regression Results for Knowledge for Cultural Traditions (Rural)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
VARIABLES no_cont cont mujeres hombres Afro indigenas bogota bquilla cali
treated 0.132*** 0.0632** 0.0461 0.101** 0.0533 0.0592 0.0541 0.175*** -0.0272
(0.0238) (0.0290) (0.0368) (0.0480) (0.0328) (0.0777) (0.0485) (0.0465) (0.0529)
midline -0.0506* -0.0699** -0.0752* -0.0651 -0.0729* -0.125 -0.163*** -0.0491 -0.0476
(0.0295) (0.0341) (0.0433) (0.0559) (0.0404) (0.0932) (0.0627) (0.0558) (0.0571)
interaction 0.0750** 0.0820** 0.0880* 0.0766 0.0802* 0.133 0.143** 0.0732 0.0603
(0.0374) (0.0400) (0.0507) (0.0656) (0.0460) (0.106) (0.0680) (0.0611) (0.0715)
edad 0.00221 -0.00273 0.00974*** 0.00141 -0.00204 0.00607 0.00402 0.00389
(0.00229) (0.00318) (0.00309) (0.00270) (0.00626) (0.00452) (0.00305) (0.00374)
mujer 0.00310 0.0296 -0.107** -0.0228 0.0342 -0.0149
(0.0213) (0.0245) (0.0484) (0.0346) (0.0340) (0.0382)
auto_indigena 0.383*** 0.333*** 0.427*** 0.597*** 0.124 0.298***
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 95
(0.0493) (0.0650) (0.0814) (0.228) (0.143) (0.0771)
auto_afro 0.372*** 0.386*** 0.352*** 0.528** 0.384*** 0.326***
(0.0425) (0.0537) (0.0739) (0.226) (0.0642) (0.0619)
hh_size -0.00409 -0.00385 -0.00371 -0.00434 0.00190 -0.00514 -0.00279 -0.00760
(0.00501) (0.00675) (0.00746) (0.00596) (0.00922) (0.00657) (0.00753) (0.00943)
jefe -0.0182 0.0133 -0.0202 -0.0369 0.0165 0.0241 -0.0791 -0.0104
(0.0351) (0.0468) (0.0560) (0.0411) (0.0712) (0.0483) (0.0555) (0.0681)
hijo_jefe -0.0230 0.00243 -0.0298 -0.0424 0.0246 0.0575 -0.0932** 0.00950
(0.0288) (0.0410) (0.0415) (0.0326) (0.0709) (0.0454) (0.0422) (0.0555)
padre_jefe 0.0279 0.0719 -0.0349 -0.00575 0.0146 0.219*** -0.0124 -0.0780
(0.0453) (0.0564) (0.0795) (0.0489) (0.138) (0.0525) (0.0610) (0.0874)
noimigrant -0.0695*** -0.0798*** -0.0513 -0.0385 -0.187*** -0.0845** 0.0533 -0.127***
(0.0220) (0.0270) (0.0389) (0.0243) (0.0629) (0.0410) (0.0411) (0.0404)
victima 0.0461 0.0450 0.0447 0.0404 0.0862 0.0345 0.0592 0.101*
(0.0308) (0.0392) (0.0502) (0.0357) (0.0650) (0.0461) (0.0649) (0.0530)
receptor_sub 0.00165 0.0215 -0.0442 0.0111 0.0202 0.0364 -0.0512 0.00902
(0.0367) (0.0423) (0.0760) (0.0425) (0.0803) (0.0646) (0.0533) (0.0672)
educacion 0.0409*** 0.0325** 0.0494*** 0.0458*** 0.0462* 0.0210 0.00414 0.00564
(0.0107) (0.0141) (0.0170) (0.0121) (0.0265) (0.0224) (0.0262) (0.0151)
hijos 0.00433 -0.00113 0.0135 -0.000811 0.0384 -0.0310 -0.0141 0.0106
(0.0127) (0.0179) (0.0182) (0.0149) (0.0292) (0.0202) (0.0179) (0.0261)
Constant 0.653*** 0.134 0.303** -0.124 0.494*** 0.618** 0.0536 0.251 0.291*
(0.0184) (0.100) (0.130) (0.157) (0.105) (0.247) (0.284) (0.194) (0.159)
Observations 2,368 1,887 1,175 712 1,472 277 513 640 734
R-squared 0.034 0.105 0.107 0.126 0.036 0.134 0.105 0.223 0.065
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, *p<0.1
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 96
ANNEX E: INDICATOR TABLE
Indic. Description Disaggregations Baseline Midline %change Source
25 Average percent change in
ICIAE score among targeted
institutions benefiting from
ACIP support
Total 46.9 43.7 -6.8% Baseline ICIAE 2013,
Econometría S.A.,
Midline ICIAE 2015,
Proyecto EVAL
National 50.5 40.1 -20.6%
Departmental 45.1 54.6 21.1%
Municipal 45.4 41.3 -9.0%
269 Average % change in
proportion of women
holding leadership positions
in targeted Afro-Colombian
and indigenous
organizations, by
organization type
Total 28.6% 43% 0,14 pp Baseline ECOA- equivalent 2013,
Econometría S.A.,
Midline survey 2015,
Proyecto EVAL
Local Afro-Colombian 33.3% 75% 0,42 pp
Regional Afro-Colombian 0.0% 57% 0,57 pp
Local indigenous 37.5% 0% -0,38 pp
Regional indigenous 0.0% 20% 0,20 pp
Civil Society Organizations 55.6% 63% 0,07 pp
Women organizations 22.2% 40% 0,18 pp
2710 Average % change in
proportion of youth holding
leadership positions in
targeted Afro-Colombian
and indigenous
organizations
Total 14.3% 16% 0,02 pp Urban and rural ethnic
communities survey  Baseline 2013,
Econometría S.A.  Midline 2015,
Proyecto EVAL
Local Afro-Colombian 0.0% 25% 0,25 pp
Regional Afro-Colombian 0.0% 21% 0,21 pp
Local indigenous 25.0% 0% -0,25 pp
Regional indigenous 0.0% 10% 0,10 pp
Civil Society Organizations 22.2% 31% 0,09 pp
Women organizations 22.2% 20% -0,02 pp
28 Average % change in
estimated income of Afro- Colombian and indigenous
families in targeted rural areas
Total11 519,508 743,877 43% Urban and rural ethnic
communities survey  Baseline 2013,
Econometría S.A.  Midline 2015,
Proyecto EVAL
Cesar and Magdalena 440,630 757,942 72%
Choco 576,570 736,672 28%
Afro-Colombian 680,545 779,630 15%
Indigenous 436,927 711,614 63%
29 Average percent change in
perceptions of Afro- Colombian and indigenous
persons of their socio
economic and political
inclusion
Total12 33.2 34.7 5% Urban and rural ethnic
communities survey  Baseline 2013,
Econometría S.A.  Midline 2015,
Proyecto EVAL
Total urban 54.3 39.8 -27%
Urban female 51.7 36.9 -29%
Urban male 59.4 44.5 -25%
Bogotá 56.0 35.8 -36%
Barranquilla 57.6 47.2 -18%
Cali 49.7 36.1 -27%
Total rural 12.1 29.7 146%
Rural indigenous 12.8 26.3 106%
Rural Afro-Colombian 10.7 33.5 213%
North 9.8 28.2 187%
Pacific 13.8 30.7 122%
9 This indicator is constructed, as at baseline, with the percentage number of organizations that highlighted as a strength
having women holding leadership positions in the organization. 10 This indicator is constructed, as at baseline, with the percentage number of organizations that highlighted as a strength
having youth holding leadership positions in the organization. 11 These positive numbers were parallel to those in the control households. As a result, no impact is found nor attributed to
ACIP for these positive increases in comparison. The high attrition in the sample may also have affected findings of
impact. 12 This variable is constructed in line with its construction by Econometría at baseline, in which socio-economic inclusion
is measured by respondents’ disagreement with the question "If I were to get a job, I could not get a very high position."
Political inclusion is measured by respondents’ agreement with the following two questions: "Afro-descendants and
indigenous people can reach high political positions like senators and mayors” and "Afro-descendant and indigenous civil
society organizations can influence the decisions that are made in the municipio where I live." Socio-economic and
political inclusion are each worth one point in the indicator, and those that disagree with the socio-economic inclusion
question and agree with both of two political inclusion questions are considered to have socio-economic and political
inclusion.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 97
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 98
ANNEX F: LIST OF ENTITIES,
ORGANIZATIONS AND
INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED
ICAE
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development National level
Ministry of Interior National level
Governor's office of Guajira Department level
Governor's office of Cauca Department level
Governor's office of Cesar Department level
Mayor's office of Quibdó Municipal level
Mayor's office of Maicao Municipal level
Mayor's office of Santa Marta Municipal level
Mayor's office of Barranquilla Municipal level
Mayor's office of Silvia Municipal level
Mayor's office of Cartagena Municipal level
Mayor's office of Valledupar Municipal level
ECOA
Red de Mujeres Afrocolombianas del Norte del Cauca (REDMUNORCA)
Conferencia Nacional de Organizaciones Afrocolombianas (CNOA)
Asociación de Afrocolombianos Desplazados (AFRODES)
Archipiélago Movement Ethnic Native Self Determination (AMEN-SD)
Asociación de Consejos Comunitarios del Distrito Turístico y Cultural de Cartagena (ASOCOC Mi tambo)
Asociación de productores de dulces y servicios etnoturísticos (ASOPRADUSE)
Fundación Santa Rita para la Educación y Promoción FUNSAREP
Organización de Raizales Fuera del Archipiélago de San Andrés, Providencia y Santa Catalina (ORFA)
Asociación Regional Indígena AWA (OREWA)
Consejo Comunitario de Guayabal
Mujeres Notables de Barranquilla (NOTABLAZO) (Fundación Social y Comunitaria Mujeres en Acción)
Red de Mujeres Afrocaribe (REMA)
Unidad de Organizaciones Afro Caucanas (UOAFROC)
Asociación de consejos comunitarios del norte del cauca ACONC
Cabildos Indígenas Yanacona, Nasa, Inga, Misak, Quichua y Cofan
Red Nacional de Mujeres Afro - Kambiri
Asociación Cultural Casa del Niño
Asociación zonal de Cabildos del Norte del Cauca (ACIN)
Fundación Siempre Unidos
Consejo Regional Indígena del Cauca (CRIC)
Asociación de Mujeres del Municipio de Buenos Aires (ASOM)
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 99
Fundación Cultural Afrocolombiana "MASAI"
Organización Wayuu Painwashi
Asociación de Autoridades Tradicionales Wayuu Ejepenajirrawa
Asociación de Autoridades Tradicionales Anainjak Wakuaipa
Cabildo Indígena Zenú - Maicao
Cooperativa Multiactiva Indígena Wayuu del clan Epinayu, COOPWACE
Organización Indígena Kankuama
Delegación Wiwa del Resguardo Kogui Malayo Arahuaco
Resguardo Kogui-Malayo-Arahuaco
Consejo Comunitario Mayor de la Asociación Campesina Integral del Atrato (COCOMACIA)
Consejo Regional Indígena del Chocó (CRICH)
Federación de Asociaciones de Cabildos Indígenas del Chocó (FEDEOREWA)
Consejo Comunitario del Alto San Juan (ASOCASAN)
Consejo Comunitario Mayor del Alto Atrato (COCOMOPOCA)
Consejo Comunitario Integral de Lloró (COCOILLO)
Organización Nacional de Colombia (ONIC)
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 100
ANNEX G: EVALUATION
STATEMENT OF WORK
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Program background
ACIP Program Identification Data
Program title The Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP)
Award number 514-A-11-00004
Award dates August 30, 2011 to August 29, 2016
Funding US$ 61.4 million
Implementer ACDI VOCA
ACIP Results Framework13
13 From the “Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP) Year Four Work Plan, October 2014 – September 2015.”
Publication prepared by ACDI VOCA for review by USAID, dated December 18, 2014, and provided to the evaluation
team for purposes of background knowledge of the Program.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 101
The Government of the United States of America through its Agency for International
Development (USAID) created its first program developed specifically for Colombia’s
Afro-Colombian and indigenous populations. The main objective of the program is to
strengthen the Colombian government’s capacity to develop and implement pro-minority
public policies to increase socio-economic and political inclusion of Afro-Colombian and
indigenous populations.
ACIP’s strategic approach is centered on building the human and institutional capacity of
ethnic minorities and their communities, state institutions and private sector organizations.
ACIP includes a grant fund and implements activities in three geographic regions—Pacific,
Caribbean, and Central. With the support from the government of Colombia, the program
aims to achieve four results, which form the main core of the program:
Result 1: Strengthen State institutional capacity
Result 2: Strengthen community-based organizations
Result 3: Increase access to economic opportunity for ethnic minorities
Result 4: Increase positive messaging of ethnic minority issues.
ACIP includes among its interventions a set of cross cutting themes: gender equality, youth
participation, promotion of a culture of legality and improving the living conditions of
beneficiaries by improving livelihood, food security and environmental protection.
II. EVALUATION RATIONALE
1. Evaluation purpose
USAID/Colombia requests an external mid-term impact evaluation of the results of ACIP
efforts after three years of program implementation. The evaluation is designed to capture
progress on indicators defined for baseline data collection in 2013. 2. Audiences and intended uses
The key intended audiences of the evaluation report will be:  USAID/Colombia Mission Front Office, Technical Offices, and Program Office  Implementing partners, at both prime and sub levels
Three guiding principles have been set for uses of the evaluation, as follows:
(1) Measure the progress on impact indicators defined under each of the four
program results, to determine the extent to which ACIP is achieving its goals
with the targeted populations. (2) Improve the decision-making process to identify which components need to be
strengthened for the remaining implementation period, in order to achieve
program goals. (3) Identify best practices and lessons learned to date that could maximize the final
impacts of the program.
3. Research questions
The themes selected for the evaluation were identified previously when the baseline was
designed. The following six evaluation questions were formulated:
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 102
Table 1. Evaluation Questions
QUESTION STRATEGIC LEVEL
1. To what extent has the Program increased the socio-economic and political inclusion of ethnic
minorities in the Program's targeted intervention areas?
Main Objective
2. To what extent has GOC attention to the needs of ethnic minorities increased? - To what
extent has the capacity of the GOC to protect and grant ethnic minorities their legal and political
land rights increased?
Result 1
3. To what extent did Community-based Organizations (CBOs) participate in policy design and
enforcement processes (i.e., free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) processes)?
Result 2
4. To what extent has governance improved in ethnic territories? Results 1 and 2
5. To what extent has ACIP increased economic opportunities for Afro-Colombian and indigenous
populations?
 Rural area: Program contribution to value chain sustainability and market alliances?
 Urban area: To what extent has the Program increased formal employment for ethnic
minorities?
Result 3
6. How effective were the strategies in empowering women and youth? Cross-cutting
III. EVALUATION DESIGN
1. Design
Based on the design of the baseline evaluation and the outcome variables established at that
time, EVAL will conduct this mid-term measure of the program’s contributions to a
significant and sustainable change in the socioeconomic and political inclusion of
indigenous and Afro-Colombian populations in the targeted areas. The evaluation will also
identify changes in policies, practices, attitudes and decision-making among community
based organizations (CBOs) and key institutions involved with policies for indigenous and
Afro-Colombian populations. A mixed methods – qualitative and quantitative – approach
will be used to examine a set of variables and indicators for each of the results pursued by
the program, per the following paragraphs.
Result 1: State Institutional Capacity Strengthened
As measured at baseline, the evaluation of this result includes variables and indicators at
national and municipal levels in three main areas:
a) strengthening the development and implementation of pro-minority policies,
b) improving state planning and investment of public resources in ethnic communities,
and
c) Ensuring that variables on ethnic minorities are captured in state monitoring to
improve policy implementation for Afro-Colombian and indigenous populations.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 103
The design of the current mid-term measure will parallel the work done in the 2013
baseline, in order to undertake apples-to-apples comparisons of the indicators and variables. For this reason, EVAL will collect data to measure the Institutional Capacity Index of
Ethnic Care (ICIAE), a tool designed for the baseline by Consucol to measure ACIP’s
effects in terms of social inclusion, economic and policy improvements. The unit of analysis for this component is divided into treatment and control institutions.
The first group are entities at central, department and municipal government levels which
were subject to ACIP intervention. The second group are homologous institutions that were
not selected for the ACIP interventions. To measure progress on the relevant indicators,
EVAL will attempt to collect information from the same institutions that responded to the
baseline survey.
Result 2: Strengthen community based organizations
To evaluate progress on this result, ACIP established an index called the Ethnic
Organizational Capacity Assessment (EOCA), to measure the capacity of ethnic
organizations to advocate for their rights, work autonomously, conduct necessary
administrative and management tasks, establish territorial control, and carry out necessary
political representation.
The unit of analysis for this component are those ethnic territorial organizations at central,
regional and local levels, and civil society organizations at the regional and local level. As
in the case of the evaluation approach for Result 1, above, EVAL will attempt to collect
mid-term measurements from the same organizations that completed the baseline survey. Result 3: Increase access to economic opportunity for ethnic minorities
Under this component, ACIP works to increase ethnic minority employment and income
generation with distinct strategies for urban and for rural areas. In targeted urban areas, the
strategy finances job training programs that are linked to companies that will hire the trained
target populations. The model for rural populations includes technical assistance,
infrastructure and equipment to support productive projects including cocoa, coffee, citrus,
goats, forestry, fishing and bananas. The baseline survey design and thus the follow up
measure therefore have a range of different questions for urban and rural participants. For this component, the evaluation is designed with a longitudinal, quasi-experimental panel
approach, including representative samples of control and treatment groups, allowing the
detection of program impact over time. The same individuals who were interviewed at
baseline will be contacted again to request their participation in the mid-term evaluation.
The design isolates the net effect of the program from other possible effects. The units of the analysis for the component are divided into urban and rural groups. For the
urban respondents, Afro-Colombians and indigenous persons who are eligible for the job
training program comprise the target population. The treatment group are those Afro- Colombians and indigenous individuals who completed ACIP-financed job training, while
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 104
the control group sample was taken from those who were eligible and interested in
participating but, due to course size restrictions, were not offered a seat in the courses. In
order to identify this group the baseline design applied a RDD (Regression Discontinuity
Design) in which the comparison group is selected randomly around the cutoff score
obtained by potential beneficiaries, in the test used by the program to finally assign
treatment.
For the rural area, the unit of analysis is the household who owns and manages the
productive project. Program benefits are delivered through organizations and productive
associations. Households from those targeted organizations are the treatment group. For the
comparison group, households were taken from a set of matched comparison communities
with similar socioeconomic and living conditions as the treatment group.
The main thematic areas that will be traced for the urban sample are employment and
income, while for the rural sample the variables are closely related to the productive unit,
economic activities, land, savings, debts and credit, the culture of legality, household living
conditions and women’s empowerment.
Result 4: Increase positive messaging of ethnic minority issues
To pursue this result, ACIP efforts are aimed to shift attitudes and perceptions of civil
society towards ethnic communities. ACIP interventions under this component include
media campaigns and support for Afro-Colombian and indigenous meetings, among other
activities. The units of analysis for this component are composed of two groups. The first group is that
group of beneficiaries that will be interviewed under Result 3, as they have been influenced
through many of the activities such as cultural meetings and promotion of their ethnic
heritage in the media. A second group for analysis are citizens in target areas, but who have
not been involved with programming and in fact do not belong to ethnic communities. The
purpose of this second sample is to measure the effects of ACIP’s activities on changing
opinions and perceptions about ethnic communities, among other populations. The main themes to approach under this component are ethnic identities, knowledge of
traditions, advocacy for ethnic rights, instances of discrimination and changes to economic
inclusion. For the second group in particular, the evaluation will collect variables that are
related to media access, knowledge of ethnic promotion campaigns, and opinions about
these. Sample sizes and information collecting tools
Pursuant to the initial longitudinal design, the samples for this mid-term measure parallel
those collected at baseline. The following table describes the units of analysis, tools and
sample sizes in which information will be collected.
Table 2. Sample sizes and information collecting tools
Strategic Objective Observational Sample Sizes Tools Places
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 105
units Treatment
Group
Control
Group
Result 1: State
Institutional Capacity
Strengthened
Central,
Departmental
and municipal
institutions
20 5 Structured
interview
(face to face) Atlántico, Choco, San
Andres, La Guajira,
Cauca, Bogotá,
Cesar, Bolivar,
Magdalena
Result 2: Strengthen
community based
organizations
Ethnic and civil
society
organizations
42 Semi-structured
interview
(face to face)
Result 3: Increase access
to economic opportunity
for ethnic minority
Individuals who
applied to a
training
program and
were enrolled
(treatment)
and were not
enrolled
(control)
741 (Urban)
501
(Rural)
669
(Urban)
495
(Rural)
724
(Urban)
481
(Rural)
Survey
(face to face)
Urban: Bogotá,
Barranquilla y Cali
Rural: Magdalena,
Cesar, Chocó
Result 4: Increase
positive messaging of
ethnic minority issues.
General
Population
Survey
Survey
(telephone)
Considering the longitudinal design, follow up will collect information on sample units
where information was also collected in baseline, this will allow analysis using impact
models from the evaluation design, such as the difference-in-differences design in which
baseline and midline, treatment and comparison, are compared. Because this was a panel
design, the only individuals and groups that can be interviewed at midline are those
interviewed at baseline (as any others would lack a measure at baseline.)
IV. EVALUATION PRODUCTS
A. Deliverables
The Start Date, generally marked with a team planning meeting (TPM) will be agreed upon
once a final SOW is approved by USAID. That date will take into consideration the time
necessary for team recruitment and contracting. Team member profiles and/or CVs will be
provided to USAID prior to the Start Date.
Table 5. Evaluation deliverables
DELIVERABLE DESCRIPTION DATE
Work plan Detailed work plan that indicates evaluation activities. The work plan
will be submitted to the EVAL COR at USAID/Colombia for review. 15 days after TPM
Evaluation design A written evaluation design and operational work plan will be
prepared and submitted to USAID for review prior to fieldwork.
20 days after TPM (subject
to availability for interviews
with USAID and IP)
Data collection and
analysis tools
Draft instruments and the analysis plan will be prepared and
submitted to USAID for review prior to fieldwork. 30 days after TPM
Field data
collection
Weekly electronic reports of the data collection progress made
covering key scheduled activities, completion status, constraints
identified with approaches to address constraints.
Throughout field work
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 106
First draft report
Rough draft of the report submitted to the USAID COR, who will
provide preliminary comments – one unified document from
whatever sources are required within USAID – to facilitate
preparation of the debriefing.
60 work days after TPM
(national holidays are
excluded from this count)
Debriefing with
USAID
EVAL will present the evaluation findings to USAID through a
presentation and discussion of findings, conclusions and
recommendations. The team will consider USAID comments and
revise the draft report, as appropriate.
Ten work days after
submission of draft
Final report
Final report including issues identified by USAID during the
debriefing. As part of the final submission, quantitative data will be
delivered in Excel, and qualitative data will be shared in secure hard
copies (encoded disks) to maintain respondents’ confidentiality.
Seven work days after
receipt of final comments
from USAID
B. Reporting Guidelines
The format for the Evaluation Report is as follows:  Executive Summary—most salient findings and recommendations, concisely stated
(2-3 pages)  Introduction—purpose, audience, and synopsis of task (1 page)  Background—brief overview of the programs, and purpose of the evaluation (2
pages)  Design—data collection methods, including limitations and gaps (2 pages)  Findings/Conclusions/Recommendations— (22–25 pages)  Issues—list of key technical and/or administrative concerns, if any (1–2 pages)  References---including bibliography and other references as appropriate (as needed)  Annexes— detailed discussion of methods, schedules, interview lists and tables will
be succinct, pertinent and readable. The evaluation SOW and instruments will be in
the annexes, per the 2011 Evaluation Policy.
The report will not exceed 30 pages, excluding table of contents, acronyms list, executive
summary, references and annexes. This format is consistent with the 2011 USAID
Evaluation Policy.
V. EVALUATION MANAGEMENT
A. Team composition
The evaluation will be carried out by a high-level team of social science researchers, with
sector-specific experience in the key evaluation themes. They will work together in Bogotá
at the start of the project to ensure inter-rater reliability and shared criteria, to interview
USAID and the implementing partner, and to review the relevant documentation. A Project Director (senior) will direct the evaluation, including fieldwork, with support from
Bogotá- and locally-based field researchers. Field teams will include expertise from among
the key themes and sectors included in the evaluation. Logistics will be covered by the
supervisory stratum of the field team and back-stopped from Bogotá. A native English- speaking editor will support the technical writing. The following table shows the detail for
the team member roles expected:
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 107
POSITION QUALIFICATION
Project Director
(Senior)  Education and experience in relevant sectors (Afro-Colombian and indigenous
communities, organizational development)  Minimum M.A. + 12 years’ experience, with significant time on evaluation
specifically.  Experience with development assistance
 Understanding of Colombian national socioeconomic context, particularly as it
pertains to Afro-Colombian and indigenous populations, and across both urban and
rural contexts.  Experience in field research in Colombia
 Experience in qualitative analyses and in valuing quantitative and qualitative data
sources Ethnic groups
Specialist  Education and experience in relevant sectors (Afro-Colombian and indigenous
communities, organizational development)  Experience in development programs with a focus on ethnic communities  Understanding of Colombian public policy and legal framework around social and
economic inclusion for indigenous and Afro-Colombian groups  Experience in field research in Colombia
 Experience in qualitative analyses and in valuing quantitative and qualitative data
sources
Income Generation
Specialist  Specialist in income generation projects and labor markets for vulnerable
populations. Minimum M.A. +10 years experience in development, particularly in
productive projects and labor market analysis  Understanding of Colombian national policies for income generation and productive
projects, particularly with Afro-Colombian and indigenous populations  Experience in field research in Colombia, particularly with the income generation
sector, and for projects with disadvantaged populations
Senior Impact
Evaluation Specialist  Education and experience in applied econometrics, modeling and quasi-experimental
designs that involve treatment and control groups.  Strong quantitative skills and database management with specialized software
 Working experience with double difference models, propensity score matching, and
regression discontinuity.  Bilingual writer to coordinate reporting in English from Spanish inputs
Mid-level specialist  Education and experience in relevant sectors (productive projects, agricultural, labor
markets and income generation.) Minimum B.A. + 12 years experience, or M.A. +5
years  Experience in evaluations and qualitative field data collection for international
development assistance in Colombia
 Experience with development assistance in consolidation areas  Experience leading teams in fieldwork for research or evaluation
Qualitative analysts  Qualitative data analysis to meet the methodological needs of the evaluation design –
combining in-depth interviews and observations to form a coherent qualitative impact
analysis. Will conduct data editing, cleaning, and analysis, develop coding tree under
expert supervision, and apply it to qualitative data
CNC Quantitative
research oversight  Expertise in analysis, managing teams, and familiarity with CNC systems and approaches.
Experience in preparation, processing, analysis of quantitative data using appropriate
software.
Phone Surveyors  Expertise in conducting telephone interviews and updating information
Survey Supervisor  Expertise in conducting telephone interviews and in managing staff doing such work,
particularly for difficult-to-reach groups (considering two-year since baseline), to support
phone survey team and to minimize attrition
Logistical support  To arrange site visits efficiently and with sufficient attendance for interviews, etc. Also
field guides for community entry with indigenous, Afro-Colombian or other communities
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 108
B. Logistics
EVAL will hold a set of Team Planning Meetings at the outset, to guide the multi-faceted
tasks of the first phase of the evaluation, to build team consistency, and to plan the
evaluation. The first steps will include document review and a telephone contact
information update of every unit of analysis sample during the baseline, to measure the
attrition rate before going out to conduct field work. Initial interviews with USAID and
implementing partner key personnel will be held. The evaluation team will work with
USAID to arrange these and any other initial meetings in Bogotá, as well as the hand-over
of baseline implementer databases.
EVAL will direct the evaluation’s logistics in Bogotá and the field sites. The EVAL Team
will be responsible for arranging all the transportation for fieldwork, and will monitor
security issues and threats closely before and during field work.
The field teams will each be led by an experienced field researcher. Communications will be
maintained daily with each of the teams in the field, to ensure that challenges or difficulties
are quickly resolved.
C. Analysis
Management of analyses will be based on the detailed analysis plan set forth in the final
evaluation design, and led by the evaluation Team Leader.
Considering the previous evaluation design and the baseline information collected, two main
impact methods will be used:
Difference in Differences (Double difference)
This method computes impact on outcomes variables, subtracting the estimator (i.e.,
income) across time (follow up - baseline) and then across groups (Treatment - Control).
This calculation gives as a result the net effect of the program on that estimator or indicator.
The following equation summarizes the double difference model:
( () )
)0(
2013
)0(
2015
)1(
2013
)1(
2015    
D D D D
impact YYYYY
The expression ( )
)1(
2013
)1(
2015  
D D YY denotes the change of an outcome variable (i.e., income)
for the treatment group (denoted by superscript D=1) , between 2015 (follow up) and 2013
(baseline). The expression ( )
)0(
2013
)0(
2015  
D D YY , denotes the change over the same period for
control group (D=0.) When subtracting the results of these two expressions, the impact
estimator for impact variable Y is obtained.
Propensity Score Matching (PSM)
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 109
The PSM approach identifies a control group with key characteristics similar to those of the
treatment group but without the intervention, in order to pose comparisons that allow for the
calculation of impacts on outcome variables. The control group identification process
matches individuals based on a group of variables that characterize each individual and
calculates a probability (p-score) of being treated. The main result of PSM is to set a
scenario in which there are no important differences in a pre-program measure between
treatment and control individuals; as a result, impact variables should have the same
outcome as those in the control group, in the absence of the intervention.
Regression Discontinuity Design
Regression discontinuity refers to the method of selection of the individuals to be
interviewed. Those with scores near, but just below, the cut-off point for inclusion in the
course constitute the comparison sample. Those whose scores were just above the cut-off
point are compared with their nearly matched peers, with propensity scores if data are
available, and the difference-in-differences is then calculated to investigate the effects of the
program as described above.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 110
ACIP - CRONOGRAMA PARA EVALUACION DE MEDIO TÉRMINO
Año 2014 2015
Mes Noviembre Diciembre Enero Febrero Marzo Abril Mayo Junio
Semana 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
ACTIVIDADES Planeación
Revisión información linea de base (diseño de la evaluación, bases de datos e
informes)
Recontacto telefonico y actualizacion de datos a personas e instituciones
encuestadas en línea de base
Seguimiento al avance del recontacto telefonico
Revisión de los resultados de recontacto telefónico
Realización de Team Planning Meeting (TPM)
Ajustes al diseño metodologico (muestras e instrumentos)
Entrega de documento metodológico para evaluación de medio término
Revisión y aprobación documento metodológico para evaluación de medio término
(USAID)
Trabajo de campo
Programación de dispositivos móviles/diagramación de formularios
Reclutamiento equipo de campo
Realización prueba piloto
Informe de resultados de prueba piloto
Ajustes a los instrumentos y a la logística, según resultados del piloto
Entrenamiento al equipo de campo
Realización del trabajo de campo cuantitativo
Realización del trabajo de campo cualitativo
Seguimiento a campo
Supervisión, critica, codificación, depuración de datos Informe
Procesamiento, cálculo de factores de expansión
Análisis y elaboración de informe de medio término
Traducción y edición del informe
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 111
Entrega informe final de medio término
Revisión y aprobación informe seguimiento intermedio (USAID)
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 112
ANNEX H: DATA COLLECTION
INSTRUMENTS
I. Script for updating contact data from baseline respondents
II. Result 1: Institutional capacity for ethnic care instrument, version for entities where
an ethnic group is in the majority
III. Result 1: Institutional capacity for ethnic care instrument, version for entities where
no ethnic group is in the majority
IV. Result 1: Complementary question guide for the ICAE instruments, for in-depth
interviews
V. Result 2: Questionnaire for ethnic and/or civil society organizations
VI. Result 2: Focus group guide for organizations
VII. Result 3 (rural): Survey questionnaire
VIII. Result 3 (urban): Survey questionnaire
IX. Result 3 (rural): Focus group guide for participants
X. Result 3 (urban): Focus group guide for participants
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 113
Script for updating contact data from baseline respondents
PARA LOS ENTREVISTADOS EN LINEA DE BASE
INSTRUCCIONES PARA EL ENCUESTADOR: El proyecto consiste en ACTUALIZAR
LOS DATOS DE UBICACION Y CONTACTO de las personas listadas e identificadas en el
campo denominado "NOMBRE DEL ENCUESTADO" para poder visitarlas en los meses de
Febrero/marzo 2015 y realizarles nuevamente una encuesta presencial que ya se les había
realizado en los meses de Junio/Julio del año 2013. En caso que la información de contacto del
"encuestado" este ya desactualizada y sus información de contacto no corresponda, en la base de
datos hay información de amigos o familiares que deberían poder dar razón del encuestado y de
la forma de contactarlo. Se debe contactar de manera directa la totalidad de los encuestados para
la actualización de los datos.
GUION CUANDO SE CONTACTA DIRECTAMENTE AL ENTREVISTADO EN EL AÑO
2013
NIM - Numero de identificación muestral (E: Anote de listado de la base de datos).
Buenos días/tardes/noches por favor podría comunicarme con (E: Mencione el nombre del
Encuestado):________________________________ Buenos días/tardes/noches mi nombre es_____________________________ pertenezco al
programa EVAL de cooperación internacional de USAID. Actualmente estamos iniciando la
evaluación de la estrategia para el mejoramiento de las condiciones de vida de la población
Afrocolombiana e Indígena. Recuerda Ud. que entre los meses de Junio/Julio del año 2013 Ud.
respondió una encuesta sobre sus condiciones de vida? Si 1 No 2. En los meses de Febrero
y Marzo, estaremos visitándolo para que nos colabore respondiendo una encuesta breve. Por
tanto tener sus datos de contacto y ubicación es muy importante. Le agradezco respondiéndome
las siguientes preguntas:
1. El número celular para contactarlo a
Ud. es:
(E: Lea el número celular de la base de
datos, si no registra en la base, pase a
pregunta 1.1)
1. Si
↓
2.
No→
1.1. Cuál es su número de celular actual?
______________________ No tiene
8
2. El número fijo para contactarlo a Ud.
es:
(E: Lea el número fijo de la base de
datos, si no registra en la base, pase a
pregunta 2.1)
1. Si
↓
2.
No→
2.1. Cuál es su número fijo actual?
______________________ No tiene
8
3. El municipio donde vive actualmente
es
(E: Lea el municipio de la base de
datos)
1. Si
↓
2.
No→
3.1 Cuál es el municipio donde reside
actualmente? _____________
4. El lugar donde actualmente reside es
(E: Lea la dirección/comunidad de la
base de datos y pregunte si hay alguna
indicación adicional para llegar al lugar)
1. Si
↓
2.
No→
4.1 Cuál es el lugar donde actualmente
reside (E: anote dirección y en caso rural
con indicaciones y nombre de
vereda/comunidad para llegar al lugar)
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 114
5. En los próximos cuatro meses tiene
planeado cambiar su lugar de
residencia?
1. Si
↓
2.
No→
AGRADEZCA LA COLABORACION y
TERMINE
6. Sabe Ud. cuál sería el lugar/dirección
y municipio de su nuevo lugar de
residencia
1. Si
↓
2. No→ AGRADEZCA LA COLABORACION y
TERMINE
7.1.Dirección_______________________________________ 7.2.Teléfono
fijo:______________________
7.3.
Municipio:_______________________________7.4.Vereda/comunidad________________________ AGRADEZCA LA COLABORACION y TERMINE
GUION CUANDO SE CONTACTA A ALGUN FAMILIAR O AMIGO PORQUE NO HA
SIDO POSIBLE CONTACTAR DIRECTAMENTE AL BENEFICIARIO
Buenos días/tardes/noches por favor podría comunicarme con (E: Mencione el nombre del
Familiar /amigo que puede dar razón del encuestado que está en la base de datos): ________________________________ Buenos días/tardes/noches mi nombre es _____________________________ pertenezco al
programa EVAL de cooperación internacional de USAID. Necesitamos contactar a (E:
Mencione el nombre del Encuestado):________________________________ y no ha sido
posible. Él (ella) nos dejó sus datos de contacto en caso que tuviéramos algún inconveniente
para contactarlo, para que por favor Ud. nos indicara cómo contactarlo nuevamente:
1. Puede por favor indicarme el número celular actual de (E: Mencione el nombre del
Encuestado)
1. __ __ __ - __ __ __ __ __ __ __
2. Algún otro número: __ __ __ - __ __ __ __ __ __ __
9. NS/NR
2. Puede por favor indicarme el número de teléfono fijo de la vivienda/trabajo de: (E: Mencione
el nombre del Encuestado)
1. ____________________________________________________ NS/NR 9
3. Nombre del municipio al que pertenece este teléfono: __________________ NS/NR 9
Encuestador: Si el familiar/amigo respondió que "No sabe" nuevos números telefónicos para
contactar al encuestado pregunte:
4. Conoce a algún familiar de (E: Mencione el nombre del Encuestado) que nos pueda indicar
cómo contactar a (E: Mencione el nombre del Encuestado)
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 115
Si 1
No 2
4.1. Nombre completo del familiar/amigo de: (E: Mencione el nombre del Encuestado) ____________________________________________________________________
4.2. Teléfonos del familiar/amigo
____________________________________________________________________ AGRADEZCA LA COLABORACION y TERMINE
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 116
Institutional capacity for ethnic care instrument (ICOE)
Version for entities where an ethnic group is in the majority14
I. IDENTIFICACIÓN DE LA ENTIDAD
Nombre
Tipo de Entidad (Ministerio, Secretaría, Departamento Administrativo, etc)
Nivel (Nación, Departamento, Municipio)
Sector
Personas Entrevistadas
Cargo
Fecha
II. POLÍTICAS PÚBLICAS Y PLANIFICACIÓN
A. NORMAS
1. ¿Durante los años 2013 y 2014, el departamento, distrito o municipio, aprobó ordenanzas
o acuerdos sobre asuntos relativos al grupo étnico con menor participación poblacional?
NO Pase a la pregunta No 3
SI Sobre población afrocolombiana __
Sobre población indígena ___ Sobre población raizal
Sobre otros grupos ___
2. (En caso afirmativo), ¿Cuáles ordenanzas o acuerdos? (Solicitar número y copia)
3. Durante los años 2013 y 2014, ¿la entidad expidió decretos relacionados con la atención
al grupo étnico con menor participación poblacional?
NO Pase a la pregunta No 5
SI Sobre población afrocolombiana __
Sobre población indígena ___
Sobre población raizal
Sobre otros grupos ___
4. (En caso afirmativo), ¿Cuáles decretos? (Solicite números y copias)
B. DOCUMENTOS DE POLÍTICA
14 Se entiende por mayoría étnica aquella situación de una entidad territorial en la cual la mitad más uno de los habitantes
pertenecen a la población negra, afrocolombiana, palenquera, raizal o indígena. Nota: Este cuestionario aplica a las entidades
territoriales, donde hay un predominio de un grupo étnico, caso en el cual las preguntas se refieren a la atención del grupo
siguiente en población (por ejemplo, los indígenas en Chocó). Este formato es el mismo general común a las entidades
nacionales, pero tiene unos cambios menores en las preguntas para especificar que se refiere a un grupo con menor participación
poblacional; igualmente tiene un módulo adicional sobre proyectos
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 117
5. ¿La entidad durante los años 2013 y 2014 expidió algún documento de política sobre el
grupo étnico con menor participación poblacional?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta 7
6. (En caso afirmativo), ¿Cuál es el documento? (Anote el nombre, fecha y autores del
documento; solicite copia)
C. PROYECTOS DE INVERSIÓN
7. Dentro del Plan Operativo Anual de Inversiones del departamento o del municipio,
durante los años 2013 y 2014, ¿se incluyeron proyectos específicos dirigidos al grupo
étnico con menor participación poblacional?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta 9
8. (En caso afirmativo), ¿Cuáles proyectos? (Solicite copia del Plan Operativo Anual de
Inversiones 2013 y 2014, y de las fichas EBI)
9. Dentro del Plan Operativo Anual de Inversiones de los años 2013 y 2014, ¿se incluyeron
componentes específicos dirigidos al grupo étnico con menor participación poblacional,
dentro de algunos proyectos?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta 11
10. (En caso afirmativo) ¿En cuáles proyectos se incluyeron componentes? (Solicite copia de
las fichas EBI de los proyectos)
D. SEGUIMIENTO A EJECUCIÓN Y RESULTADOS
11. ¿Tiene la entidad informe de ejecución del plan de desarrollo donde se presenten los
resultados alcanzados en las metas establecidas con relación al grupo étnico con menor
participación poblacional en los años 2013 y 2014?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta No 13
12. ¿Está disponible el documento?
SI Solicite copia
NO
13. ¿Tiene la entidad informe de ejecución del presupuesto y del plan operativo anual de
inversiones donde se presente en detalle la información sobre recursos asignados al grupo
étnico con menor participación poblacional en los años 2013 y 2014?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta No 15
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 118
14. ¿Está disponible el documento?
SI Solicite copia
NO
15. ¿Realizó la entidad reuniones de seguimiento a la inversión hacia el grupo étnico con
menor participación poblacional para discutir las asignaciones con representantes de
organizaciones de dichas comunidades durante los años 2013 y 2014? (Verificar
solicitando informe o actas)
SI
NO
III. RECURSOS FISCALES: PRESUPUESTO Y EJECUCIÓN
E. GASTOS DE INVERSIÓN
16. ¿Durante los años 2013 y 2014, cuántos recursos de inversión destinó la entidad a
programas, proyectos y acciones para atención del grupo étnico con menor participación
poblacional? (solicitar copia de la ejecución presupuestal)
2013 2014
Cifras en pesos corrientes
17. ¿Con relación al total del presupuesto de inversión, cuánto representa? (Solicitar valor de
la ejecución presupuestal total de gastos de inversión durante 2013 y 2014).
IV. ORGANIZACIÓN Y RECURSO HUMANO
F. DEPENDENCIA RESPONSABLE
18. ¿Con corte a 31 de diciembre de 2014, tenía la entidad dependencias o grupos formales
responsables de la administración de los asuntos del grupo étnico con menor
participación poblacional? (Solicitar copia del organigrama y norma de estructura y
funciones)
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta No 21
19. ¿Cuál es el nombre de las dependencias o grupos formales?
20. ¿Dentro de qué nivel de la estructura administrativa se encontraba?
G. RECURSO HUMANO
21. ¿Durante 2013 y 2014 tuvo la entidad funcionarios de planta y/o contratistas dedicados
exclusivamente a la atención de los asuntos del grupo étnico con menor participación
poblacional?
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 119
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta No 26
22. ¿Cuántos funcionarios de planta y/o contratistas?
Funcionarios de planta
Contratistas
23. ¿Cuál es el nivel académico y años de experiencia?
Funcionario
o contratista
Secretaría,
área o
dependencia
donde está
ubicado
Profesión Nivel
académico
Años de
experiencia
Vinculación a
organizaciones
o movimientos
étnicos
24. ¿La entidad realizó durante los años 2013 y 2014 acciones de capacitación a los
funcionarios en asuntos relativos al grupo étnico con menor participación poblacional?
(Temas de interculturalidad, respeto, valoración y reconocimiento a la diversidad étnica y
cultural?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta No 31
25. ¿Qué proporción de los funcionarios de la entidad fue capacitada en estos asuntos?
75 a 100%
50 a 75%
25 a 50%
Menos de 25%
26. ¿Del total de funcionarios de planta de la entidad, cuántos pertenecen a la población
negra, afrocolombiana, palenquera, raizal o indígena?
Número total de funcionarios
Número total de funcionarios afrocolombianos
Número total de funcionarios raizales
Número total de funcionarios palenquereros
Número total de funcionarios indígenas
V. SISTEMAS DE INFORMACIÓN
H. INDICADORES DE COBERTURA
27. ¿Tiene la entidad información sobre tasas de cobertura y calidad de atención al grupo
étnico con menor participación poblacional en los servicios a su cargo?
SI
NO
NO APLICA
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 120
28. ¿Tiene la entidad territorial datos sobre los siguientes indicadores? (En caso afirmativo
indique el último año disponible)
Indicador Total población Población
afrocolombiana
Población
indígena
Dato Año Dato Año Dato Año
1. Cobertura neta en educación básica
2. Cobertura neta en educación media
3. Proporción de colegios con resultados
altos en prueba SABER 11
4. Razón de mortalidad infantil
5. Razón de mortalidad materna
6. Tasa de afiliación a seguridad social en
salud
7. Tasa de cobertura de acueducto
8. Tasa de cobertura de alcantarillado
9. Déficit cuantitativo de vivienda
10. Déficit cualitativo de vivienda
NOTA: Si no tiene el dato poner NO en la casilla correspondiente.
I. REGISTROS Y ENCUESTAS
29. ¿Dentro de los registros de los servicios que presta la entidad, se presenta información
sobre el grupo étnico con menor participación poblacional?
SI Solicitar lista de los registros
NO
30. ¿Tiene la entidad algún censo de beneficiarios potenciales de sus servicios?
SI ¿Cuál?
NO Pase a la pregunta No. 32
31. ¿Incluye dentro de ese censo la variable étnica relativa al grupo étnico con menor
participación poblacional?
SI
NO
J. INFORMES
32. ¿Dentro del informe de gestión de la entidad de los años 2013 y 2014, se incluyó
información específica sobre el grupo étnico con menor participación poblacional?
SI Solicitar copia del último informe disponible
NO
33. ¿Se preparó en 2013 o 2014 un informe específico sobre la atención al grupo étnico con
menor participación poblacional?
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 121
SI Solicitar copia del último informe disponible
NO
K. TRANSPARENCIA Y ACCESO A LA INFORMACIÓN
34. ¿La entidad presenta información disponible sobre el grupo étnico con menor
participación poblacional en la web15?
ELEMENTO SI NO
Diagnósticos
Censos y encuestas
Registros
Políticas
Metas de efecto e impacto
Programas y proyectos
Informes de ejecución financiera
Informes de ejecución física
Número de beneficiarios
Coberturas de servicios a población étnica
35. ¿Tiene la entidad en la página web una parte o vínculo específico sobre el grupo étnico
con menor participación poblacional?
SI Dirección del vínculo:
NO
VI. GESTIÓN PARTICIPATIVA
L. CONSULTA PREVIA
36. ¿Durante los años 2013 y 2014 se realizaron consultas previas con el grupo étnico con
menor participación poblacional con relación a alguna actividad en su entidad?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta No 38
37. ¿Existe un balance sobre el proceso y resultados de estas consultas previas?
SI Solicitar copia
NO
M. ESPACIOS DE PARTICIPACIÓN
38. ¿Durante 2013 o 2014 participó la entidad en algún espacio de participación del grupo
étnico con menor participación poblacional?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta No 44
39. ¿Cuál o cuáles?
15 Esta pregunta y la siguiente no se hace, se verifica en la página web.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 122
40. ¿Es creado normativamente?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta No
41. ¿Cuál norma lo crea y regula?
42. ¿Qué nivel de participación tiene? (decisión, incidencia, consulta, información, etc.)
43. ¿Cuántas veces se reunió durante 2013 y 2014?
N. RENDICIÓN DE CUENTAS
44. ¿Realizó la entidad durante 2013 y 2014 eventos de rendición de cuentas específicos para
el grupo étnico con menor participación poblacional? (Verificar con informe o memoria
de la rendición de cuentas)
SI Presentó evidencia
NO
VII. MÓDULO ESPECÍFICO PARA LAS ENTIDADES TERRITORIALES DONDE HAY
MAYORÍA DE UNA COMUNIDAD ÉTNICA
O. CAPACIDAD EN FORMULACIÓN DE PROYECTOS
45. Al finalizar el año 2014, ¿tenía la oficina de planeación una dependencia, grupo o
funcionarios/contratistas dedicados a los proyectos de inversión?
Categoría Nombre dependencia o grupo
1 Dependencia
2 Grupo
3 Funcionarios /Contratistas
46. ¿Cuántos funcionarios y contratistas se dedicaban a los proyectos de inversión?
Categoría Número Se dedican exclusivamente al tema de
proyectos de inversión: Si / No
Funcionarios de planta
Contratistas
Total
47. ¿Durante los años 2013 y 2014, los funcionarios de proyectos recibieron capacitación
para la formulación de proyectos?
SI
NO
48. ¿Qué tipo de capacitación y cuántos funcionarios participaron?
Tipo de capacitación Número Número de funcionarios y/o
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 123
eventos contratistas participantes
Eventos informativos o talleres de hasta dos días
Diplomado
Especialización
Otro: ¿Cuál?
49. Durante los años 2013 y 2014, ¿presentó proyectos para concursar por recursos del
Sistema General de Regalías SGR?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta
50. ¿Obtuvo financiación del Sistema General de Regalías?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta
51. ¿Cuántos y cuáles proyectos? (solicite copias de las fichas de los proyectos)
52. ¿Cuántos recursos de inversión se consiguieron?
53. Durante los años 2013 y 2014, ¿presentó proyectos para concursar por recursos diferentes
al SGR?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta No
54. ¿Obtuvo financiación de otras fuentes?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta No
55. ¿Cuántos y cuáles proyectos? (Solicite copia de las fichas de proyectos)
56. ¿Cuántos recursos totales de inversión se consiguieron?
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 124
Institutional capacity for ethnic care instrument (ICOE)
Versión para entidades nacionales y entidades territoriales sin mayoría de población étnica16
I. IDENTIFICACIÓN DE LA ENTIDAD
Nombre
Tipo de Entidad (Ministerio, Secretaría,
Departamento Administrativo, etc)
Nivel (Nación, Departamento, Municipio)
Sector
Personas Entrevistadas
Cargo
Fecha
II. POLÍTICAS PÚBLICAS Y PLANIFICACIÓN
A. NORMAS
1. ¿Durante los años 2013 y 2014, se expidió por parte del Congreso alguna ley sobre asuntos relativos a las
comunidades afrocolombianas, negras, palenqueras, raizales o indígenas, en cuya elaboración participó su
entidad?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta 3
2. (En caso afirmativo), ¿Cuál ley o leyes?
3. Durante los años 2013 y 2014, ¿se expidió algún decreto relacionado a las comunidades afrocolombianas,
negras, palenqueras, raizales o indígenas, preparado por la entidad?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta 5
4. (En caso afirmativo), ¿Cuáles decretos? (solicite números)
B. DOCUMENTOS DE POLÍTICA
5. ¿La entidad, durante los años 2013 y 2014, expidió algún documento de política relativo a las comunidades
afrocolombianas, negras, palenqueras, raizales o indígenas ?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta 7
6. (En caso afirmativo), ¿Cuál es el documento? (Anote el nombre, fecha y autores del documento; solicite
copia)
C. PROYECTOS DE INVERSIÓN
7. Dentro de los Planes Operativos Anuales de Inversiones de la entidad correspondientes a 2013 y 2014, ¿se
incluyeron proyectos o programas específicos dirigidos a las comunidades afrocolombianas, negras,
palenqueras, raizales o indígenas?
SI Continúe
16 Se entiende por mayoría étnica aquella situación de una entidad territorial en la cual la mitad más uno de los habitantes
pertenecen a la población afrocolombiana, negra, palenquera, raizal o indígena.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 125
NO Pase a la pregunta 9
8. (En caso afirmativo), ¿Cuáles proyectos o programas? (Solicite copia del Plan Operativo Anual de
Inversiones de 2013 y 2014 y de las fichas EBI)
9. Dentro del Plan Operativo Anual de Inversiones de 2013 y de 2014, ¿se incluyeron componentes específicos
dirigidos a las comunidades afrocolombianas, negras, palenqueras, raizales o indígenas, dentro de algunos
proyectos o programas a cargo de la entidad?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta 11
10. (En caso afirmativo) ¿En cuáles proyectos o programas se incluyeron componentes? (Solicite copia de las
fichas EBI de los proyectos)
D. SEGUIMIENTO A EJECUCIÓN Y RESULTADOS
11. ¿Tiene la entidad informe de ejecución del plan de desarrollo donde se presenten resultados alcanzados en
las metas establecidas con relación a las comunidades afrocolombianas, negras, palenqueras, raizales o
indígenas, tanto en el año 2013 como 2014 ?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta No 13
12. ¿Está disponible el documento?
SI Solicite copia
NO
13. ¿Tiene la entidad informe de ejecución del presupuesto y del plan operativo anual de inversiones donde se
presente en detalle la información sobre recursos asignados a las comunidades afrocolombianas, negras,
palenqueras, raizales o indígenas en los años 2013 y 2014?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta No 15
14. ¿Está disponible el documento?
SI Solicite copia
NO
15. ¿Realizó la entidad reuniones de seguimiento a la inversión hacia las comunidades afrocolombianas,
negras, palenqueras, raizales o indígenas para discutir las asignaciones con representantes de
organizaciones de dichas comunidades durante los años 2013 y 2014? (Verificar solicitando informe o
actas)
SI
NO
15.1 Cuáles?
III. RECURSOS FISCALES
E. GASTOS DE INVERSIÓN
16. ¿Durante los años 2013 y 2014, cuántos recursos de inversión destinó la entidad a programas, proyectos y
acciones para atención de las comunidades afrocolombianas, negras, palenqueras, raizales o indígenas?
(solicitar copia de la ejecución presupuestal)
2013 2014
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 126
Cifras en pesos corrientes
17. ¿Con relación al total del presupuesto de inversión, cuánto representó en 2013 y cuánto en 2014? (Solicitar
valor de la ejecución presupuestal total de gastos de inversión durante 2013 y 2014).
IV. ORGANIZACIÓN Y RECURSO HUMANO
F. DEPENDENCIA RESPONSABLE
18. ¿Con corte a 31 de diciembre de 2014, tenía la entidad dependencias o grupos formales responsables de la
administración de los asuntos relativos a las comunidades afrocolombianas, negras, palenqueras, raizales o
indígenas? (Solicitar copia del organigrama y norma de estructura y funciones)
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta No 21
19. ¿Cuál es el nombre de las dependencias o grupos formales?
20. ¿Dentro de qué nivel de la estructura administrativa se encontraba?
G. RECURSO HUMANO
21. ¿Durante 2013 y 2014 tuvo la entidad funcionarios de planta y/o contratistas dedicados exclusivamente a
la atención de las comunidades afrocolombianas, negras, palenqueras, raizales o indígenas?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta No 26
22. ¿Cuántos funcionarios de planta y/o contratistas?
Funcionarios de planta
Contratistas
23. ¿Cuál es el nivel académico y años de experiencia?
Funcionario o
contratista
Secretaría, área o
dependencia
donde está
ubicado
Profesión Nivel
académico
Años de
experiencia
Vinculación a
organizaciones o
movimientos étnicos
24. ¿La entidad realizó durante los años 2013 y 2014 acciones de capacitación a los funcionarios en asuntos
relativos a las comunidades afrocolombianas, negras, palenqueras, raizales o indígenas? (Temas de
interculturalidad, respeto, valoración y reconocimiento a la diversidad étnica y cultural)
SI Continúe (solicitar documentos y materiales de capacitación)
NO Pase a la pregunta No 26
25. ¿Qué proporción de los funcionarios de la entidad fue capacitada en estos asuntos?
75 a 100%
50 a 75%
25 a 50%
Menos de 25%
26. ¿Del total de funcionarios de planta de la entidad, cuántos pertenecen a las comunidades afrocolombianas,
negras, palenqueras, raizales o indígenas, y que cargos ocupan?
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 127
Número total de funcionarios
Número total de funcionarios afrocolombianos, negros,
palenqueros o raizales
Número total de funcionarios indígenas
V. SISTEMAS DE INFORMACIÓN
H. INDICADORES DE COBERTURA
27. ¿Tiene la entidad información sobre tasas de cobertura y calidad de atención a las comunidades
afrocolombianas, negras, palenqueras, raizales o indígenas la población étnica en los servicios a su cargo?
SI
NO
NO APLICA
28. ESTA PREGUNTA ES SOLO PARA ENTIDADES TERRITORIALES ¿Tiene la entidad territorial datos sobre los
siguientes indicadores? (En caso afirmativo indique el último año disponible)
Indicador Total
población
Población
afrocolombiana,
negra, palenquera
o raizal
Población
indígena
Dato Año Dato Año Dato Año
1. Cobertura neta en educación básica
2. Cobertura neta en educación media
3. Proporción de colegios con resultados altos en prueba
SABER 11
4. Razón de mortalidad infantil
5. Razón de mortalidad materna
6. Tasa de afiliación a seguridad social en salud
7. Tasa de cobertura de acueducto
8. Tasa de cobertura de alcantarillado
9. Déficit cuantitativo de vivienda
10. Déficit cualitativo de vivienda
I. REGISTROS Y ENCUESTAS
29. ¿Dentro de los registros de los servicios que presta la entidad, se presenta información sobre las
comunidades afrocolombianas, negras, palenqueras, raizales o indígenas?
SI Solicitar lista de los registros
Cuáles (Qué tipo de comunidad?
NO
NO APLICA
30. ¿Tiene la entidad algún censo de beneficiarios potenciales de sus servicios?
SI ¿Cuál?
Cuáles (Qué tipo de comunidad?
NO Pase a la pregunta No 32
NO APLICA
31. ¿Incluye dentro de ese censo la variable étnica?
SI
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 128
NO
J. INFORMES
32. ¿Dentro del informe de gestión de la entidad de los años 2013 y 2014, se incluyó información específica
sobre las comunidades afrocolombianas, negras, palenqueras, raizales o indígenas?
SI Solicitar copia del último informe disponible
NO
33. ¿Se preparó en 2013 y en 2014 un informe específico sobre la atención a las comunidades
afrocolombianas, negras, palenqueras y/o raizales o indígenas?
SI Solicitar copia del último informe disponible
NO
K. TRANSPARENCIA Y ACCESO A LA INFORMACIÓN
34. ¿La entidad presenta información disponible sobre las comunidades afrocolombianas, negras, palenqueras,
raizales o indígenas en la web17?
ELEMENTO SI NO
Diagnósticos
Censos y encuestas
Registros
Políticas
Metas de efecto e impacto
Programas y proyectos
Informes de ejecución financiera
Informes de ejecución física
Número de beneficiarios
Coberturas de servicios a población étnica
35. ¿Tiene la entidad en la página web una parte o vínculo específico sobre las comunidades afrocolombianas,
negras, palenqueras, raizales o indígenas?
SI Dirección del vínculo:
NO
VI. GESTIÓN PARTICIPATIVA
L. CONSULTA PREVIA
36. ¿Durante los años 2013 y 2014 se realizaron consultas previas con relación a alguna actividad en su
entidad?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta No 38
37. ¿Existe un balance sobre el proceso y resultados de estas consultas previas?
SI Solicitar copia
NO
M. ESPACIOS DE PARTICIPACIÓN
17 Esta pregunta y la siguiente no se hace, se verifica en la página web.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 129
38. ¿Durante 2013 y 2014 participó la entidad en algún espacio de participación de las comunidades
afrocolombianas, negras, palenqueras, raizales o indígenas?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta No 44
39. ¿Cuál o cuáles?
40. ¿Es creado normativamente?
SI Continúe
NO Pase a la pregunta No 42
41. ¿Cuál norma lo crea y regula?
42. ¿Qué nivel de participación tiene? (decisión, incidencia, consulta, información, etc.)
Información
Consulta
Incidencia
Decisión
43. ¿Cuántas veces se reunió durante 2013 y 2014?
N. RENDICIÓN DE CUENTAS
44. ¿Realizó la entidad durante 2013 y 2014, eventos de rendición de cuentas específicos para las comunidades
afrocolombianas, negras, palenqueras, raizales o indígenas? (Verificar con informe o memoria de la
rendición de cuentas)
SI Presentó evidencia
NO
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 130
Complementary questions guide
To accompany the ICOE
 La numeración de las secciones a continuación corresponde a la utilizada en los
formularios de línea de base.
II. Políticas Públicas y Planificación
En relación con las preguntas 1-10
Si el funcionario manifiesta que NO se han aprobado nuevas reglamentaciones, documentos de
política o proyectos de inversión para atención de población étnica, indagar:
- Los motivos (por ejemplo: no se consideró necesario, había otras prioridades de inversión,
se decidió con organizaciones focalizar esfuerzos en otros aspectos, no se ha llegado a un
acuerdo con la población en algún tema). - Si en la actualidad se está trabajando en la aprobación de reglamentaciones, documentos
de política o proyectos de inversión para atención de población étnica (si, no, por qué).
Si el funcionario manifiesta que SI se han aprobado nuevas reglamentaciones, documentos de
política o proyectos de inversión indagar:
- Aspectos reglamentados o incluidos, motivaciones que dieron lugar a trabajar ese aspecto
(cómo se identificó la necesidad de abordad el tema particular). - El tipo de participación de las organizaciones o miembros de grupos étnicos en esta
decisión y en la construcción de la reglamentación, documento o proyecto. - ¿Qué ha pasado con posterioridad a la aprobación? (Nivel de implementación, posibles
dificultades, resultados positivos, etc.)
- Si en la actualidad se está trabajando en la aprobación de otras reglamentaciones,
documentos de política o proyectos de inversión para atención de población étnica (si, no,
por qué).
III. Recursos Fiscales
En relación con las preguntas 16 y 17
Indagar sobre cómo se decidió el monto de inversión asignado para atención de las comunidades
étnicas, si ha sido suficiente, si ha aumentado o disminuido durante los años y por qué.
IV. Organización y Recurso Humano
En relación con la pregunta 21 (y siguientes)
Si le respuesta es NO indagar:
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 131
- ¿Quién atiende los tema étnicos en la entidad?, ¿Con qué dedicación?, ¿Es suficiente el
tiempo?
- Considera que sería necesario y pertinente contar con personal dedicado exclusivamente a
temas étnicos (si, no, por qué). - ¿Cuál es la formación de quién atiende los temas étnicos?, ¿por qué se le asignaron estas
responsabilidades?
Si la respuesta es SI indagar:
- ¿Cómo se seleccionó a esta(s) persona(s)?
- ¿Hace cuánto trabaja(n) con la entidad? (dirigido a saber si la vinculación es o no resultado
del programa)
- ¿Cuáles han sido/son sus principales aportes?  En lugares donde hay presencia de población NARP e indígena indagar si hay personas
atendiendo los temas de cada grupo o si la misma persona atiende todo lo relacionado con
temas étnicos.  Indagar también si hay personas afro participando o atendiendo temas indígenas y
viceversa y posibles dificultades o potencialidades de la situación.
En relación con la pregunta 24 (y siguientes)
Si la respuesta es NO indagar:
- Si se consideraría pertinente hacer procesos de capacitación (si, no, por qué)
- En qué temas particulares podría ser relevante
- A qué funcionarios sería relevante capacitar
Si la respuesta es SI indagar:
- Quién fue el responsable de la capacitación (formación y experiencia) y temas tratados
- Si los temas de capacitación fueron socializados con otros funcionarios y contratistas que
no participaron (si, no, por qué)
V. Sistemas de Información
En relación con las preguntas 26-31
En caso de que NO se cuente con registros específicos sobre atención a población étnica e
informes correspondientes indagar:
- Si se consideraría útil contar con esta diferenciación (si, no, por qué)
- Si se ha presentado alguna dificultad en la definición de criterios de atención o
construcción de políticas, proyectos, etc., por no contar con esta información
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 132
En caso de que SI se cuente con registros específicos sobre atención a población étnica e informes
correspondientes indagar:
- ¿Qué información relevante se ha obtenido mediante estos registros en relación con la
situación de grupos étnicos particulares?
- ¿Se han emprendido acciones con base en esta información? (En lo posible relacionar con
sección II)
VI. Gestión Participativa
En relación con la pregunta 36
En caso de NO haber realizado consultas previas indagar el motivo (por ejemplo: no se
presentaron procesos que lo requirieran, se deben hacer pero se han pospuesto por x motivo, etc.)
En relación con la pregunta 38 (y siguientes)
En caso de que la entidad NO haya asistido a espacios de participación indagar el motivo.
En caso de que la entidad SI haya asistido a espacios de participación indagar:
- ¿Quién asistió? ¿Con qué propósito?
- ¿ Cuál fue el resultado y seguimiento de la misma?
- ¿Se produjo algún cambio en el funcionamiento o políticas de la entidad en relación con
estas reuniones? (En lo posible relacionar con sección II)
En todos los casos indagar si se han creado otros canales o medios de interlocución entre grupos
étnicos y la entidad en particular.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 133
Community and Ethno-Territorial Organizations questionnaire (ECOA)
I. CONTROL OPERATIVO
101. Fecha de entrevista:
Día Mes Año
|__|__| |__|__||2_|0_|1_|5|
102. Entrevistador:__________________________________________ 103. El resultado de la entrevista fue:
Entrevista completa 1 Entrevista incompleta 2 Rechazo 3 Ocupado 4
Información para ubicarlo no corresponde 5 Orden público 8
II. INFORMACIÓN DE CONTACTO DE LA ORGANIZACIÓN
201. Nombre de la organización: __________________________________________________________
202. Nit de la organización: |___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|-|___|
203. Dirección de la sede principal:
204. Municipio: ______________________________________________
205. DANE: |___|___|___|___|___|
206. Fecha de constitución: Día |__|__| Mes |__|__| Año |__|__|__|__|
207. Fecha de registro: Día |__|__| Mes |__|__| Año |__|__|__|__|
208. A. Tipo de organización
Organización de la sociedad civil a
Organización de mujeres b
Organización de jóvenes c
208. B. Tipo de organización étnico-territorial
Consejo comunitario a
Cabildo o autoridad tradicional b
Organización regional territorial c
209. Etnia principal de la organización:
Indígena 1
Afrodescendiente 2
Raizal 3
Palenquero 4
210. Cobertura geográfica de la organización:
Nacional (no aplica para territorios) 1
Regional 2
Local 3
211. Miembros:
Hombres adultos (mayores de 28 años) |___|___|___|
Mujeres adultas (mayores de 28 años) |___|___|___|
Hombres jóvenes (entre 14 a 28 años) |___|___|___|
Mujeres jóvenes (entre 14 a 28 años) |___|___|___|
+ _____________________________________________
Total |___|___|___|
212. Nombre del representante legal: _____________________________________________________________ 213. Teléfono fijo: |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| No tiene 1 No sabe/No responde 2
214. Teléfono celular: |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__| No tiene 1 No sabe/No responde 2
215. Nombre de la persona de contacto de la organización: _______________________________________________________
El mismo representante legal 1 Pase a 301
216. Teléfono fijo: |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| No tiene 1 No sabe/No responde 1
217. Teléfono celular: |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__| No tiene 1 No sabe/No responde 2
ENTREVISTADOR: Lea el siguiente texto: “Esta información que usted va a suministrar será de gran importancia para facilitar la toma de
decisiones relacionada con el programa que será evaluado, todo lo que diga será confidencial y utilizada sólo con fines estadísticos”
ENTREVISTADOR: Recuerde que existen dos tipos de organizaciones: A. Organizaciones étnicas de la Sociedad Civil (OSC)
B. Organizaciones étnico-territoriales
Cuando la pregunta lo requiera, se hará la distinción de acuerdo al tipo de organización.
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 134
III. DEMOCRACIA Y PARTICIPACIÓN
301. En cuanto a los espacios de tomas de decisión de la
organización, seleccione las tres principales fortalezas
en orden de importancia -1 la más importante, 3 la
menos importante-.
Frecuencia en la realización de los espacios |___|
Preparación de los espacios |___|
Participación en los espacios |___|
Resultados de los espacios |___|
Seguimientos de los acuerdos tomados en los espacios
|___|
Temas de capacitación que surgen de la asamblea |___|
Resultados de las comisiones conformadas por mandato de la asamblea
|___|
Participación de las mujeres en los espacios |___|
Participación de los jóvenes en los espacios |___|
302. ¿Explique su respuesta?
303. En cuanto a las asambleas de la organización,
seleccione las tres principales necesidades de
fortalecimiento en orden de importancia -1 la más
importante, 3 la menos importante-.
Frecuencia en la realización de las asambleas |___|
Preparación de la asamblea |___|
Participación en la asamblea |___|
Resultados de la asamblea |___|
Seguimientos de los acuerdos de la asamblea |___|
Temas de capacitación que surgen de la asamblea |___|
Resultados de las comisiones conformadas por mandato de la asamblea
|___|
Participación de las mujeres en las comisiones |___|
Participación de los jóvenes en las capacitaciones
|___|
304. ¿Explique su respuesta?
305. En cuanto a los cargos directivos de la organización,
seleccione las tres principales fortalezas en orden de
importancia -1 la más importante, 3 la menos
importante-.
Tiempo de permanencia en los cargos directivos
|___|
Participación de mujeres en cargos directivos
|___|
Participación de jóvenes en cargos directivos
|___|
Rotación de cargos directivos |___|
Capacitación para renovar cargos directivos
|___|
Realización de capacitaciones |___|
Frecuencia de reuniones de los directivos
|___|
Forma como se toman las decisiones |___|
Registro de actas |___|
Reglamentos internos |___|
Temas que con más frecuencia comunican los directivos
|___|
Medios que utilizan para comunicar |___|
Otras autoridades o liderazgos influyentes en la organización
|___|
Relación de los directivos con otros actores
|___|
306. ¿Explique su respuesta?
307. En cuanto a los cargos directivos de la organización,
seleccione las tres principales necesidades de
fortalecimiento en orden de importancia -1 la más
importante, 3 la menos importante-.
Tiempo de permanencia en los cargos directivos
|___|
Participación de mujeres en cargos directivos
|___|
Participación de jóvenes en cargos directivos
|___|
Rotación de cargos directivos |___|
Capacitación para renovar cargos directivos
|___|
Realización de capacitaciones |___|
Frecuencia de reuniones de los directivos
|___|
Forma como se toman las decisiones |___|
Registro de actas |___|
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 135
Reglamentos internos |___|
Temas que con más frecuencia comunican los directivos
|___|
Medios que utilizan para comunicar |___|
Otras autoridades o liderazgos influyentes en la organización
|___|
Relación de los directivos con otros actores
|___|
308. ¿Explique su respuesta?
309. Durante la última asamblea llevada a cabo por la
organización digame cuantas personas
(aproximadamente) asistieron:
Hombres adultos (mayores de 28 años) |___|___|___|
Mujeres adultas (mayores de 28 años) |___|___|___|
Hombres jóvenes (entre 14 a 28 años) |___|___|___|
Mujeres jóvenes (entre 14 a 28 años) |___|___|___|
+______________________________________________
Total |___|___|___|
310. ¿Qué funciones están asumiendo las mujeres dentro de
esta organización?
311. ¿Qué funciones están asumiendo los jóvenes hombres
dentro de esta organización?
312. Durante las asambleas, ¿cómo participan las mujeres
en la toma de decisiones?
313. Durante las asambleas, ¿cómo participan los jóvenes en
la toma de decisiones?
314. ¿Como califica la participación actual de las mujeres en
las asambleas?
Excelente 1
Buena 2
Aceptable 3
Deficiente 4
¿Por qué?
315. ¿Como califica la participación actual de los jóvenes en
las asambleas?
Excelente 1
Buena 2
Aceptable 3
Deficiente 4
¿Por qué?
316. Dentro de su organización, ¿Cuál es el máximo cargo al
que puede aspirar una mujer adulta (mayores de 28
años)?
317. Dentro de su organización, ¿Cuál es el máximo cargo al
que puede aspirar una mujer jóven (entre 14 a 28
años)?
318. Dentro de su organización, ¿Cuál es el máximo cargo al
que puede aspirar un hombre adulto (mayores de 28
años)?
319. Dentro de su organización, ¿Cuál es el máximo cargo al
que puede aspirar un hombre jóven (entre 14 a 28
años)?
IV. AUTONOMÍA YGESTIÓN ADMINISTRATIVA
401. En cuanto a la autonomía y gestión administrativa de la
organización, seleccione las tres principales fortalezas en orden de importancia -1 la más importante, 3 la
menos importante-.
Existencia del plan propio de la organización
|___|
Nivel de articulación de los planes propios con el PDM – PDD
|___|
Nivel de participación en la formulación del plan propio
|___|
Avances en la implementación del plan propios
|___|
Proceso de sistematización |___|
Gestión de los dos últimos años |___|
Registros Contables |___|
Manejo de caja menor |___|
Manejo de cuentas bancarias |___|
Estados Financieros |___|
Manuales de Procedimiento |___|
Órganos de control y auditoría |___|
Obligaciones tributarias |___|
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 136
Capacitación en aspectos administrativos y contables
|___|
Bienes de la organización |___|
Capital propio para su funcionamiento
|___|
Presupuesto de la organización |___|
402. ¿Explique su respuesta?
403. En cuanto a la autonomía y gestión administrativa de la
organización, seleccione las tres principales
necesidades de fortalecimiento en orden de
importancia -1 la más importante, 3 la menos
importante-.
Existencia del plan propio de la organización
|___|
Nivel de articulación de los planes propios con el PDM – PDD
|___|
Nivel de participación en la formulación del plan propio
|___|
Avances en la implementación del plan propios
|___|
Proceso de sistematización |___|
Gestión de los dos últimos años |___|
Registros Contables |___|
Manejo de caja menor |___|
Manejo de cuentas bancarias |___|
Estados Financieros |___|
Manuales de Procedimiento |___|
Órganos de control y auditoría |___|
Obligaciones tributarias |___|
Capacitación en aspectos administrativos y contables
|___|
Bienes de la organización |___|
Capital propio para su funcionamiento
|___|
Presupuesto de la organización |___|
404. ¿Explique su respuesta?
405. ¿Lo planes propios tienen componentes específicos
para mujeres?
Si 1
No 2
No tiene plan 3
406. ¿Lo planes propios tienen componentes específicos
para jóvenes?
Si 1
No 2
No tiene plan 3
407. ¿En tema de mujeres la organización tiene lecciones
aprendidas?
Si 1
No 2 ¿Cuáles?
408. ¿En tema de jóvenes la organización tiene lecciones
aprendidas?
Si 1
No 2 ¿Cuáles?
409. ¿Cómo obtiene la organización sus lecciones
aprendidas?
V. IDENTIDAD CULTURAL, DESARROLLO HUMANO Y SOCIAL
501. En cuanto a la identidad cultural y el desarrollo
humano y social de la organización, seleccione las
tres principales fortalezas en orden de
importancia -1 la más importante, 3 la menos
importante-.
Conocimiento del plan propio por parte de los integrantes de la organización
|___|
Conocimiento de la Ley superior que ampara los derechos fundamentales de la
comunidad
Realización de acciones jurídicas o movilización social, para garantizar el
reconocimiento de su grupo étnico |___|
Preservación de la cultura |___|
Identificación de algún bien, recurso o tradición considerado como vital de cohesion
cultural
Gestión para el acceso de educación primaria |___|
Gestión para el acceso de educación secundaria |___|
Gestión para el acceso de educación técnica |___|
Gestión para el acceso de educación universitaria |___|
Gestión de proyectos productivos |___|
Gestión de proyectos de infraestructura |___|
Gestión de proyectos de servicios |___|
Gestión de proyectos de seguridad Social |___|
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 137
Participación de las Mujeres en la organización |___|
Participación de los Jóvenes en la organización |___|
Manejo de tensiones, diferencias, conflicto en la comunidad |___|
502. ¿Explique su respuesta?
503. En cuanto a la identidad cultural y el desarrollo
humano y social de la organización, seleccione las
tres principales necesidades de fortalecimiento
en orden de importancia -1 la más importante, 3
la menos importante-.
Conocimiento del plan propio por parte de los integrantes de la organización
|___|
Conocimiento de la Ley superior que ampara los derechos fundamentales de la
comunidad
Realización de acciones jurídicas o movilización social, para garantizar el
reconocimiento de su grupo étnico |___|
Preservación de la cultura |___|
Identificación de algún bien, recurso o tradición considerado como vital de cohesion
cultural
Gestión para el acceso de educación primaria |___|
Gestión para el acceso de educación secundaria |___|
Gestión para el acceso de educación técnica |___|
Gestión para el acceso de educación universitaria |___|
Gestión de proyectos productivos |___|
Gestión de proyectos de infraestructura |___|
Gestión de proyectos de servicios |___|
Gestión de proyectos de seguridad Social |___|
Participación de las Mujeres en la organización |___|
Participación de los Jóvenes en la organización |___|
Manejo de tensiones, diferencias, conflicto en la comunidad |___|
504. ¿Explique su respuesta?
505. ¿En la organización tienen identificadas las
necesidades que requieren acciones de
fortalecimiento cultural para mujeres?
Si 1
No 2 ¿Cuáles?
506. ¿En la organización tienen identificadas las
necesidades que requieren acciones de
fortalecimiento cultural para jovenes?
Si 1
No 2 ¿Cuáles?
507. ¿Existen iniciativas propias de las mujeres para
fortalecimiento cultural?
Si 1
No 2 ¿Cuáles?
508. ¿Existen iniciativas propias de los jóvenes para
fortalecimiento cultural?
Si 1
No 2 ¿Cuáles?
509. ¿Tienen proyectos funcionando de
fortalecimiento cultural dirigidos a las mujeres?
Si 1
No 2 ¿Cuáles?
510. ¿Tienen proyectos funcionando de
fortalecimiento cultural dirigidos a los jóvenes?
Si 1
No 2 ¿Cuáles?
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 138
511. ¿En la organización tienen identificadas las
necesidades que requieran acciones de
desarrollo social para mujeres?
Si 1
No 2
Productivos 1
Infraestructura 2
Servicios 3
Seguridad Social 4
512. ¿En la organización tienen identificadas las
necesidades que requieran acciones de
desarrollo social para jovenes?
Si 1
No 2
Productivos 1
Infraestructura 2
Servicios 3
Seguridad Social 4
513. ¿Existen iniciativas propias de las mujeres para
desarrollo social?
Si 1
No 2
Productivos 1
Infraestructura 2
Servicios 3
Seguridad Social 4
514. ¿Existen iniciativas propias de los jóvenes para
desarrollo social?
Si 1
No 2
Productivos 1
Infraestructura 2
Servicios 3
Seguridad Social 4
515. ¿Tienen proyectos funcionando de desarrollo
social dirigidos a las mujeres?
Si 1
No 2
Productivos 1
Infraestructura 2
Servicios 3
Seguridad Social 4
516. ¿Tienen proyectos funcionando de desarrollo
social dirigidos a los jóvenes?
Si 1
No 2
Productivos 1
Infraestructura 2
Servicios 3
Seguridad Social 4
VI. MANEJO Y CONTROL DEL TERRITORIO (Organizaciones étnico-territoriales)
601. En cuanto a al manejo y control del territorio de la organización,
seleccione las tres principales fortalezas en orden de
importancia -1 la más importante, 3 la menos importante-.
Estado del Territorio Étnico |___|
Plan de Ordenamiento del Territorio |___|
Delimitación Cartográfica del Territorio |___|
Plan de manejo ambiental del Territorio |___|
Delimitación de sitios sagrados y/o espirituales del Territorio
|___|
Mecanismos para el manejo de conflictos territoriales
|___|
Areas de preservación ambiental del Territorio
|___|
Areas de Soberanía Alimentaria en el Territorio
|___|
Cumplimiento del plan de ordenamiento y plan de manejo ambiental
del territorio|___|
Conocimiento de la normatividad de protección al territorio
|___|
Acuerdos internos para proteger el territorio
|___|
602. ¿Explique su respuesta?
603. En cuanto a al manejo y control del territorio de la organización,
seleccione las tres principales necesidades de fortalecimiento en
orden de importancia -1 la más importante, 3 la menos
importante-.
Estado del Territorio Étnico |___|
Plan de Ordenamiento del Territorio |___|
Delimitación Cartográfica del Territorio |___|
Plan de manejo ambiental del Territorio |___|
Delimitación de sitios sagrados y/o espirituales del Territorio
|___|
Mecanismos para el manejo de conflictos territoriales
|___|
Areas de preservación ambiental del Territorio
|___|
Areas de Soberanía Alimentaria en el Territorio
|___|
Cumplimiento del plan de ordenamiento y plan de manejo ambiental
del territorio |___|
Conocimiento de la normatividad de protección al territorio
|___|
Acuerdos internos para proteger el territorio
|___|
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 139
604. ¿Explique su respuesta?
605. Seleccione las tres principales afectaciones en cuanto al
territorio para las mujeres en orden de importancia (1 la más
importante, 3 la menos importante)
Territorio no formalizado |___|
Insuficiente tierra para seguridad alimentaria
|___|
Insuficiente tierra para nuevas familias |___|
Conflictos territoriales |___|
Planes de manejo ambiental |___|
Ausencia de planeamiento del territorio
|___|
606. Seleccione las tres principales afectaciones en cuanto al
territorio para os jóvenes en orden de importancia (1 la más
importante, 3 la menos importante)
Territorio no formalizado |___|
Insuficiente tierra para seguridad alimentaria
|___|
Insuficiente tierra para nuevas familias |___|
Conflictos territoriales |___|
Planes de manejo ambiental |___|
Ausencia de planeamiento del territorio
|___|
607. ¿Qué necesidades en cuanto al territorio manifiestan las
mujeres?
608. ¿Qué necesidades en cuanto al territorio manifiestan los
jóvenes?
609. ¿Qué acciones proponen las mujeres para mejorar la situación
del territorio?
610. ¿Qué acciones proponen los jóvenes para mejorar la situación
del territorio?
611. ¿Las mujeres tienen acceso a tierras para garantizar soberanía
alimentaria?
Si 1
No 2
VII. REPRESENTACIÓN
701. En cuanto a la representación de la organización,
seleccione las tres principales fortalezas en orden de
importancia -1 la más importante, 3 la menos importante-.
Representación en CMP |___|
Representación en CTP |___|
Representación en consultivas o mesas departamentales
|___|
Representación en Comisiones Municipales |___|
Representación en Juntas Directivas |___|
Participación en debates de política pública en el Consejo Municipal
|___|
Participación en debates de política pública en la Asamblea Departamental
|___|
Participación en debates de política pública en el Congreso de la
República|___|
Participación en Alianzas |___|
Participación en la formulación de políticas públicas
|___|
Proceso de formación para la incidencia de políticas públicas
|___|
702. ¿Explique su respuesta?
703. En cuanto a la representación de la organización,
seleccione las tres principales necesidades de
fortalecimiento en orden de importancia -1 la más
importante, 3 la menos importante-.
Representación en CMP |___|
Representación en CTP |___|
Representación en consultivas o mesas departamentales
|___|
Representación en Comisiones Municipales |___|
Representación en Juntas Directivas |___|
Participación en debates de política pública en el Consejo Municipal
|___|
Participación en debates de política pública en la Asamblea Departamental
|___|
Participación en debates de política pública en el Congreso de la
República|___|
Participación en Alianzas |___|
Participación en la formulación de políticas públicas
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 140
|___|
Proceso de formación para la incidencia de políticas públicas
|___|
704. ¿Explique su respuesta?
705. ¿Cómo participan las mujeres hacia afuera de la
organización?
706. ¿Cómo participan los jóvenes hacia afuera de la
organización?
VIII. GESTIÓN DE DERECHOS
801. En cuanto a la gestión de derechos de la organización,
seleccione las tres principales fortalezas en orden de
importancia -1 la más importante, 3 la menos importante
Ejercicio efectivo de derechos étnicos en participación política
|___|
Ejercicio efectivo de derechos étnicos en Etnoeducación y Cultura
|___|
Ejercicio efectivo de derechos étnicos en Salud Propia
|___|
Ejercicio efectivo de derechos étnicos en Infancia – Juventud
|___|
Ejercicio efectivo de derechos étnicos en Mujer
|___|
Conocimiento y difusión de la Ley de víctimas
|___|
Conocimiento y difusión de la Ley de anti discriminación
|___|
Conocimiento y difusión de la Ley de restitución
|___|
Control Social - Veeduría |___|
Acciones para hacer efectivos los derechos |___|
Consulta Previa |___|
Justicia Propia |___|
Conocimiento y divulgación de la Ley de la Mujer
|___|
Conocimiento de las rutas de acceso para hacer efectivo sus derechos
|___|
802. ¿Explique su respuesta?
803. En cuanto a la gestión de derechos de la organización,
seleccione las tres principales necesidades de
fortalecimiento en orden de importancia -1 la más
importante, 3 la menos importante
Ejercicio efectivo de derechos étnicos en participación política
|___|
Ejercicio efectivo de derechos étnicos en Etnoeducación y Cultura
|___|
Ejercicio efectivo de derechos étnicos en Salud Propia
|___|
Ejercicio efectivo de derechos étnicos en Infancia – Juventud
|___|
Ejercicio efectivo de derechos étnicos en Mujer
|___|
Conocimiento y difusión de la Ley de víctimas
|___|
Conocimiento y difusión de la Ley de anti discriminación
|___|
Conocimiento y difusión de la Ley de restitución
|___|
Control Social - Veeduría |___|
Acciones para hacer efectivos los derechos |___|
Consulta Previa |___|
Justicia Propia |___|
Conocimiento y divulgación de la Ley de la Mujer
|___|
Conocimiento de las rutas de acceso para hacer efectivo sus derechos
|___|
804. ¿Explique su respuesta?
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 141
805. ¿Cómo participan las mujeres en las acciones de ejercicio
de los derechos?
806. ¿Cómo participan los jóvenes en las acciones de ejercicio
de los derechos?
807. ¿Conocen las mujeres las rutas de acceso para hacer
efectivos sus derechos?
Si 1
No 2
808. ¿Conocen los jóvenes las rutas de acceso para hacer
efectivos sus derechos?
Si 1
No 2
809. ¿Se realizan talleres con mujeres para divulgar la ley de
victimas, antidiscriminación, restitución, consulta previa….?
Si 1
No 2
810. ¿Se realizan talleres con jóvenes para divulgar la ley de
victimas, antidiscriminación, restitución, consulta previa….?
Si 1
No 2
IX. PERCEPCIONES
901. A continuación le voy a leer una serie de situaciones,
cuéntenos qué tan frecuente suceden en su municipio Nunca Casi nunca Casi
Siempre Siempre
Diversidad
e
inclusión
a. Indiferencia frente a los problemas de las comunidades étnicas 1 2 3 4
b. Dificultades para encontrar trabajo 1 2 3 4
c. Discriminación o rechazo por parte de la sociedad hacia la población
étnica 1 2 3 4
e. El gobierno atiende las necesidades de las comunidades étnicas 1 2 3 4
902. Frente a las siguientes afirmaciones indíqueme por favor su grado
de acuerdo o desacuerdo.
Totalmente
de Acuerdo
De
acuerdo
Ni de
acuerdo ni en
desacuerdo
En
desacuerdo
Totalmente
en
desacuerdo
a. Las personas de la población étnica pueden llegar a tener
ingresos que le permitan tener una vida digna 1 2 3 4 5
b. Las personas de la población étnica pueden llegar a tener
altos cargos políticos como senadores y alcaldes 1 2 3 4 5
c. Los resguardos indígenas y los territorios colectivos ayudan a
proteger el medio ambiente 1 2 3 4 5
d. Las organizaciones de la población étnica pueden influir en
las decisiones que se toman en el municipio 1 2 3 4 5
e. Los indígenas y los afrodescendientes son una carga para el
gobierno 1 2 3 4 5
903. ¿En esta vereda, resguardo, territorio, cabildo, consejo comunitario y/o comunidad existen
alguna(s) de las siguientes organizaciones?
1. ¿Existe esta organización?
N/S  No  Si 
a. Junta de Acción Comunal o Veedurías ciudadanas 3  2  1 
b. Organización de población desplazada 3  2  1 
c. Grupo de un movimiento o partido político 3  2  1 
d. Asociación de padres de familia 3  2  1 
e. Grupo deportivo, recreacional, cultural, étnico o de conservación del medio ambiente,
ludotecas 3  2  1 
f. Grupo voluntario, religioso o de la tercera edad 3  2  1 
g. Grupo de mujeres 3  2  1 
h. Grupo de jóvenes 3  2  1 
i. Organizaciones de vigilancia o seguridad 3  2  1 
j. Juntas de usuarios de servicios públicos, juntas municipales de educación, comités de
participación u otras organizaciones comunitarias 3  2  1 
k. Grupo productivo, cooperativas o asociación de productores 3 2 1
ACIP Mid-term Impact Evaluation – Annexes 142
143
Community and Ethno-territorial Organizations focus group guide
Objetivo:
Obtener información primaria para el análisis de los impactos de resultado 2 del programa ACIP relacionado con
el fortalecimiento a las organizaciones comunitarias de base.
Participantes:
8 -12 miembros de la organización que hayan participado en los procesos de fortalecimiento. En la medida de lo
posible:  Miembros de la base de la organización que hayan participado o estado involucrados directamente en los
procesos de fortalecimiento.  Miembros de los centros de pensamiento de las comunidades -si existen- (Nasa, Arhuacos, algunos
consejos comunitarios)  Al menos un(a) joven
 Al menos una mujer adulta
Diseño:
La guía se estructura en 4 partes: Generales; Proyectos; Percepción y Prospectivo y busca indagar sobre 5 temas
principales de las organizaciones: Incidencia; Estructura; Territorio; Proyectos y Proceso Organizativo. Preguntas:
Generales  En los últimos dos años han recibido algún tipo de fortalecimiento /capacitación /apoyo como
organización del cual tenga conocimiento?
o En caso de ser positiva la respuesta ¿Conoce la organización que la impartió? ¿Sobre que temas
trataron?  ¿Conoce el programa para afrocolombianos e indígenas desarrollado por la cooperación del Gobierno de
los Estados Unidos de América?
Proyectos  ¿Se han desarrollado iniciativas relacionadas con la capacidad de incidencia de la organización frente a
actores gubernamentales locales o nacionales para exigir sus derechos? ¿Qué tipo de iniciativas? - Incidencia
 ¿La organización ha recibido capacitaciones frente al manejo de los asuntos administrativos y gerenciales?
¿Qué temas puntuales se han abordado? - Estructura
 El territorio colectivo puede tener diferentes usos y manejos ¿La organización ha tenido acompañamiento /
capacitación en ordenamiento territorial? - Territorio
 ¿Han tenido algún tipo de capacitación frente a formulación y gestión de proyectos para poder acceder a
fuentes de recurso nacionales o internacionales? ¿Metodologías específicas? ¿Marco lógico? - Proyectos  ¿Han existido procesos de formación recientes sobre las reglas, procesos y conductas que afectan el modo
como se ejerce el poder al interior de la organización, particularmente en lo que se refiere a la apertura, la
participación, la responsabilidad, la efectividad y la coherencia? – Proceso organizativo
144
Percepción
 ¿Qué resultados han observado de las iniciativas relacionadas con la capacidad de incidencia de la
organización? ¿Ha modificado su nivel de interlocución con los actores gubernamentales locales o
nacionales? ¿Se sienten más cómodos en estos espacios de diálogo? – Incidencia
 ¿Se ha modificado el manejo / gerencia de la organización a partir de los proyectos que se han
desarrollado para fortalecimiento de la misma? ¿En qué aspectos han visto la modificación? ¿Han sido
capacitados miembros de todos los grupos que componen la organización? – Estructura
 ¿Los usos y manejo del suelo del territorio colectivo han tenido modificación? ¿Conocen los posibles usos
que puede tener el suelo? ¿Se sienten conformes con los usos actuales del suelo en su territorio? - Territorio
 ¿Se han postulado a convocatorias para proyectos específicos para la organización en los últimos dos
años? ¿Cuáles han sido los resultados de estas postulaciones? ¿Si no se han presentado, indagar la razón
por la que no se han presentado? – Proyectos  ¿Los proyectos de fortalecimiento del proceso organizativo que impactos han tenido sobre la apertura, la
participación, y la responsabilidad de la organización? ¿Se sienten mejor representados, más incluidos en
estos espacios? – Proceso Organizativo
Prospectivo
 ¿En su concepto que componentes se deben complementar para aumentar la capacidad de incidencia de su
organización frente a los actores gubernamentales locales o nacionales?– Incidencia
 ¿En su concepto que aspectos se deben trabajar a futuro para continuar mejorando la capacidad
administrativa y de gerencia de la organización? -Estructura
 Buscando garantizar un territorio que permita preservar los usos y costumbres culturales y al mismo
tiempo armonizarlos con actividades para la pervivencia de la comunidad ¿En qué temáticas se debería
profundizar para obtener un mejor ordenamiento del territorio? - Territorio
 Buscando una posible consecución de recursos de fuentes como la cooperación internacional o el Sistema
General de Regalías ¿En qué componentes considera que se debe hacer mayor énfasis (formulación,
evaluación, fundraising…)?– Proyectos  ¿En su concepto que etapas del fortalecimiento al proceso organizativo deben ser profundizados para
lograr una organización más participativa e incluyente? – Proceso Organizativo
145
Rural beneficiaries questionnaire
Centro Nacional de Consultoría S.A. Calle 34 N° 5-27 Bogotá Teléfono: 339 4888
Centro de Costos: 7532-03 Fecha:17 de Marzo de 2015 Prueba iloto:
Elaborado por: Jorge Gallego/MSI Revisado por: Carlos Castro Revisado en Campo por: Nasaret Pulido
1. Fecha de entrevista:
Día Mes Año
|__|__| |__|__||2_|0_|1_|5_|
5. Número muestral- NIM (Según base): |___|___|___|___|___|
2. Municipio:_______________________
DANE: |___|___|___|___|___|
3. Comunidad/Resguardo (según base):____________________
6. Tipo de muestra
Tratamiento 1 Proyecto:_______________________
Control 2
 Saludo al primer contacto. Buenos días, tardes, mi nombre es (nombre y apellido), pertenezco al Centro Nacional de Consultoría, una empresa privada dedicada a
la investigación de mercados, social y de opinión pública. Actualmente nos encontramos desarrollando un estudio sobre el programa para población
Afrocolombiana e Indigena-ACIP de USAID y para hacerlo requerimos hablar con (E: Mencione el nombre del informante del listado)
 Saludo a la persona seleccionada. Buenos días, tardes, mi nombre es (nombre y apellido), pertenezco al Centro Nacional de Consultoría, una empresa privada
dedicada a la investigación de mercados, social y de opinión pública. Actualmente nos encontramos desarrollando un estudio sobre el programa para población
Afrocolombiana e Indigena-ACIP de USAID. Es posible que usted haya o no haya sido beneficiario de este Programa pero sus participación respondiendo esta
encuesta es muy importante para hacer valer opiniones de personas que como usted hacen parte de los grupos étnicos del país. Le agradecería que me dedicara 60
minutos para responderme unas preguntas. ¿Puedo comenzar? Para cualquier inquietud puede comunicarse con el Centro Nacional de Consultoría, teléfono
3394888.
I. DATOS DEL INFORMANTE
101. Nombre de la persona Nombres __________________________________ Apellidos_______________________________________
102. Número de documento de identificación |__||__|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__| No tiene 1 NS/NR 2
103. ¿Usted se autoreconoce como…..?
Indígena 1
Negro, mulato, afro descendiente 2
Raizal del archipiélago 3 105
Palenquero 4
De ninguno de los anteriores 5 201
104. ¿A que pueblo indígena pertenece (Arhuaco, Páez, Wayuu, Guambiano,…)? __________________________________________ 105. ¿Usted hace parte de un Resguardo o Territorio Colectivo? Si 1  No 2 NS 3 NA 4
¿Nombre del Resguardo? _____________ 106. ¿Usted hace parte de un Cabildo o Autoridades tradicionales o Consejo
comunitario?
Si 1  No 2 NS 3 NA 4
¿Nombre del Cabildo/Consejo Comunitario? _____________ 107. ¿Usted hace parte de algún otro tipo de comunidad ? Si 1  No 2 NS 3 NA 4
¿Nombre de la Comunidad? _____________ 108. Se considera Ud. victima del conflicto armado en Colombia Si 1  108.a No 2 109
108.a. ¿En que año(s) ocurrió(eron) los hechos de violencia por el(los) cual(es) se
considera victima del conflicto armado en Colombia? ___________ ____________ ____________
109. ¿Actualmente participa de alguno de los siguientes programas del Gobierno?
ENTREVISTADOR: Marque 00 si no participa en ningún programa
Ninguno 00
Familias en Acción 01
100 mil viviendas gratis 02
Red Unidos 03
Familias en Acción Indígena 04
Iraca del DPS 05
Afrounidos 06
Ingwikin 07
Vive digital 08
INCODER: Promoción, seguimiento y grupos étnicos 09
ICBF: Grupos étnicos con bienestar 10
MinTIC: Soy TIC Awa 11
MinCultura: Cocinas tradicionales 12
MinInterior. Planes de Salvaguarda 13
MinInterior:Planes específicos 14
109.a ¿Ha diligenciado algún trámite para certificar que ha sido víctima de la
violencia? Si 1 No 2
II. VIVIENDA
146
III. CARACTERIZACIÓN DE LOS MIEMBROS DE LA FAMILIA
ENTREVISTADOR: Lea el siguiente texto: “Ahora voy a preguntarle por los miembros de su familia, aquellos con los que cocina en la misma olla y duermen bajo el
mismo techo”
201. ¿Actualmente vive en una vivienda…..?
Propia 1
En arriendo 2
Empeño o garantía de pago 3 203
En vivienda prestada (sin pagar arriendo) 4
Ocupada de hecho 5
202. ¿Como consiguió la vivienda?
Por adjudicación del cabildo o consejo comunitario 1
Construcción propia 2
Comprada con escritura pública 3
Comprada sin escritura pública 4
Sucesión familiar 5
Otro, ¿Cuál?_________________ 6
203. ¿Hace cuanto vive en esta vivienda?
Años l___l___l Meses l___l___l Siempre ha vivido aquí 1
204. ¿Cuántas personas habitan en la vivienda (residente habitual)?
|__|__|
205. ¿Cocinan todos en la misma olla? Si 1 208 No 2
206. ¿Cuántas familias, incluyendo la suya, habitan esta vivienda?
|__|__|
207. ¿Cuántas personas hacen parte de SU familia?
|__|__|
208. ¿Qué energía o combustible utilizan principalmente para cocinar? (Espere
respuesta)
Electricidad 1
Gas natural 2
Gas en cilindro o pipeta 3
Kerosén, petróleo, gasolina, alcohol 4
Leña o carbón de leña 5
Carbón mineral 6
Material de desecho 7
No se preparan alimentos 8
209. ¿De dónde toman principalmente el agua para preparar alimentos?
(Espere respuesta)
Acueducto con suministro (continuo o intermitente) 1
Pozo con bomba o sin bomba, jagüey, aljibe 2
Agua lluvia 3
Pila pública 4
Carro tanque, aguatero 5
Río, quebrada, manantial, nacimiento 6
Agua embotellada 7
No usan agua para preparar alimentos 8
147
E: Registre aTODOS los miembros del hogar empezando por el jefe
301. 302. 303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 309. 310. 311. 312. 313. 314. 315.
No ¿Cuál es el
nombre
completo
de los
miembros
de esta
familia?
Marca
muestra
(Marqu
e el
miembr
o del
hogar
que
está en
el
listado
de
muestra
)
Si tiene
menos de 1
año,
marque 0.
¿Cuál es la
edad de
___?
¿Cuál es
el sexo de
____?
1.Hombre
2. Mujer
Si tiene
menos de 10
años, pase a
306
¿Cuál es el
estado civil
de ___?
1.Soltero
2.Casado
3.Unión libre
4.Separado
5.viudos
6 Otro
______ es:
1. Indígena
2. Raizal del
archipiélago
3.Palenquero
4. Negro,
mulato, afro
descendiente
5. De ninguno
de los
anteriores
¿Cuál es el
parentesco
de_______
con el Jefe de
la familia?
1.Jefe de la
familia
2.Cónyuge
3.Hijo o hija
4.Padres o
suegros
5.Hermanos o
cuñados
6.Otro
pariente
7.Otro no
pariente
¿Es____
beneficiar
io,
afiliado o
cotizante
de alguna
entidad
de
seguridad
social en
salud?
(Cotizació
n a EPS,
Régimen
subsidiad
o:Sisben)
1.Si
2. No

Aplique
sólo a
persona
s de 14
años y
más
¿Sabe
leer y
escribir
?
1 Si
2 Si, con
dificulta
d
3 No
Aplique sólo a
personas de 5 años y
más
¿Cuál es el máximo
nivel educativo formal
alcanzado por ___?
1. Ninguno →pase p
313
2. Preescolar
3. Primaria
4. Básica Secundaria
5 Media
6. Técnico
7 tecnológica
8. Universitaria
9. Postgrado
10. NS/NR → pase
p312
 Aplique
sólo a
personas de
5 años y
más
¿Cuántos
años ha
APROBADO
en este
nivel
_______?

Aplique
sólo
persona
s de 5
años y
más
¿Asiste_
__actual
mente a un
estableci
miento
educativ
o?
1.Si
2. No
Aplique sólo a personas
de 12 años y más
En la semana pasada
contada de lunes a
domingo ¿cuál fue la
actividad principal de? __________ 1.Trabajo en su
cultivo(equivalente)
2.Trabajó como jornalero
3.Participó en trabajo
colectivo
4.Pesco o cazó
5.Hizo un trabajo diferente
a lo agropecuario
6.Hizo artesanías
7.Oficios del hogar
8. Participó en actividades
rituales
9.Estudió
10.Buscó trabajo
11 Otras actividades
Aplique sólo a personas
de 12 años y más
En la semana pasada
contada de lunes a
domingo ¿cuál fue la
segunda actividad a la que
dedico más tiempo? __________ 1.Trabajo en su
cultivo(equivalente)
2.Trabajó como jornalero
3.Participó en trabajo
colectivo
4.Pesco o cazó
5.Hizo un trabajo diferente
a lo agropecuario
6.Hizo artesanías
7.Oficios del hogar
8. Participó en actividades
rituales
9.Estudió
10.Buscó trabajo
11 Otras actividades
12. Ninguna otra
 Aplique
sólo a
personas
de 12 años
y más
¿_____
General_
mente
aporta
ingresos en
dinero o
especie a la
familia?
1.Si
2.No
1 |___|___| 1
2
2
|___|___|
1
2
3
|___|___|
1
2
4
|___|___|
1
2
5
|___|___|
1
2
6
|___|___|
1
2
7
|___|___|
1
2
148
IV. GASTOS DE LA FAMILIA
ENTREVISTADOR: Lea el siguiente texto: “A continuación le voy a mencionar una serie de alimentos y usted me dirá si los compraron, se
los regalaron, los tomaron de la actividad productiva, como pago en especie o por trueque en su familia durante los últimos 7 días”
401. ¿Durante los últimos 7 días
contados hasta ayer, algún
miembro de la familia compró, le
regalaron, tomó de su unidad
productiva, recibió como pago en
especie o consiguió por trueque
alguno de los siguientes alimentos?
402. ¿Lo
compraro
n?
403. ¿Cuál fue el
valor total
pagado en
___ durante
los últimos 7
días contados
hasta ayer?
404. ¿Durante los últimos 7 días contados hasta ayer, en
esta familia obtuvieron
___ sin tener que pagarlo?
405. ¿De dónde o
cómo lo
obtuvieron
principalmen
te? 1. Finca, huerta o
lote de la familia, mar o río
2. Pago en especie 3. Regalo o
donación
4. Trueque
406. ¿En cuánto
estima el valor
de ___
obtenido?
No

Sí 
No
404
Sí  No

Sí
 a. Maíz, arroz, pan,
arepa, galletas, avena,
cebada, pasta, plátano,
papa, yuca o ñame
2 
1
2 
404
1  $|__|__|__||__|__|__| 2
1
1 2
3 4
$|__|__|__||__|__|__|
b. Huevo, carne de res,
de cerdo, de conejo,
pollo, pescado, sardina,
atún, hígado, fríjol,
lenteja, garbanzo,
2 
1
2 
404
1  $|__|__|__||__|__|__| 2
1
1 2
3 4
$|__|__|__||__|__|__|
c. Verduras 2 
1
2 
404
1  $|__|__|__||__|__|__| 2
1
1 2
3 4
$|__|__|__||__|__|__|
d. Frutas 2 
1
2 
404
1  $|__|__|__||__|__|__| 2
1
1 2
3 4
$|__|__|__||__|__|__|
e. Leche, queso, kumis,
yogurt, suero costeño o
leche en polvo
2 
1
2 
404
1  $|__|__|__||__|__|__| 2
1
1 2
3 4
$|__|__|__||__|__|__|
f. Panela, miel, azúcar,
bocadillo, dulces,
chocolatinas,
colombinas, mermelada
o gaseosas
2
1 
2 
404
1
$|__|__|__||__|__|__| 2
1
1 2
3 4
$|__|__|__||__|__|__|
g. Aceite, manteca,
margarina u otras grasas
2
1 
2 
404
1
$|__|__|__||__|__|__| 2
1
1 2
3 4
$|__|__|__||__|__|__|
h. Otros alimentos, que
no le haya mencionado y
que los adquirieron en
los últimos 7 días.
2
1 
2 
404
1
$|__|__|__||__|__|__| 2
1
1 2
3 4
$|__|__|__||__|__|__|
407. . En promedio MENSUAL, cuánto gasta la familia (tomando como referencia
los meses trascurridos del 2015) en: Valor a. Comida preparada fuera de la vivienda (excluya restaurante escolar) No hubo gasto↓ $ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
b. Bebidas alcohólicas y cigarrillos consumidos dentro o fuera de la vivienda No hubo gasto↓ $ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
c. Alquiler de vivienda No hubo gasto↓ $ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
d. Servicios públicos No hubo gasto↓
$ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
Incluido en arriendo 1 ↓
e. Salud y medicamentos No hubo gasto↓ $ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
f. Seguridad social (salud y pensiones) No hubo gasto↓ $ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
g. Educación (pensión y otros gastos mensuales, transporte, copias, materiales
para tareas) No hubo gasto↓
$ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
149
h. Transportes (municipal, intermunicipal, río, mar,combustible para el
transporte,aceite,reparaciones) No hubo gasto↓
$ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
i. Combustible (Velas, kerosén, petróleo, gasolina, alcohol, carbón, Gas en
pipeta) No hubo gasto↓ $ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
j. Pago de préstamo de vivienda No hubo gasto↓ $ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
k. Pago de otros préstamos No hubo gasto↓ $ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
l. Artículos para el aseo personal y aseo de la casa No hubo gasto↓ $ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__| m. Servicios personales (corte de cabello, etc.) No hubo gasto↓ $ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__| n. Telefonía celular, internet, llamadas larga distancia No hubo gasto↓ $ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__| o. Recreación (deportes, juegos entretenimiento) No hubo gasto↓ $ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
p. Loterías, chances, juegos de azar No hubo gasto↓ $ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
q. Herraminetas e insumos para la actividad agrícola No hubo gasto↓ $ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
408. En PROMEDIO, cuánto gastó la familia durante los últimos DOCE MESES
calendario en: Valor a. Ropa y calzado No hubo gasto↓ $ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
b. Educación (uniformes, matrículas, útiles y textos escolares) No hubo gasto↓ $ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__| c. Muebles para el hogar (comedor, camas, mesas, etc.) No hubo gasto↓ $ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
d. Televisor, nevera, lavadora, computador, equipo de sonido, y otros
electrodomésticos No hubo gasto↓
$ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__| e. Fiestas (Regalos) No hubo gasto↓ $ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
f. Otros gastos anuales (Impuestos, funerales, etc.) No hubo gasto↓ $ |__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
410. ¿Quiénes en la familia deciden cuanto gastar en….? E: Anote el número de orden de la matriz de composición del hogar a. Comida 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
b. Ropa y calzado 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
c. Educación 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
d. Salud 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
e. Mejoras en la vivienda 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
V. TRANSFERENCIAS
501. En los últimos 12 meses calendario, ¿alguien de esta familia ha dado alguna ayuda en DINERO a
algún pariente, vecino, amigo o conocido que no viva en esta vivienda?
Si 1
No 2 503
502. ¿ En total esta familia cuánto dio en los últimos 12 meses? (sume todas las veces que dieron) $|___|___|___||___|___|___|
503. En los últimos 12 meses calendario, ¿alguien de este hogar ha dado alguna ayuda en ESPECIE
(comida, ropa) a algún pariente, vecino, amigo o conocido que no viva en este hogar
Si 1
No 2 601
504. . ¿A cuánta plata equivale el total dado en los últimos 12 meses? (sume todas las veces que dieron
ayuda) $|___|___|___||___|___|___|
VI. INGRESOS DE LA FAMILIA
601. ¿Actualmente de cuánto es el ingreso mensual total de esta
familia por trabajo de todos sus miembros (pago en dinero o
especie, excluya ingresos de la actividad productiva)?
|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
No tiene ↓
602. ¿Actualmente de cuánto es el ingreso mensual total de esta
familia por ayudas en dinero entregadas por parte del estado
(Gobernación, Alcaldía, Familias en Acción, otro programas del
Gobierno)?
|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
No recibe ↓
150
De los siguientes
animales
607. ¿Cuántos tiene de cada
uno?
ENTREVISTADOR: Si no
tiene animales, marque 0
608. ¿Cuál es la finalidad de la producción?
609. Después de gastos,
¿Cuántos ingresos percibe
por la producción mensual
que le genera la especie de
__?
610. Si los fuera a vender
hoy, ¿Cuánto cree que le
pagarían por el total de
cada especie?
a. Oveja Consumo doméstico 1 Venta 2
b. Cabra Consumo doméstico 1 Venta 2
c. Vaca Consumo doméstico 1 Venta 2
d. Cerdo Consumo doméstico 1 Venta 2
e. Caballo Consumo doméstico 1 Venta 2
f. Aves de corral Consumo doméstico 1 Venta 2
g. Otros Consumo doméstico 1 Venta 2
VII. PERCEPCIÓN DE SEGURIDAD ALIMENTARIA
El período de referencia son los últimos 30 días contados hasta el día anterior a la entrevista
ITEMS DE LA ESCALA Sí No
701.
En los últimos 30 días ¿Usted se preocupó alguna vez de que en su familia se acabaran los alimentos debido a
falta de dinero? 1 2
702. En los últimos 30 días. ¿Alguna vez en su familia se quedaron sin alimentos por falta de dinero? 1 2
703.
En los últimos 30 días. ¿Alguna vez en su familia se quedaron sin dinero para obtener una alimentación
nutritiva: es decir que contenga carne, leche o productos lácteos, frutas, huevos, verduras, cereales,
leguminosas, tuberculos y platanos ?.
1 2
704.
En los últimos 30 días. ¿Alguna vez usted o algún adulto de su familia dejó de desayunar, almorzar o comer por
falta de dinero? 1 2
705.
En los últimos 30 días. ¿alguna vez usted o algún adulto de su familia no pudo variar la alimentación por falta de
dinero?. 1 2
706.
En los últimos 30 días. ¿Alguna vez usted o algún adulto de su familia comió menos de lo que está
acostumbrado por falta de dinero?. 1 2
603. ¿Actualmente de cuánto es el ingreso mensual total de esta
familia por otras fuentes de ingresos (transferencias de
familiares y otras transferencias)?
|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
No recibe ↓
604. ¿ Actualmente de cuánto es el ingreso mensual total de esta
familia por ayudas en especie entregadas por parte del estado,
alguna organización o familiares/amigos (Calcule cuánto tendrían
que pagar por tales ayudas)?
|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
No recibe ↓
605. Los ingresos que reciben todos los miembros de su familia
CUBREN LOS GASTOS BÁSICOS
Sí 1
No 2 701
606. Además de cubrir los gastos básicos de la familia, ¿sobra
dinero?
Sí 1
No 2
611. Adicionalmente a estas actividades o negocios, ¿Este hogar
tiene alguna otra actividad o negocio que le genere ingresos?
Sí 1
No 2
612. ¿A qué sector o sectores pertenece esta actividad, negocio o
proyecto?
Agropecuario (incluye piscicultura y silvicultura) 1.
Pesca artesanal 2
Transformación de productos agropecuarios 3.
Elaboración de productos no agropecuarios 4.
Compra y venta de productos 5.
Servicios 6.
Transporte 7
Extracción de minerales 8
Artesanías 9
151
707.
En los últimos 30 días. ¿Alguna vez usted o algún adulto de su familia sintió o se quejó de hambre y no comió
por falta de dinero?. 1 2
708.
En los últimos 30 días. ¿alguna vez usted o algún adulto de su familia solo comió una sola vez al día o dejó de
comer en todo un día por falta de dinero? 1 2
709.
En los últimos 30 días ¿Alguna vez en su familia tuvieron que hacer algo que hubiera preferido no hacer para
conseguir los alimentos?. 1 2
710.
En los últimos 30 días, ¿alguna vez, algún adulto de su familia se acostó con hambre porque no alcanzó el
dinero para los alimentos? 1 2
ENTREVISTADOR: Las siguientes preguntas se refieren únicamente a la situación de los niños; es decir todos aquellos miembros de la familia
(niños, niñas y jóvenes) menores de 18 años de edad. Verifique el hogar tiene menores de 18 años. No tiene 801
711.
En los últimos 30 días. ¿Alguna vez por falta dinero algún niño o joven de su familia dejó de tener una
alimentación nutritiva,es decir que contega carne, leche o productos lácteos, frutas, huevos, verduras, cereales,
leguminosas, tuberculos y platanos?.
1 2
712.
En los últimos 30 días. ¿alguna vez algún niño o joven de su familia no pudo variar la alimentación por falta de
dinero?. 1 2
713.
En los últimos 30 días. ¿Alguna vez algún niño o joven de su familia comió menos de lo que está acostumbrado
por falta de dinero? 1 2
714.
En los últimos 30 días. ¿Alguna vez usted tuvo que disminuir la cantidad servida en las comidas de algún niño o
joven de su familia, por falta de dinero? 1 2
715.
En los últimos 30 días. ¿Alguna vez, algún niño o joven de su familia se quejó de hambre pero no se pudo
comprar más alimentos por falta de dinero? 1 2
716.
En los últimos 30 días. ¿Alguna vez,algún niño o joven de su familia se acostó con hambre porque no alcanzó el
dinero para los alimentos? 1 2
717.
En los últimos 30 días. ¿Alguna vez, algún niño o joven de su familia solo comió una vez al día o dejó de comer
todo un día por falta de dinero? 1 2
VIII. CARACTERIZACIÓN DE LA UNIDAD PRODUCTIVA
801. ¿Usted o alguien de su familia desarrolla alguna actividad productiva o tiene alguna
finca, lote o parcela que esté trabajando? Sí 1 No 2 1101
802.
¿Cuántas fincas, lotes o parcelas ha explotado durante los últimos 6 meses contados hasta ayer? Por favor
incluya fincas, lotes o parcelas colindantes o no, que sean propias o en arriendo, y excluya las fincas, lotes o
parcelas que tenga arrendadas a otros
|__|__| Fincas, lotes o parcelas
No tiene 1 1101
803.
Para cada una de las finca, lotes o parcelas que me reporta le preguntaré algunos datos:
a. Área total
1. Finca, lote o parcela 1 2. Finca, lote o parcela 2 3. Finca, lote o parcela 3 4. TOTAL AREA DE TODAS LAS FINCAS, LOTES
O PARCELAS
|__|__|__|, |__|__|
Hectareas 1
Fanegadas 2
|__|__|__|, |__|__|
Hectareas 1 Fanegadas
2
|__|__|__|, |__|__|
Hectareas 1
Fanegadas 2
|__|__|__|, |__|__|
Hectareas 1 Fanegadas 2
b. Ubicación Dentro del resguardo o territorio colectivo 1
Fuera del resguardo o territorio colectivo 2
Dentro del resguardo o territorio colectivo 1
Fuera del resguardo o territorio colectivo 2 Dentro del resguardo o territorio colectivo 1
Fuera del resguardo o territorio colectivo 2
152
c. Propiedad
Adjudicación del cabildo, autoridad tradicional o
consejo comunitario 1
Adjudicación familiar 2
Sucesión 3 Compreventa con escritura publica o privada 4
Compraventa sin escritura 5 Arriendo 6  803.3.e Aparcería, usufructo, empeño, anticresis, etc 7
 803.3.e
Adjudicación del cabildo, autoridad tradicional o
consejo comunitario 1
Adjudicación familiar 2
Sucesión 3 Compreventa con escritura publica o privada 4
Compraventa sin escritura 5 Arriendo 6  803.3.e Aparcería, usufructo, empeño, anticresis, etc 7
 803.3.e
Adjudicación del cabildo, autoridad tradicional o
consejo comunitario 1
Adjudicación familiar 2
Sucesión 3 Compreventa con escritura publica o privada 4 Compraventa sin escritura 5 Arriendo 6  803.3.e Aparcería, usufructo, empeño, anticresis, etc 7  803.3.e
d. Título de propiedad a nombre de que miembro de la
familia
Número de orden
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
NA 1
Número de orden
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
NA 1
Número de orden
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
NA 1
e. ¿ Tiene compromiso con el cabildo, autoridad
tradicional o consejo comunitario de compartir lo que
produce?
Si 1
No 2 803.2
Si 1
No 2 803.3
Si 1
No 2 804
f. ¿Qué porcentaje de la producción comparte? |__|__|__|% |__|__|__|% |__|__|__|%
805.
¿Cuál es la actividad más importante que desarrolla en
su unidad productiva?
(Columna 1 para la principal, 2 para los asociados o
secundarios de la actividad principal)
1. ACTIVIDAD PRINCIPAL
2. ACTIVIDAD SECUNDARIA
_____________________
_____
________________________ No tiene 901
806. ¿Cuáles de los siguientes destinos tiene o tendrá esta
actividad?
Venta
aRegalo
b
Alimentación de la familia
c
Insumo en la finca
d
Venta a Regalo b
Alimentación de la familia c
Insumo en la finca d
807. ¿Hace cuánto estableció la actividad principal? (Años- Meses) Años1 |__|__|- Meses 2 |__|__|
808.
¿En qué etapa se encuentra la actividad principal?
ENTREVISTADOR(A): para ganadería usar etapas en
paréntesis)
a. Preparación del terreno (Alistamiento)
b. Siembra (Iniciación) c. Mantenimiento (Levante)
d. Cosecha (Producción o Ceba) e. Post-cosecha (Post-producción y transformación)
809. ¿Qué parte del proceso se hace colectivamente? (o en
conjunto con personas de la comunidad)
a. Preparación del terreno (Alistamiento)
b. Siembra (Iniciación)
c. Mantenimiento (Levante)
d. Cosecha (Producción o Ceba) e. Post-cosecha (Post-producción y transformación)
1. Ninguno
804.
¿Del total de las ____ Has o Fg de la(s) finca(s), lotes(s) o parcela(s), cuántas están dedicadas a:
ENTREVISTADOR(A): Si le reportan unidades diferentes a Ha. o Fg., indague para convertir los datos a una de estas unidades de área..
a. Actividades productivas (cultivos y áreas de frutales, huertas, pescados, etc.) |__|__|__|__|, |__|__| Ha.1 Fg 2
b. Tierras en descanso o en rastrojo |__|__|__|__|, |__|__| Ha.1 Fg 2
c. Monte, bosques naturales o nativos o de protección |__|__|__|__|, |__|__| Ha.1 Fg 2
d. Bosque plantado, silvicultura |__|__|__|__|, |__|__| Ha.1 Fg 2
e. Cuerpo de agua no productivo |__|__|__|__|, |__|__| Ha.1 Fg 2
f.Otras áreas Área dedicada a vivienda u otras construcciones productivas. Suelo estéril
etc.
|__|__|__|__|, |__|__| Ha.1 Fg 2
153
810. ¿Quiénes en la familia decidieron sobre el desarrollo de
esta actividad principal?
Número de orden
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
811. En2014, ¿su actividad principal era la misma que tiene
actualmente?
Si 1 813
No 2
812. ¿Cuál era su actividad principal en 2014? __________________________
813.
En 2014¿cuál fue el volumen de producción total del
producto principal?
NA 1 901
1. |__|__|__|__|__|,|__|__| Ton 1 Kg 2 Lt 3 M3 4
U 5 Cúal?_________
814.
En 2014 ¿cuáles fueron las ventas anuales de la
ACTIVIDAD PRODUCTIVA PRINCIPAL? (Escriba el valor
en pesos)
1.$|__|__|.|__|__|__|.|__|__|__| 2. NA
815.
En el 2014¿Cuáles fueron las ventas anuales de TODA SU
ACTIVIDAD PRODUCTIVA? (Escriba el valor
en pesos)
1. $|__|__|.|__|__|__|.|__|__|__| 2. NA
816.
En los últimos 12 meses ¿recibieron o contrataron
Asistencia Técnica para el desarrollo de actividades
agrícolas, forestales o pecuarias?
Si 1 816.a
No 2
816. a
¿De qué institución o instituciones recibió la asistencia
técnica agropecuaria?
UMATA
Secretaría de Agricultura Departamental
Gremios
EPSAGRO
Particular (agrónomo, técnico, veterinario, zootecnista, o administrador
agropecuario)
SENA
Comité de Cafeteros
Otra Cual
VIII. caracterización física
901. El acceso al lote principal se hace generalmente por: (Leer opciones)
Carretera pavimentada 1
Carretera destapada 2
Camino 3
Cuerpo de agua (río, laguna, ciénaga, mar) 4
902. ¿Cuánto tiempo le toma o le tomaría llevar sus productos desde la finca, lote o
parcela PRINCIPAL hasta la cabecera municipal más cercana? a. Horas |___|___|
b. Minutos |___|___|
x. PERCEPCIÓN de la UNIDAD PRODUCTIVA
1001. Comparando la situación actual de esta unidad productiva, con NA Mejoró Siguió Igual Empeoró
903. ¿(período) la unidad productiva VENDÍA sus productos o servicios en…? 1. En 2014 2. En 2015
Sí No Sí No
a. En su vereda, resguardo, territorio, cabildo, consejo comunitario y/o comunidad 1 2 1 2
b. En la cabecera municipal 1 2 1 2
c.En veredas o municipios cercanos 1 2 1 2
d. A nivel departamental 1 2 1 2
e. A nivel nacional 1 2 1 2
f. Para exportar 1 2 1 2
1. No vendia
2. NA
 903.2
154
las condiciones que tenía en 2012¿usted considera que ésta Mejoró,
Siguió Igual o Empeoró? 1 1003 3 1003 4 5
1002. ¿Cuál o cuáles han sido los mayores problemas o dificultades
para sacar adelante la unidad productiva? (E R.M, Esperar respuesta)
a. Dificultades en el transporte 01
b. Dificultades con la comercialización 02
c. Variación de los precios 03
d. Fumigación 04
e. Falta de capital inicial 05
f. Falta de conocimientos técnicos 06
g. Insostenibilidad 07
h. Invierno 08
i. Plagas 09
j. Otra razón 10
1003. Si usted aumenta sus ingresos a través de mejoramientos de
procesos productivos, ¿en qué invertiría principalmente los mismos?
Mejorar la vivienda 01
Comprar vivienda 02
Comprar tierras 03
Educación (hijos) 04
Salud 05
Ropa 06
Invertir en su actividad productiva 07
Ahorrro 08
Otro 09
xI. compra y venta de TIERRA
1101. ¿Desde el 2012usted o alguien de su familia ha comprado
finca, lote o parcela? Si 1 No2 1105
1102. ¿Dónde compró? 1 Dentro del resguardo o territorio colectivo
2 Fuera del resguardo o territorio colectivo
1103. En total, ¿cuánta área compró? |__|.|__|__|__| , I__|__| 1 fan 2 ha
1104. En total, ¿cuánto pagó? (estimar pago en especie) $ |___|___|___|.|___|___|___|.|___|___|___|
1104.a ¿Cómo adquirieron el predio, tierra o parcela? Comprada con recursos propios y/o financiados
Comprada con subsidio del Estado
Adjudicada por el Estado (INCODER, INCORA)
Heredada
En posesión de un terreno que pertenece a otra persona
En ocupación de un terreno baldío
Por medio de un arreglo de aparcería, medianería o usufructo
Por medio de un arreglo de arrendamiento
1104.b ¿Cuenta con algún documento que certifique el modo en
que adquirieron el predio, tierra o parcela? Si 1 No2
1105. ¿Desde 2014, el cabildo, autoridad tradicional o el consejo
comunitario ha comprado tierras? Si 1 No2 1107
1106. En total, ¿cuánta área compró? |__|.|__|__|__| , I__|__| 1 fan 2 ha
1107. ¿Desde 2014, el cabildo, autoridad tradicional o el consejo
comunitario le ha adjudicado tierras? Si 1 No2 1109
1108. En total, ¿cuánta área? |__|.|__|__|__| , I__|__| 1 fan 2 ha
1109. ¿Está en lista de espera o esperando adjudicación de tierra
por parte del cabildo, autoridad tradicional o consejo
comuniatrio?
Si 1 No2
1110. ¿Usted o alguien de su familia ha vendido tierra desde
2014?
Si 1 No2 1201
1111. ¿Cuánta área vendió? |__|.|__|__|__| , I__|__| 1 fan 2 ha
1112. ¿En los últimos dos años ha iniciado algún proceso para
recibir la titulación de algún predio? Si 1 No2
1113. ¿En los últimos dos años ha recibido la titulación de algún
predio? Si 1 No2
155
1114. ¿En los últimos dos años ha sido víctima del despojo de
alguna tierra? Si 1 No2
XII. AHORRO Y DEUDAS
1201. ¿Acostumbra a tener plata ahorrada o guardada para gastos
futuros o imprevistos? Sí 1 No 2 1204
1201.a. ¿Algún otro miembro del hogar acostumbra a tener plata
ahorrada o guardada para gastos futuros o imprevistos? Sí 1 No 2
1202.
a. ¿Cuánto tiene Ud. ahorrado actualmente en dinero?
1. $|___|___||___|___|___||___|___|___|
2. NR
1203.
¿En dónde guarda o ahorra el dinero?
a. Bancos o corporaciones SI 1 NO 2
b. Cooperativas, asociaciones o fundaciones como las que ofrecen microcrédito SI 1 NO 2
c. En la casa SI 1 NO 2
d. Cadena de amigos, roscas, natilleras, pirámides SI 1 NO 2
e. Otros (como fondos de empleados o familiares, etc.) SI 1 NO 2
1204. ¿Actualmente la actividad principal de su unidad productiva tiene algún tipo de
DEUDAS con bancos, cooperativas, proveedores, amigos, vecinos, etc.? SÍ 1  No 2 1207 NA 3 1207
1205. ¿Cuál es el valor total de dichas deudas? $ |__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|
1206. ¿Con quien tiene las deudas?: Sí No
a. Bancos, cooperativas u otras entidades financieras 1 2
b. Fondos de empleados o fundaciones de microcrédito 1 2
c.Compradores, asociaciones de productores u organizaciones productivas 1 2
d. Proveedores como almacenes de cadena, el granero, la tienda, otros 1 2
e. Prestamistas (personas cuyo oficio es prestar dinero) 1 2
f. Amigos o familiares 1 2
1207. ¿En el 2014adquirió deudas para….? Sí No
a. Pago de alguna necesidad familiar. 1 2
b. Capital de trabajo (pagos de jornales, compras de insumos, compras o alquiler de
herramientas, arrendamientos). 1 2
c.Compra o alquiler de maquinaria o maquinaria de transporte y equipos 1 2
d. Compras, construcciones o mejoras de casas, edificios, bodegas, tierra. 1 2
e. Pago de otras deudas 1 2
XIII. OTRAS PREGUNTAS DE OPINIÓN E. Sólo realice una de las dos siguientes preguntas según la instrucción
1301a
E: Solo realice esta pregunta si el último dígito del NIM (P.5), es alguno
de los siguientes números 0,2,4,6 ó 8. Le voy a leer algunas cosas, para
que me diga, CUÁNTAS de éstas 5 ha realizado en los últimos 6 meses.
Sólo queremos saber cuántas; no me diga cuáles.
a. Asistió a una consulta médica
b. Realizó un viaje por fuera del departamento
c. Le prestó plata a un vecino o familiar
e. Recibió un préstamo de un vecino o familiar
f. Incumplió una promesa o compromiso
Cuantas I___|___|1401
156
1301b
E: Solo realice esta pregunta si el último dígito del NIM (P.5), es alguno
de los siguientes números 1,3,5,7 ó 9. Le voy a leer algunas cosas, para
que me diga, CUÁNTAS de éstas 6 ha realizado en los últimos 6 meses.
Sólo queremos saber cuántas; no me diga cuáles.
a. Asistió a una consulta médica
b. Realizó un viaje por fuera del departamento
c. Le prestó plata a un vecino o familiar
d. Un grupo alzado en armas amenazó, exigió una vacuna o colaboración a su
familia
e. Recibió un préstamo de un vecino o familiar
f. Incumplió una promesa o compromiso
Cuantas I___|___|
XIV. PARTICIPACIÓN Y ACTITUDES CIUDADANAS
1401. ¿En esta vereda, resguardo, territorio, cabildo,
consejo comunitario y/o comunidad existen alguna(s) de
las siguientes organizaciones?
2. ¿Existe esta organización?
3. ¿Usted o alguien de su familia asiste a
reuniones, da aportes económicos o
participa activamente como miembro de la
N/S  No  Si  (el) ___?
l. Junta de Acción Comunal o Veedurías ciudadanas 3  2  1  Si 1 No 2 m. Organización de población desplazada 3  2  1  Si 1 No 2 n. Grupo de un movimiento o partido político 3  2  1  Si 1 No 2 o. Asociación de padres de familia 3  2  1  Si 1 No 2
p. Grupo deportivo, recreacional, cultural, étnico o de
conservación del medio ambiente, ludotecas 3  2  1  Si 1 No 2
q. Grupo voluntario, religioso o de la tercera edad 3  2  1  Si 1 No 2
r. Grupo de mujeres 3  2  1  Si 1 No 2
s. Grupo de jóvenes 3  2  1  Si 1 No 2
t. Organizaciones de vigilancia o seguridad 3  2  1  Si 1 No 2 u. Juntas de usuarios de servicios públicos, juntas
municipales de educación, comités de participación u
otras organizaciones comunitarias
3  2  1  Si 1 No 2
v. Grupo productivo, cooperativas o asociación de
productores 3  2  1  Si 1 No 2
COMPONENTE 4: CAMPAÑAS DE SENSIBILIZACIÓN SOBRE LA POBLACIÓN AFRODESCENDIENTE E INDÍGENA
XV. CONSUMO DE MEDIOS DE COMUNICACIÓN
1501. Con
que
frecuencia
usted realiza
las siguientes
actividades:
Nunca
Todos los
días
Varias veces
a la semana
Una vez a
la
semana
Cada
quince
días
Una vez al mes Una vez
cada tres meses
Por lo menos una
vez al año
¿Cuáles?
a. Lee revistas 1.  2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  8. 
b. Lee periódicos 1.  2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  8. 
c. Ve televisión (canales) 1.  2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  8. 
d. Escucha radio
(emisoras) 1.  2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  8. 
e. Asiste a eventos
públicos. (conciertos,
ferias, fiestas)
1.  2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
1502 ¿Consiguió periódicos en los últimos doce meses? Si 1  No 2 1504
1503. ¿Cómo consiguió principalmente los periódicos?
(Espere respuesta)
Los compró en almacenes de cadena, tiendas 1
Los compró por internet 2
Los compró en ventas ambulantes 3
Por suscripción 4
157
Se lo prestaron 5
Se lo regalaron 6
Lo leyó por internet de manera gratuita 7
Otro ¿cuál?___________________ 8
1504. ¿Consiguió revistas en los últimos doce meses? Si 1 No 2 1506
1505.¿Cómo consiguió principalmente las revistas?
(Espere respuesta)
Las compró en almacenes de cadena, tiendas 1
Las compró por internet 2
Las compró en ventas ambulantes 3
Por suscripción 4
Se las prestaron 5
Se las regalaron 6
Las leyó por internet de manera gratuita 7
Otro ¿cuál?___________________ 8
1506.¿Por qué medio principalmente prefiere enterarse de las
noticias?
(Espere respuesta)
Radio comunitaria 1
Radio nacional 2
Televisión Local 3
Televisión Nacional/Internacional 4
Revistas 5
Periódicos 6
Internet 7
No le interesan las noticias 8
1507.¿Conoce alguna campaña de identidad cultural de
población étnica? Si 1 No 2 1601
1508.¿Por qué medio(s) se enteró de la campaña(s)?
(Espere respuesta)
Radio comunitaria a
Radio nacional b
Televisión Local c Televisión Nacional d
Revistas e Periódicos f
Internet g
Voz a voz h
Seminarios, charlas, reuniones i
XVI. CONOCIMIENTO, ACTITUDES Y PERCEPCIONES HACIA LA POBLACIÓN AFRODESCENDIENTE E INDIGENA
1601.
A continuación le voy a leer una serie de
situaciones, cuéntenos qué tan frecuente suceden
en el municipio donde vive
Nunca Casi nunca
Casi
Siempre
Siempre
Diversidad e
inclusión
a. Los problemas de los afrodescendientes e indígenas son
ignorados 1. 2. 3. 4.
b. Dificultades para encontrar trabajo 1. 2. 3. 4.
c. Discriminación o rechazo por parte de la sociedad hacia los
afrocolombianos e indígenas 1. 2. 3. 4.
e. El gobierno atiende las necesidades de los
afrodescendientes e indígenas 1. 2. 3. 4.
1602 Frente a las siguientes afirmaciones indíqueme por favor
su grado de acuerdo o desacuerdo.
Totalmente
de Acuerdo
De
acuerdo
Ni de
acuerdo ni en
desacuerdo
En
desacuerdo
Totalmente
en
desacuerdo
a. Si consiguiera un trabajo, no podría tener un puesto muy
alto 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
158
b. Los afrodescendientes e indígenas pueden llegar a tener
altos cargos políticos como senadores y alcaldes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
c. Los resguardos indígenas y los territorios colectivos ayudan a
proteger el medio ambiente 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
d. Las organizaciones de las sociedad civil de los
afrodescendientes e indígenas pueden influir en las decisiones que se toman en el municipio donde vive
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
e. Los indígenas y los afrodescendientes son una carga para el
gobierno 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
f. Es incómodo tener como vecino a una persona que sea
afrodescendiente 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
g. Es incómodo tener como vecino a una persona que sea
indígena 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
h. Es incómodo tener como yerno/nuera a una persona que sea
afrodescendiente 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
i. Es incómodo tener como yerno/nuera a a una persona que sea indígena 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
1603. Dígame si estaría de acuerdo o no con las siguientes
afirmaciones Sí No
NA
a. Se siente identificado con su cultura indígena 1 2 3
b. Se siente identificado con su cultura afrodescendiente 1 2 3
b. Conoce las tradiciones de su cultura de origen 1 2 3
c. Es integrante de alguna organización que fortalece la cultura 1 2 3
d. Ha participado en los últimos seis meses en actividades que
reivindican derechos colectivos de afrodescendientes e indígenas
(culturales, de territorio)
1 2 3
e. Ha participado en los últimos seis meses en ceremonias o rituales
colectivos que hacen parte de su cultura 1 2 3
f. Considera que debe haber apoyo a proyectos o eventos que
fortalecen la cultura 1 2 3
XVII. DATOS DE CONTACTO
1701 ¿Cuántos teléfonos celulares hay en uso en su familia? |__|__| No tiene 1 1703
1702¿Cuáles son los números y cuál es el parentesco del propietario del celular con el informante?
1702A. Números de celular 1702B. parentesco del propietario del celular con el informante
a. |__|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__||__|
NS
Informante 1 Hijo o hija 3 Hermanos o cuñados 5 Otro no pariente
7
Cónyuge 2 Padres o suegros 4 Otro pariente 6
b. |__|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__||__|
NS
Informante 1 Hijo o hija 3 Hermanos o cuñados 5 Otro no pariente
7
Cónyuge 2 Padres o suegros 4 Otro pariente 6
c. |__|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__||__|
NS
Informante 1 Hijo o hija 3 Hermanos o cuñados 5 Otro no pariente
7
Cónyuge 2 Padres o suegros 4 Otro pariente 6
d. |__|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__||__|
NS
Informante 1 Hijo o hija 3 Hermanos o cuñados 5 Otro no pariente
7
Cónyuge 2 Padres o suegros 4 Otro pariente 6
1703¿Su familia tiene acceso a un teléfono compartel o a un teléfono fijo? 1704¿Cuál es el numero?
159
No 2 1705 Si 1 |__|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__|__|
ENTREVISTADOR: Lea a su entrevistado el siguiente texto: "Es posible que tengamos que contactarlo(a) nuevamente en un futuro. Existe la
posibilidad que usted no viva aquí en ese momento, así que nos gustaría que nos diera el nombre y los datos de algún vecino, amigo o familiar
que no viva con usted, que tenga datos de contacto y que pueda informarnos de su ubicación en ese caso."
1705.¿Cuál es el nombre completo de esta persona? Nombres___________________________
Apellidos__________________________________
1706.Esta persona es su: Vecino 1 Amigo 2 Familiar 3
1707¿En qué municipio vive?_______________________________________ 1708.|__|__|__|__|__| Código
1709.La vivienda de _______ se encuentra ubicada en: Cabecera 1 Centro poblado 2 Rural disperso 3
1710.¿Cuál es el nombre del barrio, vereda, resguardo, territorio, cabildo, consejo comunitario y/o comunidad dónde vive? _____________________ 1711¿La vivienda de_ tiene teléfono fijo? No 2 1713 Nosabe 3 1714 Sí 1 
1712¿Cuál es el número?
|__|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__||__| No sabe
1
1713¿ Tiene un teléfono celular? No 2  No sabe 3  Sí 1 
1714¿Cuál es el número?
|__|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__||__| No
sabe 1
1715¿Tiene otros números de celular? a. |__|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__||__| No tiene 1 b. |__|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__||__|
No tiene 1
XI. PERCEPCIONES SOBRE LA INTERVENCIÓN DE PROGRAMA ACIP DE USAID
E: Verifique el tipo de muestra de la P.6 y lea según el caso
1801. Tratamiento E: Lea: De acuerdo con nuestro
registro Ud. es o ha sido beneficiario del Programa para
población Afrocolombiana e Indigena -ACIP financiado
por USAID e implementado por ACDI-VOCA, a través de
apoyo a su proyecto productivo es esta información
cierta?
Si 1  Pase a 1803
No 2  E: Indague más si el encuestado
definitivamente no lo reconoce - Termine
1802. Control: Es o ha sido Ud. beneficiario del Programa
para población Afrocolombiana e Indigena -ACIP financiado
por USAID e implementado por ACDI-VOCA, para el apoyo
de proyectos productivos ?
Si 1  Pase a 1803
No 2  Termine
 A continuación voy a formularle algunas preguntas acerca de los apoyos, asesorías y ayudas que ésta
unidad productiva recibió del programa ACIP de USAID
1803. 1804 1805. 1806. 1807.
Que tipo de
asistencia
recibió del
programa
ACIP
Marque
1= Sí
2= No
¿La ayuda entregada por
ACIP de USAID incluyó una
parte práctica?
1= Sí
2= No
¿Qué intensidad
tuvo esta
ayuda? (
¿Cómo califica esta ayuda en términos de importancia
para el desarrollo de su negocio o unidad productiva?
Bueno = 1
Regular = 2
Malo = 3
a. Ayudas en
especie:
plántulas,
Material
vegetal, etc.
1
2
1 2 3
b. Cursos o
capacitaciones
1
2
1
2
|__|__|__|__|
Horas
1 2 3
c. Asistencia
técnica
1
2
1
2
|__|__|__|__|
visitas
1 2 3
Otro
1
2
1
2
1 2 3
160
1808.
Califique qué tanto se cumplieron las expectativas que
tenía al vincularse a las actividades que desarrolló
utilizando para ello una escala de 1 a 5, en donde 1 es
"no se cumplieron" y 5 es "se han cumplido
totalmente",
1
2
3
4
5
1809.
¿Le recomendaría a un familiar/amigo participar en
este Programa? Si 1 No 2
1810. Califique el beneficio que usted cree que obtuvo del proyecto ACIP sobre la asociación de productores o
empresarios, utilizando una escala de Alto, Medio, Bajo o Ningún beneficio.
Alto
beneficio
Medio beneficio Bajo beneficio Ningún beneficio
a.Mejora en el proceso de
cultivos 1 2 3 4
b. Mayor número de asociados 1 2 3 4
b. Participación mas activa de
sus asociados 1 2 3 4
c.Alianzas con otras
asociaciones o grupos.
1 2 3 4
d.Mayores ingresos de la
asociación 1 2 3 4
e. Mayor capacidad para
gestionar proyectos y recursos
1 2 3 4
1811. Califique el beneficio que obtuvo del proyecto ACIP sobre las siguientes prácticas y capacidades de su negocio o
unidad productiva, utilizando una escala de Alto, Medio, Bajo o Ningún beneficio.
Alto
beneficio Medio beneficio Bajo beneficio Ningún beneficio
a. Mejora en la
comercialización 1 2 3 4
b. Mayor conocimiento
técnico de cultivos 1 2 3 4
c.Conformación de nuevos
grupos o asociaciones.
1 2 3 4
d. Seguimiento a las metas
del proyecto (por ejemplo:
área sembrada, empleos
generados, ventas,
obtención de certificación,
etc.).
1 2 3 4
e Generación de reportes
periódicos. 1 2 3 4
f. Aspectos contables,
administrativos u operativos 1 2 3 4
g. Planta física o equipos 1 2 3 4
h.Otros 1 2 3 4
Le agradecemos mucho sus opiniones. Quisiera preguntarle si estaría dispuesto en el futuro a volver a colaborar con nosotros.
Sí 1 No 2
161
CONTROLES FINALES
Fecha de la encuesta Día /____/____/ Mes /____/____/ Año
/________/
Hora inicio /____/____/: /____/____/ Fin /____/____/: /____/____/
Encuestador Cédula Supervisor Cédula
SUPERVISIÓN HALLAZGO RESPONSABLE ACCIÓN RESPONSABLE APROB RECHAZ
Monitorización (75%) 1 1 2
Re-contacto Presencial 2 1 2
Re-contacto Telefónico 3 1 2
Revisión en Campo 4 1 2
Revisión en Crítica 5 1 2
Notas
HALLAZGO: 1 Inconsistencia- 2 Datos Ficticios- 3 Pregunta faltante ACCIÓN: 5 Anular- 6 Verificar- 7 Recuperar- 8 Devolver a
Campo APROBADO/RECHAZADO
Verific
ad
Codificad
Verificación de Crítica 6 HALLAZGO ACCIÓN
HALLAZGO: 1 Omisión código - 2 Código errado - 3 Omisión de crítica ACCIÓN: 1 Asignar código - 2 Corregir - 3 Revisión pases/Revisión campos - 7
Otro
162
Urban beneficiaries questionnaire
Centro Nacional de Consultoría S.A. Calle 34 N° 5-27 Bogotá Teléfono: 339 4888
Centro de Costos: 7532-03 Fecha:17 de Marzo de 2015 Prueba Piloto:
Elaborado por: Revisado por: Revisado en Campo por:
4. Fecha de entrevista:
Día Mes Año
|__|__| |__|__||2_|0_|1_|5_|
6. Número muestral: |___|___|___|___|___|
5. Municipio:_______________________
6. DANE: |___|___|___|___|___|
7. Comunidad:____________________
6. Tipo de muestra
Tratamiento 1 Proyecto:_______________________ Control 2
II. DATOS DEL ENTREVISTADO
ENTREVISTADOR : Verifique con el entrevistado el nombre completo y número de cédula de éste.
110. Nombre de la persona Nombres __________________________________ Apellidos_______________________________________
111. Número de documento de identificación |__||__|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__| No tiene 1
NS/NR 2
112. ¿Cuál es su fecha de nacimiento? Día |__|__| Mes |__|__| Año |__|__|__|__|
113. Sexo Hombre 1 Mujer 2
114. ¿Usted se autoreconoce?
Indígena 1
Negro, mulato, afro descendiente 2
Raizal del archipiélago 3
Palenquero 4 107
De ninguno de los anteriores 5
115. ¿A que pueblo indígena pertenece (Arhuaco, Páez, Wayuu,
Guambiano,…)? __________________________________________ 116. ¿Cuántas personas hacen parte de su familia (incluido usted),
aquellos con los que cocina en la misma olla y duermen bajo el
mismo techo?
|__|__|
117. En la casa en la que usted vive, ¿qué relación de parentesco tiene
con el/la Jefe/a de la familia?
Jefe de la familia 1
Cónyuge 2
Hijo o hija 3
Padres o suegros 4
Hermanos o cuñados 5
Otro pariente 6
Otro no pariente 7
118. ¿Hace cuánto vive usted en este municipio? Años l___l___l Meses l___l___l Siempre ha vivido aquí 1
119. ¿En los últimos 12 meses contados hasta ayer, usted…….?
a. Vivió en su comunidad de origen Si 1 No 2
b. Visito su comunidad de origen Si 1 No 2
¿Cuantas veces? l___l___l
120. ¿Cuál es la dirección de la vivienda donde reside? ______________________________________________ 121. ¿Cuál es el nombre del barrio? ________________________________________ 122. La vivienda que habita la familia se encuentra ubicada en: Cabecera 1 Centro Poblado 2 Rural Disperso 3
123. ¿La vivienda tiene teléfono fijo? No 2  116 Sí 1 
124. ¿Cuál es el número?
|__|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
125. ¿Cuántos teléfonos celulares hay en uso en su familia? |__|__| No tiene 1 118
126. ¿Cuáles son los números y cuál es el parentesco del propietario del celular con el informante?
117a. Números de celular 117b. parentesco del propietario del celular con el informante
10. ENTREVISTADOR: Lea el siguiente texto: “Esta información que usted va a suministrar será de gran importancia para facilitar la toma de
decisiones relacionada con el programa que será evaluado, todo lo que diga será confidencial y utilizada sólo con fines estadísticos”
163
e. |__|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__|__| NS Informante 1 Hijo o hija 3 Hermanos o cuñados 5 Otro no pariente
7 Cónyuge 2 Padres o suegros 4 Otro pariente 6
f. |__|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__|__| NS Informante 1 Hijo o hija 3 Hermanos o cuñados 5 Otro no pariente
7 Cónyuge 2 Padres o suegros 4 Otro pariente 6
g. |__|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__|__| NS Informante 1 Hijo o hija 3 Hermanos o cuñados 5 Otro no pariente
7 Cónyuge 2 Padres o suegros 4 Otro pariente 6
h. |__|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__|__| NS Informante 1 Hijo o hija 3 Hermanos o cuñados 5 Otro no pariente
7 Cónyuge 2 Padres o suegros 4 Otro pariente 6
ENTREVISTADOR: Lea a su entrevistado el siguiente texto: "Es posible que tengamos que contactarlo(a) nuevamente en un futuro. Existe la
posibilidad que usted no viva aquí en ese momento, así que nos gustaría que nos diera el nombre y los datos de algún vecino, amigo o familiar
que no viva con usted y que pueda informarnos de su ubicación en ese caso."
127. ¿Cuál es el nombre completo de esta persona? Nombres___________________________
Apellidos__________________________________
128. Esta persona es su: Vecino 1 Amigo 2 Familiar 3
129. ¿En qué municipio vive_____________ ______________________________________ 130. |__|__|__|__|__| Código
131. La vivienda de _______ se encuentra ubicada en: Cabecera 1 Zona Rural 2
132. ¿Cuál es el nombre del barrio (vereda) dónde vive ____________________________________________________________
133. ¿La vivienda de ____ tiene teléfono fijo? No 2 126 No sabe 3 126 Sí 1

134. ¿Cuál es el número?
|__|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__| No
sabe 1
135. ¿ Tiene un teléfono celular? No 2  201 No sabe 3 201 Sí 1 
136. ¿Cuál es el número?
|__|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__| No
sabe 1
137. ¿Tiene otros números de celular? a. |__|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__| No tiene 1 b. |__|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__| No
tiene 1
138. Se considera Ud. victima del conflicto armado en Colombia Si 1 No 2 130
139. ¿En que año(s) ocurrió(eron) los hechos de violencia por el(los) cual(es) se considera
victima del conflicto armado en Colombia? _____________________________________
140. ¿Actualmente participa de alguno de los siguientes programas del
Gobierno?
ENTREVISTADOR: Marque 0 si no participa en ningún programa
0
Familias en Acción 1
100mil viviendas gratis 2
Red Unidos 3
Familias en Acción Indígena 4
Iraca del DPS 5
Afrounidos 6
Ingwikin 7
Vive digital 8
INCODER: Promoción, seguimiento y grupos étnicos 9
ICBF: Grupos étnicos con bienestar 10
MinTIC: Soy TIC Awa 11
MinCultura: Cocinas tradicionales 12
MinInterior. Planes de Salvaguarda 13
MinInterior:Planes específicos 14
Ninguno 88
131.a ¿Ha diligenciado algún trámite para certificar que ha sido víctima de la violencia? Si 1 No 2
II. EDUCACIÓN
201. ¿Asiste actualmente a un
establecimiento educativo
de educación formal?
(aunque esté en vacaciones)
1 Si
2 No
202. ¿Cuál es el máximo nivel
educativo alcanzado y el
último grado aprobado en
ese nivel?
202.a Máximo
nivel educativo 202.b ¿Cuál es la cantidad de años que ha aprobado en ese nivel?
Ninguno 1
Preescolar 2 0 1 2 3
Primaria 3 0 1 2 3 4 5
Básica secundaria 4 0 1 2 3 4
164
Media 5 0 1 2
Técnica/Tecnológi ca 6 0 1 2 3 4
Universitária 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Postgrado 8 0 1 2 3 4 5
203. ¿Cuántos hijos tiene? ____ Si no tiene hijos marque 0 y  301
204. 205. 206. 207. 208.
N
o
¿Cuál es el nombre
completo de sus
hijos?
¿Cuál es la
edad de
___?
¿Cuál es el
sexo de
____?
1.Hombre
2. Mujer
Aplique sólo a personas de 5 años y más
¿Cuál es el máximo nivel educativo formal alcanzado por ___?
1. Ninguno →301
2. Preescolar
3. Primaria
4. Básica Secundaria
5 Media
6. Técnico
7 tecnológica
8. Universitaria
9. Postgrado
10. NS/NR→301
 Aplique sólo a
personas de 5
años y más
¿Cuántos años ha
APROBADO en
este nivel
_______?
1 |___|___| 1
2
|___|___|
2 |___|___| 1
2
|___|___|
III. FORMACIÓN PARA EL TRABAJO
301. ¿Ha recibido cursos de capacitación para el
trabajo entre 2014 y 2015?
Si 1
No 2 304¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.
302. ¿En total cuántos cursos de capacitación ha
realizado entre 2014 y 2015? |__|__|__|
303. ¿Cuántos de esos cursos fueron? a. Entre 0 y 20 horas |__|__|
b. Entre 21 y 60 horas |__|__|
c. Entre 61 y 120 horas |__|__|
d. Más de 120 horas |__|__|
304. Si le dieran la oportunidad, ¿le gustaría seguir
estudiando, capacitándose o formándose? Si 1 No 2 NS3
IV. HISTORIA LABORAL
401. ¿Trabaja o ha trabajado alguna vez en su vida por un pago en dinero?
Sí 1
No 2  403a
402. ¿Cuántos años tenía cuando realizó su primer trabajo a cambio de dinero? |___|___| años
403b. 2015
403. ¿En qué actividad ha ocupado la mayor parte de
su tiempo durante el año______?
Trabaja 1
No trabaja pero tiene trabajo 2
Busca trabajo 3

701701
Tiene incapacidad permanente para
trabajar
5
Oficios del hogar 6
Vive de la renta 7  801
Es pensionado o jubilado 8
165
Estudia 9
Otra actividad 10
404. ¿Cuántos trabajos distintos ha tenido en el
año____? |___|___|
ENTREVISTADOR: Revise la respuesta a la pregunta 404, si la persona contesto más de 1 trabajo, para contestar las siguientes preguntas refierase al trabajo más
importante
405. ¿Cuántas horas trabaja a la semana? |___|___| horas
406. ¿Cuántos meses ha trabajado durante el______? |___|___|
407. ¿A qué actividad se dedica principalmente la
empresa, entidad o negocio en la que realizó/a
este trabajo?
Administración pública 1
Agricultura, ganadería silvicultura y pesca 2
Explotación de minas y canteras 3
Industria manufacturera 4
Suministro de electricidad, gas o agua 5
Construcción 6
Comercio y reparaciones 7
Hotel, restaurantes, bares o similares 8
Transporte, almacenamiento y comunicaciones 9
Establecimientos financieros 10
Actividades inmobiliarias y alquiler 11
Servicios privados empresariales y personales 12
Servicios de salud 13
Educación 14
No especifica 15
408. ¿En este empleo usted se desempeña?
Profesional, tecnico, directivo 1
Personal administrativo de oficina 2
Trabajadores en hoteles, restaurantes, vigilancia y aseo 3
Trabajadores de otros servicios(peluquería,logística,etc)4
Comerciante, promotor de ventas 5
Trabajador en comercio al por mayor(empacador,cajero) 6
Operario de la industria, obrero de la construcción. 7
Otro 8
409. Aproximadamente, ¿Cuántas personas trabajan
en el establecimiento donde trabaja?
Solo 1
2 a 5 personas 2
6 a 10 personas 3
11 y más personas 4
410. En ese trabajo /es: (marque
sólo la opción principal)
Obrero o empleado asalariado 1
Jornalero o peón 2
Empleado doméstico 3
Trabajador independiente o por
cuenta propia con un solo cliente o
patrón (prestación de servicios)
4
Trabajador independiente o por
cuenta propia con más de un cliente
o patrón
5
Patrón, dueño o socio de un negocio, 601.
finca, cultivo o parcela 6
Trabajador familiar sin remuneración 7 801
V. ASALARIADO
501b. 2015
501. ¿Cómo consiguió el empleo?
A través de una agencia privada de empleo 1
Responde avisos publicitarios/coloca avisos en el periódico 2
A través de una red social (amigos / parientes / otros) 3
Busca en internet / coloca avisos en internet 4
Se contacta con los empleadores
directamente (los visita / envia cartas) 5
166
A través de familiares, amigos o colegas 6
A través de un servicio público de Empleo (SENA, servicio civil, etc) 7
Otro,¿Cuál?_____ 8
502. ¿Bajo qué tipo de contrato trabaja en esta organización?
Contrato escrito a término indefinido 1
Contrato escrito a término fijo 2
Contrato de prestación de servicios 3
Afiliación a cooperativa de trabajo asociado 4
Verbal o sin contrato escrito 5
503. La empresa lo tiene afiliado a alguna EPS
Si 1
No 2
NS/NR 3
504. La empresa lo tiene afiliado a alguna ARP/ARL
Si 1
No 2
NS/NR 3
505. La empresa lo tiene afiliado a algún fondo de pensiones
Si 1
No 2
NS/NR 3
506. ¿Cuánto le pagan normalmente en su empleo u oficio? $. |__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
No Sabe/No responde 1 510510
507. La periodicidad de lo que le pagan o recibe es:
Diario 1
Semanal 2
Quincenal 3
Mensual 4
Anual 5
508. ¿El Pago que recibe fue/es libre de descuentos?
Si 1 510
No 2
NS/NR 3 510
509. ¿Después de descuentos, cuánto recibe en el último mes? $. |__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
510. ¿Recibe de su empleador algún tipo de subsidio, incluido
el auxilio de transporte, bonos, alimentos, vivienda y
calzado o vestuario como complemento o parte del pago
de su salario?
Si 1
No 2 801
511. ¿Recibe auxilio de transporte en dinero?
Si 1
No 2 513
NS 3 513
512. ¿Cuánto es el valor mensual que recibia/recibe? $|__|__| |__|__|__||__|__|__|
513. ¿Recibe BONOS para hacer compras o recibia/recibe otros
subsidios en DINERO de su empleador o de la caja de
compensación?
Si 1
No 2 515
NS 3 515
514. ¿Cuánto es el valor mensual que recibia/recibe? $|__|__| |__|__|__||__|__|__|
515. ¿Recibe alimentos como parte de pago por su trabajo?
Si 1
No 2 517
NS 3 517
516. ¿Cuánto calcula que es el valor mensual que
recibia/recibe? $|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
517. ¿Recibe como parte de pago por su trabajo: vivienda,
vestuario, calzado u otros pagos en especie?
Si 1
No 2 801
NS 3 801520
518. ¿ Cuánto calcula que es el valor mensual que recibe por
vivienda (cuánto pagaría de arriendo en caso de no recibir
vivienda como parte de pago por su trabajo)?
$|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__||__|__|__|
No recibió vivienda 1
519. ¿ Cuánto calcula que es el valor mensual que recibe por
vestuario o calzado?
$|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|
No recibió vestuario o calzado 1
520. ¿Cuánto calcula que es el valor mensual que recibe por
otros pagos en especie?
$|__| __|| __|__|__| |__|__|__|
No recibió otros pagos en especie 1 801
167
I. TRABAJADORES INDEPENDIENTES O POR CUENTA PROPIA
601. En______ ¿dónde
realiza su trabajo
como independiente?
En local propio o arrendado 1
En la vivienda que habita 2
En una vivienda distinta a la suya 3
En la calle como ambulante 4
En la calle como estacionario 5
En un “kiosco” o caseta 6
Puerta a puerta 7
En un vehículo (taxi, carro, bus, lancha, barco) 8
En una zorra, carreta o zorrillo 9
En una mina o cantera 10
En una obra en construcción 11
En una finca o terreno propio o en arriendo o en aparcería 12
En río, mar o ciénaga 13
Otro 14
602. Después de gastos en su actividad como independiente o por cuenta propia, ¿cuál
es el ingreso mensual neto promedio que le quedó/a para su consumo o ahorro
personal?
$. |__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
603. ¿Para este negocio lleva cuentas? Sí 1
No 2 605
604. ¿En qué medio lleva las cuentas de su negocio? (Espere respuesta)
En una hoja o cuaderno 1
En un libro de contabilidad 2
En office (Word, Excel) 3
En otro sistema informático 4
605. Si vendiera el negocio o su parte del mismo (maquinaria, vehículos, instalaciones,
etc.), ¿cuánto esperaría recibir por esta venta?
$|__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
NA 1
606. Su negocio tiene un registro mercantil (Está registrado en Cámara de Comercio)
Si 1 No 2 NS3
801
607. ¿Su negocio está afiliado a un gremio, asociación de productores u otro colectivo? Si 1 No 2 NS3
VII. DESEMPLEADO
701. ¿Ha tenido por lo menos un
trabajo remunerado en su
vida?
Si 1
No 2 713
En su último trabajo…
702. ¿Cuántas horas trabajaba a la
semana? |___|___| horas
703. ¿Cuántos meses trabajó
durante los últimos 12 meses
desde que termino su último
trabajo?
|___|___|
704. ¿A qué actividad se dedicaba
principalmente la empresa,
entidad o negocio en la que
realizó este trabajo?
Administración pública 1
Agricultura, ganadería silvicultura y pesca 2
Explotación de minas y canteras 3
Industria manufacturera 4
Suministro de electricidad, gas o agua 5
Construcción 6
Comercio al por mayor y al por menor 7
Hotel, restaurantes, bares o similares 8
Transporte, almacenamiento y comunicaciones 9
Establecimientos financieros 10
Actividades inmobiliarias y alquiler 11
Servicios privados empresariales y personales 12
Servicios de salud 13
Educación 14
No especifica 15
705. ¿En este empleo usted se Profesional, tecnico, directivo 1
168
desempeñaba como? Personal administrativo de oficina 2
Trabajadores en hoteles, restaurantes, vigilancia y aseo 3
Trabajadores de otros servicios(peluquería,logística,etc) 4
Comerciante, promotor de ventas 5
Trabajador en comercio al por mayor(empacador,cajero) 6
Operario de la industria, obrero de la construcción. 7
Otro 8
706. En ese trabajo era: (marque
sólo la opción principal)
Obrero o empleado asalariado 1
 711
713¡Error!
No se
encuentra el
origen de la
referencia.
Jornalero o peón 2
Empleado doméstico 3
Trabajador independiente o por cuenta propia con un solo cliente o patrón 4
Trabajador independiente o por cuenta propia con más de un cliente o patrón 5
Patrón, dueño o socio de un negocio, finca, cultivo o parcela 6
Trabajador familiar sin remuneración 7
707. ¿Bajo qué tipo de contrato
trabajaba en esta
organización?
Contrato escrito a término indefinido 1
Contrato escrito a término fijo 2
Contrato de prestación de servicios 3
Afiliación a cooperativa de trabajo asociado 4
Verbal o sin contrato escrito 5
708. ¿Cuál de los siguientes
beneficios tenia en este
trabajo? Prestaciones sociales
(primas, cesantías, vacaciones)
La empresa lo tenía afiliado a alguna EPS a. La empresa lo tenía afiliado a alguna ARP b.
a empresa lo tenía afiliado a algún fondo de pensiones c. Subsidio familiar d.
Subsidio de transporte e. Subsidio de alimentación o alimentación gratuita f.
Subsidio de vivienda o vivienda gratuita g.
709. ¿Cuánto le pagaban
normalmente en su empleo u
oficio?
$. |__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
No Sabe/No responde 1  712¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.
710. La periodicidad de lo que le
pagaban o recibía era:
Mensual 1
Quincenal 2
Semanal 3
Diario 4
Anual 5  712
711. Después de gastos en su actividad como independiente o por cuenta
propia, ¿cuál era el ingreso mensual neto promedio que le quedaba
para su consumo o ahorro personal?
$. |__|__||__|__|__||__|__|__|
No Sabe/No responde 1
712. ¿Cuál fue la PRINCIPAL razón
por la que dejó éste trabajo?
Fue despedido 1
Fue víctima de desplazamiento forzado o de algún hecho violento en la región donde
laboraba. 2
Tuvo dificultades de salud (distinto a accidentes laborales) 3
Debió atender dificultades de salud de algún miembro de su familia. 4
Sufrió un accidente laboral 5
Cerró la empresa o el lugar donde realizaba su actividad 6
Finalizó el tiempo de su contrato laboral 7
Finalizó la labor que realizaba como trabajador sin contrato (peón, recolector, transportista) 8
Dejó el trabajo para adelantar estudios 9
Tuvo que dedicarse al cuidado de menores u otras personas de su familia. 10
No contaba con recursos para seguir adelantando su trabajo como independiente. 11
Dejó el trabajo para buscar una opción que le reportara mayores ingresos pero no la ha
encontrado. 12
Conflicto laboral con empleador o compañeros de trabajo 13
Otra, ¿Cuál? _________________________
713. Durante los últimos 12 meses, ¿Ha hecho alguna diligencia para conseguir trabajo o
instalar un negocio?
Si 1
No 2
713.a. Durante los últimos 12 meses, ¿Cuántas semanas ha estado o estuvo buscando
trabajo? |__|__|
714. ¿Por qué cree que se
encuentra desempleado?
No encuentra un trabajo apropiado (digno, con buena remuneración, que le
guste)
Si 1
No 2
169
No tiene las competencias para los trabajos que encuentra (estudios)
Por discriminación étnica Si 1
No 2
Por discriminación religiosa Si 1
No 2
Por discriminación de edad Si 1
No 2
Por discriminación de género Si 1
No 2
Por discriminación de otro tipo Si 1
No 2
Porque no sabe donde buscar Si 1
No 2
VIII. PERCEPCIONES
Muy mal Mal Ni bien, ni
mal Bien Muy bien NS/NR
801. En general, ¿Cómo se
siente usted viviendo
en este municipio?
1 2 3 4 5 9
802. Comparando lo que sentía hace un año, usted diría que ahora vive mejor, igual o peor en los siguientes campos
En lo
económico
En la seguridad en el
municipio o zona
En el ambiente
social y
comunitario
Con los programas,
servicios y el trato de las
instituciones del Gobierno
Con
programas
servicios y
trato de las
ONG
Mejor 1 1 1 1 1
Igual 2 2 2 2 2
Peor 3 3 3 3 3
803. Si incrementa su ingreso ¿en que sería lo primero que invertiría? Mejorar la vivienda 1
Comprar vivienda 2
Comprar tierras 3
Educación 4
Salud 5
Ropa 6
Invertir en un negocio 7
Otro 8
804. ¿Participa usted en alguno de los siguientes espacios? (organizaciones,
asociaciones o espacios comunitarios)
805. ¿Usted participó más, igual o menos que hace 12
meses contados hasta ayer?
No  Si MENOS IGUAL MAS w. Junta de Acción Comunal o
Veedurías ciudadanas 2 1 1 2 3
x. Organización de población
desplazada 2 1 1 2 3
y. Grupo de un movimiento o partido
político 2 1 1 2 3
z. Asociación de padres de familia 2 1 1 2 3
aa. Grupo deportivo, recreacional,
cultural, étnico o de conservación
del medio ambiente, ludotecas
2 1 1 2 3
bb. Grupo voluntario, religioso o de la
tercera edad 2 1 1 2 3
cc. Grupo de mujeres 2 1 1 2 3
dd. Grupo de jóvenes 2 1 1 2 3
ee. Organizaciones de vigilancia o
seguridad 2 1 1 2 3
ff. Juntas de usuarios de servicios
públicos, juntas municipales de
educación, comités de participación
u otras organizaciones comunitarias
2 1 1 2 3
170
COMPONENTE 4: CAMPAÑAS DE SENSIBILIZACIÓN SOBRE LA POBLACIÓN AFRODESCENDIENTE E INDÍGENA
IX. CONSUMO DE MEDIOS DE COMUNICACIÓN
901. Con que
frecuencia
usted realiza
las siguientes
actividades:
Nunc a Todos los
días
Varias
veces a la
semana Una vez a
la
semana Cada
quince días
Una vez
al mes
Una vez
cada tres meses
Por lo menos una vez al
año
¿Cuáles?
a. Lee revistas 1.

2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  8. 
b. Lee periódicos 1.

2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  8. 
c. Ve televisión(canales) 1.

2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  8. 
d.Escucha
radio(emisoras)
1.

2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  8. 
e. Asiste a eventos
públicos. (conciertos,
ferias, fiestas)
1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
902 ¿Consiguió periódicos en los últimos doce meses? Si 1  No 2 904
903. ¿Cómo consiguió principalmente los periódicos?
(Espere respuesta)
Los compró en almacenes de cadena, tiendas 1
Los compró por internet 2
Los compró en ventas ambulantes 3
Por suscripción 4
Se lo prestaron 5
Se lo regalaron 6
Lo leyó por internet de manera gratuita 7
Otro ¿cuál?___________________ 8
904. ¿Consiguió revistas en los últimos doce meses? Si 1 No 2 906
905.¿Cómo consiguió principalmente las revistas?
(Espere respuesta)
Las compró en almacenes de cadena, tiendas 1
Las compró por internet 2
Las compró en ventas ambulantes 3
Por suscripción 4
Se las prestaron 5
Se las regalaron 6
Las leyó por internet de manera gratuita 7
Otro ¿cuál?___________________ 8
906.¿Por qué medio principalmente prefiere enterarse de las
noticias?
(Espere respuesta)
Radio comunitaria 1
Radio nacional 2
Televisión Local 3
Televisión Nacional/Internacional 4
806. 807.
Considere las elecciones a Congreso de 2014 ¿Votó en
dichas
elecciones?
Si 1
No 2
¿Participó activamente en la campaña de algún candidato a Congreso?
Si 1
No 2
808. 809.
Considere las elecciones Presidenciales de 2014
¿Votó en
dichas
elecciones?
Si 1
No 2
¿Participó activamente en la campaña de algún candidato presidencial?
Si 1
No 2
810. ¿Conoce a alguien que le hayan ofrecido
ofrecido dinero, trabajo o bienes materiales
por su voto en 2014?
Si 1
No 2
811. ¿A Ud. le ofreciero dinero, trabajo o bienes
materiales por su voto en 2014?
Si 1
No 2
171
Revistas 5
Periódicos 6
Internet 7
No le interesan las noticias 8
907.¿Conoce alguna campaña de identidad cultural
de minorías étnicas? Si 1 No 2 1001
908.¿Por qué medio(s) se enteró de la campaña(s)?
(Espere respuesta)
Radio comunitaria a
Radio nacional b
Televisión Local c Televisión Nacional d
Revistas e Periódicos f
Internet g
Voz a voz h
Seminarios, charlas, reuniones i
X. ACTITUDES Y PERCEPCIONES HACIA LA POBLACIÓN AFRODESCENDIENTE E INDIGENA
1001.
A continuación le voy a leer una serie de
situaciones, cuéntenos qué tan frecuente
suceden en el municipio donde vive
Nunca Casi nunca Casi
Siempre Siempre
Diversidad e
inclusión
a. Los problemas de los afrodescendientes e indígenas
son ignorados 1. 2. 3. 4.
b. Dificultades para encontrar trabajo 1. 2. 3. 4.
c. Discriminación o rechazo por parte de la sociedad
hacia los afrocolombianos e indígenas 1. 2. 3. 4.
e. El gobierno atiende las necesidades de los
afrodescendientes e indígenas 1. 2. 3. 4.
1002. Frente a las siguientes afirmaciones
indíqueme por favor su grado de acuerdo o
desacuerdo.
Totalmente
de Acuerdo
De
acuerdo
Ni de
acuerdo ni en
desacuerdo
En
desacuerdo
Totalmente
en
desacuerdo
a. Si consiguiera un trabajo, no podría tener un
puesto muy alto 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
b. Los afrodescendientes e indígenas pueden
llegar a tener altos cargos políticos como
senadores y alcaldes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
c. Los resguardos indígenas y los territorios
colectivos ayudan a proteger el medio ambiente 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
d. Las organizaciones de las sociedad civil de los
afrodescendientes e indígenas pueden influir en
las decisiones que se toman en el municipio
donde vive
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
e. Los indígenas y los afrodescendientes son una
carga para el gobierno 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
f. Es incómodo tener como vecino a una persona
que sea afrodescendiente 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
g. Es incómodo tener como vecino a una persona
que sea indígena 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
h. Es incómodo tener como yerno/nuera a una persona que
sea afrodescendiente 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
i. Es incómodo tener como yerno/nuera a a una persona
que sea indígena 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
172
1003. Dígame si estaría de acuerdo o no con las siguientes afirmaciones Sí No NA
a. Se siente identificado con su cultura indígena 1 2 3
b. Se siente identificado con su cultura afrodescendiente 1 2 3
b. Conoce las tradiciones de su cultura de origen 1 2 3
c. Es integrante de alguna organización que fortalece la cultura 1 2 3
d. Ha participado en los últimos seis meses en actividades que reivindican derechos colectivos
de afrodescendientes e indígenas (culturales, de territorio) 1 2 3
e. Ha participado en los últimos seis meses en ceremonias o rituales colectivos que hacen
parte de su cultura 1 2 3
f. Considera que debe haber apoyo a proyectos o eventos que fortalecen la cultura 1 2 3
XI. PERCEPCIONES SOBRE LA INTERVENCIÓN DE PROGRAMA ACIP DE USAID
E: Verifique el tipo de muestra de la P.6 y lea según el caso
1101. Tratamiento E: Lea: De acuerdo con nuestro registro
Ud. es o ha sido beneficiario del Programa para población
Afrocolombiana e Indigena -ACIP financiado por USAID e
implementado por ACDI-VOCA, a través de capacitación para
mejorar su inserción laboral y empleabilidad, es esta
información cierta?
Si 1  Pase a 1103
No 2  E: Indague más, si el encuestado
definitivamente no lo reconoce - Termine
1102. Control: Es o ha sido Ud. beneficiario
del Programa para población Afrocolombiana
e Indigena -ACIP financiado por USAID e
implementado por ACDI-VOCA ?
Si 1  Pase a 1103
No 2  Termine
1103.
¿Considera que las capacitaciones del
programa le ayudaron a mejorar sus
habilidades a la hora de conseguir
empleo?
Si 1
No 2
1104.
¿Cómo califica esta ayuda en términos de
importancia para la mejora de su empleabilidad?
Buena = 1
Regular = 2
Malo = 3
1
2
3
1105.
Califique qué tanto se cumplieron las expectativas
que tenía al vincularse a las actividades que
desarrolló utilizando para ello una escala de 1 a 5,
en donde 1 es "no se cumplieron" y 5 es "se han
cumplido totalmente",
1
2
3
4
5
1106. ¿Ha logrado vincularse a una empresa después de
su capacitación? Si 1  No 2
1107 ¿Cuánto tiempo lleva como empleado en dicha
empresa? |__|__|
1108. ¿Le recomendaría a un familiar/amigo participar en
este Programa?
Si 1
No 2
1109. Califique el beneficio que obtuvo del proyecto ACIP sobre las siguientes prácticas y capacidades,
utilizando una escala de Alto, Medio, Bajo o Ningún beneficio.
Alto
beneficio
Medio
beneficio Bajo beneficio Ningún beneficio
a. Mejora en la búsuqueda de empleo 1 2 3 4
b. Mayor conocimiento técnico 1 2 3 5
c.Mejor habilidades a la hor de enfrentarse a
une entrevista 1 2 3 5
d. Desarrollo de habilidades específicas 1 2 3 4
173
e Otros 1 2 3 4
Le agradecemos mucho sus opiniones. Quisiera preguntarle si estaría dispuesto en el futuro a volver a colaborar con nosotros.
Sí 1 No 2
CONTROLES FINALES
Fecha de la encuesta Día /____/____/ Mes /____/____/ Año
/________/
Hora inicio /____/____/: /____/____/ Fin /____/____/:
/____/____/
Encuestador Cédula Supervisor Cédula
SUPERVISIÓN HALLAZGO RESPONSABLE ACCIÓN RESPONSABLE APRO
B
RECHAZ
Monitorización
(75%)
1 1 2
Re-contacto
Presencial
2 1 2
Re-contacto
Telefónico
3 1 2
Revisión en Campo 4 1 2
Revisión en Crítica 5 1 2
Notas
HALLAZGO: 1 Inconsistencia- 2 Datos Ficticios- 3 Pregunta faltante ACCIÓN: 5 Anular- 6 Verificar- 7 Recuperar- 8
Devolver a Campo APROBADO/RECHAZADO
Verific
ad
Codificad
Verificación de
Crítica
6 HALLAZGO ACCIÓN
HALLAZGO: 1 Omisión código - 2 Código errado - 3 Omisión de crítica ACCIÓN: 1 Asignar código - 2 Corregir - 3 Revisión pases/Revisión
campos - 7 Otro
174
Rural focus group guide
Resultado 3 – Rural (San Andrés y Providencia, Cesar, Chocó, Cauca, Bolívar)
10 -12 personas de los hogares participantes en los proyectos productivos. En la medida de lo
posible, integrante del hogar que ha estado directamente vinculada/o con la actividad y el proyecto
productivo.
La guía se estructura en 4 partes: Proyectos productivos, Apoyo y Asistencia Técnica, Seguridad
Alimentaria, Ingresos y gastos.
Introducción:
Indagar sobre la actividad/proyecto productiva/o antes de iniciar el proyecto, actividades a las que
se dedicaban antes, condiciones del hogar, responsabilidades financieras.
Cómo empezó el proyecto. Con quienes.
Proyectos productivos:
 Indagar sobre la actividad productiva más importante que realizan. Cuál es la segunda
actividad productiva que realizan. Qué otros usos /actividades tienen (otros cultivos,
animales, pastos, bosques, etc…)? Hace cuanto realiza esa actividad. Cuantos hogares se
benefician del proyecto.
 A que destinan la actividad productiva (Venta, consumo propio, insumos, etc…). Si
comercializa la producción es preciso indagar sobre distancia, costos de comercialización.
Presencia de intermediarios, a quien le venden, si es justo el precio.
 Indagar sobre la ubicación de la actividad realizada en la cadena productiva del producto
(Semilla, sembrado, cultivo, cosecha, empaque, transporte, procesamiento, transformación,
empaque, mercado). Descripción del contexto socioeconómico de la cadena productiva
(tipo de productores, sistemas de comercialización, peso en la oferta del producto, precios
promedio). Indagar por los puntos donde se genera el valor agregado (intermediarios,
especuladores, etc…)
 Indagar sobre cómo se realiza la actividad productiva. A quien pertenece la tierra. De
quien es la tierra donde realiza la actividad productiva (indagar sobre compra y venta de
tierra). Quienes participan de la producción (trabajo colectivo o individual). Grado de
tecnificación- mecanización de la actividad productiva.
 En general indagar por cuales son las principales dificultades de la actividad productiva, si
existen barreras en el mercado? Los riesgos que se asumen.
 Indagar sobre las percepciones en cuanto a la actividad productiva: Qué ha cambiado
desde 2013, cómo ha sido el cambio, Cuales han sido los aprendizajes, cuáles han sido las
dificultades.
Apoyo y Asistencia Técnica:
En esta parte la idea es indagar sobre el componente de apoyo y asistencia técnica del proyecto.
 Sobre el proyecto: Indagar por el tipo y las características de la asistencia técnica: Cuando
empezó, la duración, la periodicidad, quién daba las capacitaciones (personal calificado?),
como eran los equipos, cuáles fueron los contenidos y temas centrales abordados, fueron
175
prácticas o teóricas, quedaron capacidades instaladas en las comunidades (infraestructura
productiva, formación de líderes, procesos de comercialización, etc…).
 Indagar por los conceptos: Ustedes que entienden por asistencia técnica, cultura de la
legalidad, soberanía alimentaria…
 Indagar por la percepción sobre el proyecto: qué tal les pareció la calidad de la asistencia
técnica, la organización del proyecto, qué mejoraría del proyecto, los temas que se
abordaron si sirven, Son efectivas esos proyectos? ...  Indagar por la efectividad del proyecto: En qué medida el apoyo técnico recibido les
permitió mejorar sus actividades productivas, sus ingresos? Qué fue lo mejor del proyecto.
Lo más pertinente.
Ingresos / Gastos
La idea es indagar sobre los ingresos percibidos a través de la actividad productiva y si son o no
suficientes para solventar los gastos del hogar, haciendo énfasis en la seguridad alimentaria.
 Indagar por los ingresos actuales: Cuales son las fuentes de ingresos principales? Siente
que gracias al programa los ingresos ligados al proyecto productivo han aumentado, ha
producido mas? Qué tanto? Siente que tiene ingresos más estables? Si no es el caso
indagar por qué razones cree que el programa no fue efectivo en su caso.
 Como se distribuyen los ingresos/beneficios de la actividad productiva. Género y juventud.
 Indagar sobre los gastos: Los ingresos que perciben cubren los gastos del hogar. A qué ha
destinado/destinaría los ingresos obtenidos. Las otras personas del hogar tienen ingresos,
ayudan a cubrir esos gastos. Qué tipo de gastos tiene que cubrir?
 Indagar sobre Endeudamiento: tienen deudas? Con quién? Cuál es el motivo de la deuda?
Qué parte de los ingresos se van en pago de deudas? Alcanzan a ahorrar una parte de sus
ingresos?
 Indagar sobre si los ingresos son suficientes: El ingreso ligado a la actividad productiva
alcanza a cubrir todos esos gastos? Si la respuesta es NO, indagar por las otras formas con
las que cubren los gastos.
176
Urban focus group guide
Resultado 3 – Urbano (Barranquilla, Cali, Quibdó y Bogotá)
Lugar:
Fecha:
Nombre de la organización:
Nombre del proyecto:
Nombre de Responsable de la organización:
10 jóvenes que participaron en los diferentes proyectos de formación y empleabilidad ofrecidos
por el programa ACIP. (Hombres y mujeres: 5 que se vincularon al empleo resultado de la
formación y 5 que sólo participaron de la formación).
La guía se estructura en 3 partes: Formación para el Trabajo, Características del empleo, Ingresos.
Introducción:
Cuéntennos cómo empezó el proyecto. Con quiénes?
Proyecto de Formación para el Trabajo
Indagar sobre las capacitaciones realizadas:
 Indagar por el tipo y las características del proyecto: Cuando empezó, la duración, la
periodicidad, las fases o partes del proyecto, quién operaba el proyecto, como se concertó
el proyecto, como eran los equipos, cuál era la población objetivo cuáles fueron las
actividades centrales y los contenidos…
 Indagar por los conceptos: Ustedes que entienden por empleo digno, Protección social,
Para ustedes qué es una buena formación/capacitación para el empleo / discriminación
laboral.
 Percepción sobre el proyecto: qué tal les pareció la calidad de esas capacitaciones, La
organización del proyecto, los temas que se abordaron si sirven para encontrar empleo?, Son los temas que quieren y les gustan? Son efectivas esas formaciones? ...  Proyectivo: qué mejoraría del proyecto de capacitación si tuviera que planearlo desde el
inicio?
Empleabilidad y Características del empleo 18
Indagar por las principales dificultades, barreras, obstáculos para encontrar empleo:
 Existen barreras o discriminaciones? A qué obedecen estas barreras (aspectos económicos,
étnicos, sociales, políticos…), qué se puede hacer para mejorar la situación?
 Indagar si encuentran/hay empleo en las profesiones que quisieran tener: qué
profesiones/empleos quisieran tener, hay empleo en esas profesiones? indagar si pueden
acceder al tipo de formación requerida para esos empleos que quisieran tener?
Indagar sobre la vinculación laboral posterior a las capacitaciones. Puede ser resultado directo
(vinculación directa post capacitación) o indirecto (la capacitación le permitió encontrar empleo
por su cuenta)19
.
18 En la Línea de Base se diferencian Asalariados, Independientes y Desempleados, (a los cuales se les pregunta por su último
empleo).
177
 Cómo fue el proceso para encontrar trabajo? Qué tuvieron que hacer para encontrar?
Cómo fue el proceso de vinculación a la empresa? Han cambiado las condiciones laborales
desde entonces?
 Indagar por las condiciones de empleo: Como era/es ese trabajo que tiene/tuvo, tipo de
contrato, qué posición ocupaba, seguridad social y prestaciones sociales, remuneración
(siente que es un trabajo bien-mal-poco remunerado?, cada cuanto le pagaban, cómo le
pagaban (dinero, bonos, especie), el empleo es/fue estable?, cuanto duró? Qué hubo de
malo en ese empleo?
 Indagar sobre la percepción de la efectividad del proyecto. Ustedes piensan que el
proyecto sirve para encontrar empleo? Las formaciones son pertinentes?
 Cuál sería el empleo que usted quisiera tener, con el cual sueña? Qué le hace falta para
lograr tener ese empleo? Qué tipo de proyecto le ayudaría a conseguirlo?
Ingresos / Gastos
Indagar sobre los ingresos percibidos y si son o no suficientes para solventar los gastos del hogar
donde viven los y las jóvenes.
 Indagar sobre los gastos de acuerdo con la composición familiar (no se indaga en el
formulario Urbano Cuantitativo). Cubren los gastos de las personas del hogar (esposas e
hijos, padres, abuelos, hermanos). Qué tipo de gastos hay que cubrir? Esas otras personas
tienen ingresos?, Quienes ayudan a cubrir esos gastos.
 Indagar por los ingresos actuales: Cuales son las fuentes de ingresos principales. Siente
que gracias al programa sus ingresos han aumentado? Siente que tiene ingresos más
estables? Si no es el caso indagar por qué razones cree que el programa no fue efectivo en
su caso.
 Tienen deudas? Con quién? Cuál es el motivo de la deuda? Qué parte de los ingresos se
van en pago de deudas? Alcanzan a ahorrar una parte de sus ingresos?
 Indagar sobre si los ingresos son suficientes: Su ingreso alcanza a cubrir todos esos
gastos? Si la respuesta es NO, indagar por las otras formas/ingresos con las que cubren los
gastos.
Se puede finalizar con un ejercicio sobre las cosas que los y las jóvenes le cambiarían al conjunto
del proyecto. Si tuvieran que implementarlo, como se imaginan un proyecto de capacitación para
el empleo. Qué contenidos le pondrían, como lo harían, con quien lo harían. Qué mejorarían del
proyecto ACIP.
19 Si es independiente indagar por las condiciones del negocio, jornadas de trabajo, como inició? Para los desempleados hay que
indagar por el tiempo que llevan desempleados, por qué dejaron el empleo anterior, por qué creen que se encuentran desempleados,
si han tenido opciones, entrevistas, trabajos informales.
178
ANNEX I: DISCLOSURE OF ANY
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
[NOTE: These are in PDF and are included with the CD submission of data and other relevant evaluation files.]
179
U.S. Agency for International Development
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20523