The Social Gap Index developed by the CONEVAL incorporates indicators that enable a multidimensional poverty measurement. These indicators are: education, access to health services, basic services, home quality and spaces, and home assets. With this, it intends to contribute to the generation of information for better decision making in matters of social policy at different levels of operation, facilitating the location of priority attention areas, as is set forth by the General Law of Social Development. 

The CONEVAL 2005 Social Gap Index estimates that 45.98 percent of the 15 year old and older population counts with incomplete basic education and 36.12 percent of Mexican homes have members between the age of 15 and 29 with less than 9 years of passed education.

Mexican states requiring a greater attention for their 15 year old and older population with incomplete education are: Chiapas (64.65 percent), Oaxaca (62.59 percent) and Michoacán (58.46 percent).

The federative entities with a greater gap relative to homes whose members between the age of 15 and 29 have less than 9 years of passed education are: Chiapas (58.89 percent), Oaxaca (50.94 percent) and Michoacán (49.79 percent).

Program external evaluation

In our country, there are various social programs targeted to support the education of youngsters, through scholarships, training and granting of material resources.

Among the actions targeted to education is the Ministry of Public Education (SEP) National Scholarship and Funding Program (PRONABES), whose objective is for higher level students to finalize their studies.

The 2006 external evaluation performed on this program reports the beneficiaries’ academic progress and terminal efficiency indicator increased from 64 percent, figure in the 2002-2003 period, to 72 percent in 2005-2006. Likewise, the program’s demand coverage has improved, for it grew from 73 percent in the 2001-2002 period, to 91 percent in the 2005-2006 period.

However, the same evaluation detected some challenges that need to be tended to, such as: speeding up the delivery of resources; counting with greater resources for the adequate follow-up of the program; making federative entities contribute with their corresponding resources, and improve attention to beneficiary claims and demands.

On the other hand, the Rural Education Program (PER) also led by the Ministry of Public Education (SEP), has as an objective to train rural area youths and producers, through the modernization of the infrastructure and equipment of agricultural and forestry technological education middle-high and high type educational units.

The 2006 external evaluation of this program points out that the two central elements: training and equipment, prove a close interrelationship and the results have been satisfactory; 90% of beneficiaries deem the training is adequate, and that the program has good focalization on the target population.

However, the external evaluation reports that the program faces challenges in the matter, such as: make the budget expenditure more efficient; provide access to formal credit by the majority of beneficiaries, and improve the relationship between the courses and the beneficiaries’ profession.