Peru

Supervisory and Transparency Committees of the "Together" Program

City/State/Region
Begin – End: 2005 – 2012
Name of organization in charge: Ministerio de Desarrollo e Inclusión Social
Type of organization in charge: government civil society
Level: local national

Impact

?

Implementation: was the innovation effectively, partially or not put into practice at all?

Fulfillment of Aims: were the goals of the innovation completely, partially or not achieved at all?

Output: has the innovation generated recommendations, initiatives, decisions or policies?

Outcome: if there were a policy output, was it enacted or implemented?

Implementation: yes
Fulfillment of Democratic Innovation’s aim: yes
Output: -
Policy Outcome: -

The Supervisory and Transparency Committees of the "Together" Program are the national and local level monitoring bodies of this program of conditional cash transfers, aimed at combating poverty by providing incentives for access and use of state social services. These Committees form part of the organizational structure of this program as a body that evaluates the implementation of the policies, acting independently of the executing agencies, and they were constituted by representatives of social organizations and the Agreement Board for the Fight against Poverty (Span. MCLCP), or by representatives of the communities elected in assembly. In particular, they monitored and verified beneficiary registrations and the local operation of the program with the aim of verifying and ensuring that the economic and social assistance actually reaches the recipients and beneficiaries covered by it. They are antecedent of the Committees of Transparency and Citizen Vigilance and they functioned from the year 2005 to 2012, later being replaced by these bodies.

Institutional design

?

Formalization: is the innovation embedded in the constitution or legislation, in an administrative act, or not formalized at all?

Frequency: how often does the innovation take place: only once, sporadically, or is it permanent or regular?

Mode of Selection of Participants: is the innovation open to all participants, access is restricted to some kind of condition, or both methods apply?

Type of participants: those who participate are individual citizens, civil society organizations, private stakeholders or a combination of those?

Decisiveness: does the innovation takes binding, non-binding or no decision at all?

Co-governance: is there involvement of the government in the process or not?

Formalization: only backed by a governmental program or policy
Frequency: regular
Mode of selection of participants: both
Type of participants: citizens civil society
Decisiveness: democratic innovation yields no decision
Co-Governance: yes

Means

Deliberation
Direct Voting
E-Participation
Citizen Representation

Ends

Accountability
Responsiveness
Rule of Law
Political Inclusion
Social Equality

Policy cycle

Agenda setting

Formulation and decision-making

Implementation

Policy Evaluation

Sources

http://www.juntos.gob.pe/