**Table 4.1: Temporary Employment Program**

|**Year**|**Impleme**<br>**nted**<br>**Wrk**|**Benefic**<br>**Identi**|**iaries (2001-**<br>**fied (2009-2**|**2008),**<br>**010)**|**Federal Budget**|**State Budget**||% Increase<br>in Budget|**% Increase**<br>**in**<br>**beneficiaries**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||**os**|**Women**|**Men**|**Total**|**Total**|**Total**|**Total**|||
|2001|52,117|496,586|1,315,999|1,812,585|$4,189,653,967.66|$450,019,780.18|$4,639,673,747.84|||
|2002|51,021|543,243|1,278,419|1,821,662|$4,242,774,631.04|$245,796,508.44|$4,488,571,139.48|<br>-3.26|0.50|
|2003|25,311|250,180|567,315|817,495|$2,255,278,382.08|$138,524,438.50|$2,393,802,820.58|<br>-46.67|-55.12|
|2004|21,113|202,856|472,362|675,218|$2,109,057,492.07|$105,885,426.28|$2,214,942,918.22|<br>-7.47|-17.40|
|2005|19,944|216,825|455,613|672,438|$1,877,185,023.02|$94,377,560.32|$1,971,562,583.33|<br>-10.99|-0.41|
|2006|12,179|125,229|255,381|380,610|$1,281,311,186.55|$83,278,255.43|$1,364,589,441.99|<br>-30.79|-43.40|
|2007|15,703|158,032|319,639|477,671|$1,618,325,026.11|$118,873,516.82|$1,737,198,542.93|<br>27.31|25.50|
|2008|10,885|180,993|204,031|385,024|$937,778,360.49|$115,867,574.70|$1,053,645,935.20|<br>-39.35|-19.40|
|2009|29,694|279,838|402,989|682,827|$2,367,102,898.59|$118,748,488.50|$2,485,851,387.09|<br>135.93|77.35|
|2010|26,712|427,985|469,722|897,707|$2,756,077,660.77|$110,812,687.92|$2,866,890,348.70|<br>15.33|31.47|

**Source: data from the Information Center for the Program of Temporal Employment (CIPET).**

The table displays the number of implemented works related to hiring workers, the beneficiaries, and the federal and state budgets. The number of beneficiaries increased by 136 percent from 2008 to 2009, and by another 15 percent through 2010, while the budget increased by 77 percent from 2008 to 2009 and by another 31 percent through 2010. Most of the increase in the budget came from federal sources. PET’s response to the crisis peaked in January 2009, and the 2008 figures for beneficiaries and the budget show a reduction from 2007. Furthermore, despite the sharp increase in unemployment during the crisis, the total budget in 2010 is only about 60 percent of the resources allocated in 2001, which was a year with more stability, and the number of beneficiaries is lagging by a million (also compared with 2001).

Important elements of the PET include extension to urban areas in response to job destruction in manufacturing and services, and support for the unemployed. The ability of PETS to reach urban — areas and the unemployed depends on Ministry of Labor ( _Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social_ STPS), which has played a coordinating role among all the secretaries and agencies administering PETS since late 2008. Preliminary evidence seems to show that only one of the implementing agencies, the Ministry of Social Development ( _La Secretaría de Desarrollo Social_ —SEDESOL) has been able to reach the unemployed and the urban areas. Perhaps because of its experience in the expansion of other social programs in urban areas (such as _Oportunidades_ and _Estancias Infantiles_ ), SEDESOL has shown a pattern of allocation of PET resources that is correlated with the level of unemployment and the size of the urban population.

In addition, preliminary evidence from administrative data shows some association between PET budget allocations and poverty, unemployment, and urbanization. However, these variables are highly correlated so that conditional associations are needed to ascertain if PET is reaching the 35