1. Social Protection for Families and Children New trends in Social Policies. Analyzing the Universal Child Allowance in Argentina Félix Sabaté, Fernando M. Jaime and Javier Curcio May 20, 2014

2. Institutional framework Established in 2009, 25 Km SE from the City of Buenos Aires. 10.000 undergraduate students Established in 1992, 30 Km NW from the City of Buenos Aires. 13.000 students.

3. Projects implemented and partners University Network for Public Administration and Social Protection Gender perspective and Local Capabilities implementing Conditional Cash Transfer Programs in Argentina

4. Academic Partners

5. Social Policies in Latin America Social protection policies in Latin America since 1990s have been implemented through two standard mechanisms:  Social Investment Funds  Conditional Cash Transfer Programs Social Investment Funds were the most common mechanisms since mid- 80s implemented by multilateral banks in Latin America. Primary aim of SIF was to distribute grants to CSO to fund goods and services for social use, linking the funding to community contribution such as work, materials or financial resources. Conditional Cash Transfer Programs were first launched in Latin America in the mid 90s. CCTP are focused on the provision of cash to poor families with children, with the condition of periodical health controls and attendance to school and, in some cases, community work. The aim of these programs is to break the intergenerational transfer of poverty by increasing human capital in children.

6. Policy Diffusion in Latin America

8. Universal Child Allowance Universal Child Allowance for Social Protection (AUH) was established in November 2009 by Presidential Decree. Is a non-contributory benefit for vulnerable sectors in line with the contributory regime of family allowances paid to formal workers. AUH consolidates CCTP implemented by several federal agencies (Labor, Social Development) that were partially funded by multilateral banks. AUH also substitutes other cash transfer policies such as scholarships programs implemented by the Ministry of Education.

9. Universal Child Allowance Monthly benefit of USD 80 per child (up to 6 children) and USD 250 per handicapped child. Linked to the compliance of conditionalities: Periodical health controls and attendance to public education system (from kindergarten to upper secondary school) The benefit is divided in two parts: 80% of the allowance is paid monthly and 20% is frozen in a bank account until conditionalities are verified. AUH is funded with resources from the contributory system and the earnings of the Sustainability Fund of the National Social Security Administration. In a framework of decentralization of health and education services, AUH relies on provincial and local government capabilities to provide social services.

10. Social Protection - Coverage Population under 18 years- old 12.337.747 (100%) Children covered by Contributory System 6.241.105 (51%) Children covered by non contributory system 3.283.656 (27%) Children covered by Income Tax Deduction 668.323 (5%) Children not covered 2.144.663 (17%) AUH is an universalizing tool within the social protection system

11. AUH – Geographical Focalization

12. AUH – Education Enrolment

13. AUH - Health Since AUH was launched there was a 50% increase in children benefited by Plan Nacer and a 14% increase in pregnant women in that program. AUH increased by 12% the number of children with complete health controls. 230.000 children included in AUH through Plan Nacer. Evidence at local level suggests that there was no relevant increase in the provision of basic health services to population not covered by Plan Nacer

14. Conclusions AUH is a central policy for child protection. There are discussions whether it should be institutionalized more strongly (rights-based approach) or it should be implemented in a flexible way (social inclusion as a moving target). The implementation of AUH can generate inter- institutional synergies. Nevertheless, formal mechanisms for coordination with provincial and local levels of government should be put into practice, in particular related to health and education services.