"This plan is good, no doubt, but it would be better if we control it more," said Horacio Pernasetti, member of the College of Auditors, the highest authority of the General Audit Office (AGN, for its acronym in Spanish), during the session in which a report on the Universal Child Allowance, which gives the National Administration of Social Security (ANSES) was adopted unanimously.

In that investigation, which last October 15 won the approval of the plenary of the members, some shortcomings in the implementation of the initiative are detailed in the second half of 2011, especially in relation to the payment of subsidies and monitoring of the requirements for recipients to access financial aid.

What is AUH?

The Universal Child Allowance for Social Protection is a monetary remuneration and monthly benefit paid to a parent for each child under 18 who is under there care, or no age limit when it comes to children with disability- with a maximum of five.

Provided by Decree 1602 of 2009, the initiative establishes, as a requirement to access the plan, that minors do not have another scheduled assignment; that your household is idle or performing in the informal economy and incomes below the Minimum Wage and Mobile (at time of writing this note -November 2014, the SMVyM amounts to $ 4,400).

As for how you get payed, ANSES pays 80% of the grant to the beneficiary each month. The remaining 20% is held in a savings account, for the recipient, who can redeem it when stating, by submitting a specific book (see the book and record companies), compliance with health checks, the plan vaccination and school attendance of children.

The Situation

To do its job, the AGN took a sample of 394 assignments over a total of 3,507,223 delivered until December 2011 (0.011%). More than a third of the global universe corresponds to beneficiaries of the Province of Buenos Aires; 3% to the Federal Capital and 65% to other provinces, including Córdoba (about 7.79%); Santa Fe (7.32%); Mendoza (4.67%); Salta (4.27%); Chaco (4.84%); Tucuman (4.55%) and Misiones (4.17%).

At that time, the value of the allocation was $270 per child and $1,080 per child with disability; what it meant for the ANSES a monthly disbursement during the second half of 2011 of $801.4 million.

The information analyzed, meanwhile, would emerge from the databases provided by Department of Information and Technological Innovation of the ANSES, with details of assets and liabilities relating to beneficiaries in the provinces of Cordoba, Buenos Aires, Santa Fe, Capital Federal, and tools of the Ministry of Social Development, used to control the right of the months of September and October 2011.

In that sense, the research shows that the only information that "was still pending", i.e. that was not received, was the amount of the Province of Buenos Aires, which was upheld by the Law on Protection of Personal Data and the Ministry of Social Development (see "You can look through the eyes of counter").

Before detailing its findings, the report makes it clear that the data must be read with the understanding that "the granting process, settlement, payment and suspension of the benefit is dynamic" and that "the perceived benefit is often transient", either by incorporating the registered holders, or by any other modification of their labor market situation. "In these intermediate periods, the audit explains, the inconsistencies and incompatibilities were found, some of which detected wrongful perceptions."

Observations

About the sample analyzed, the AGN observed 43 cases of settlements or prenatal child allowance with the "existence of sworn statements (affidavits) -of parents for amounts that exceed the vital and minimum wage, or one of the parents was self-employed registration, transfers or perceived as autonomous and received a social plan." The report explains that "in these cases it is not for the payment of either" benefits, referring to both as Assigned AUH Pregnancy, another initiative was also discussed.

In addition, there were 27 cases where the assignment "was denied or unliquidated," even exist compulsory affidavits of either parent, in which stated that their income was less than the SMVyM. And these examples correspond to payments itself.

Moreover, ANSES itself made it clear to the Audit "for every allowance set of the Universal is done with the existence in the People System Manager (ADP) with data from one or both parents." However, 23 cases in which "it is liquidated and paid" profit "by a minor whose relationships or data are not accredited in the ADP in its entirety or incorrect" it warned.

17 cases of payment to foreigners were also detected, "without evidencing controls on the perception of some kind of benefit or benefits in their country of origin."

The AGN lists other findings, such as settlements "for months prior to the date of the beneficiary; cases where parents pay the same for a child and not others on equal terms; others that in the perception of prenatal, is charged although the current owner has health care" and examples of payments to beneficiaries of other social plans.

Other Controls

The Audit records that in 2011 the ANSES ordered a new control, designed to suspend the benefit holders (adults) whose incomes exceeded the SMVyM.

From this, they requested technical database of the "suspended" and, after examining a sample of 110 cases, 11 examples of settlements were void "where no analysis of the causes of such suspension was detected, nor were they above the limit of set wages. In contrast, others who should have not received the allowance were receiving it, even though they had a higher salary.”

Returning to the People System Manager (ADP), the report argues that this mechanism works, "feeding online data processed in the comprehensive care units (UDAIs) ANSES, and weekly information is updated Registering human and civil registries."

After crossing databases, the AGN found "deceased settlements that made headlines, in some cases there is no evidence that has been received by the holder and has started the process of recovery (of money). Once accredited the death of the parent owner in the ADP system, the report, ANSES proceeds to liquidate the benefit in favor of another surviving parent. However, in cases where the other parent never took the assignment and therefore ends up being suspended" were detected.

And also there arose examples of settlements paid to holders by deceased children and not "actions aimed at recovery" of funds were evident.

Book and Record Companies

In another resolution of ANSES, issued in 2010, it was established as a requirement for adults responsible for each child under 18 years old, "the National Book of Social Security, Health and Education", have an annual meeting for health checks, compulsory vaccination plans and assistance to public schools.

ANSES itself delivers the book to the adults. The Audit adds that "to prove compliance of the school year, corresponding certification from the authorities of the establishment to which contributes the least; while for the accreditation of health checks and vaccination plan, it is for health professionals enrolled in health facilities."

So far, so good. The problem was that, based on these regulations, the auditors noted that ANSES "has no record of signatures, or listings of health facilities authorized to sign the Book of the Social Security."

And, returning to the payment methodology, 80% of the assignment is delivered but they retain the remaining 20% until after the presentation of the book, the Audit analyzed 50 examples of such database and found "delays in liquidating complement" in reference to that 20% -; delays in "approximately five months between the filing of the book and the payment of amounts withheld (2 cases).”
All this, not to mention other "found formal defects, such as lack of signature and seal of the head of ANSES, and vaccination data." 

 "You can’t look through the eyes of an accountant"

That October 15, when the AGN approved the research, the Auditors staged an interesting debate about the importance of this initiative and the need both to measure their impacts and strengthen controls.

So much so that according to the stenographic record of the meeting, the auditor Oscar Lamberto downplayed the seriousness of the described observations, to emphasize the idea of carrying out another report.

Lambert said: "If there are 23 cases that gave good or bad (the allowance), what changes?, the state spent a 1 or 2% more, which probably did not change much, because it did not give the money to the Rockefellers, but rather someone who instead of earning 1,500 pesos, earned 2000, nothing changes. But it is important that an audit measure the impact (of the initiative); customs change, the children go to school, there is a tendency for vaccination, and these are the things that should be measured in the report, and that is the sense of an audit of this nature."

To this, Pernasetti added that "ideally the audit should measure the impact, especially in education levels." Lamberto completed that "nutrition is no minor issue. Without the allowance, kids will not eat, and that impact must be measured.”

Regarding the importance of further study, the same Lamberto said that "within these most vulnerable beneficiaries -meaning the AUH-, it cannot be looked at by an accountant.” 

Outside, Pernasetti himself highlighted the participation of the Ministry of Social Development at the controls of the initiative: "This is a good report, which leaves the ball biting. Considering that it is on the second half of 2011, we should do an audit of other periods, to see if the ANSES met many of the things it says they are correcting.

The auditor also said that "ANSES in this case is acting as a paying agent; (but) who should process the data, verify that there are no incompatibilities and monitor vaccination plans and schooling of children, is the Ministry of Social Development."

Before the final conclusion, Pernasetti said: "I think it’s a very good report, which opens the door to move forward, because the best way to protect this program, which continues to produce good results and it reaches the people who need it, is better and periodically controlling it."

After this exchange, the College of Auditors decided to adopt the report unanimously and decided to make another impact research in 2015.