To date, the Juntos programme has been the most ambitious and innovative government attempt at tackling childhood poverty in Peru, a country where two out of three children live below the poverty line and many lack access to basic services. Strange then, that the programme has received so little attention; in fact, debates on child protection in Peru have been more preoccupied with how to punish child molesters and kidnappers and fathers who evade child support than with the state’s responsibility for child well-being. However, according to a recent report to which ODI researchers contributed, Juntos has made important achievements and deserves far more attention.

 Developed under Toledo’s government, the programme aims to break the inter-generational transfer of poverty by targeting mothers of children under 14 in impoverished households, who receive a monthly cash transfer, provided they ensure that their children attend school and access other public services. It follows similar programmes in Mexico, Chile, Brazil and Honduras and reflects a growing recognition of the role cash transfers can play in tackling poverty, vulnerability and social exclusion. Juntos is particularly innovative in its targeting of communities that were most affected by the political violence in Peru in 1980-2000. It has also sought to overcome some of the problems that have plagued previous social programmes, such as paternalism, corruption and politicisation. Particular emphasis has been placed on inter-sectoral coordination; both at a local level through Multi-sectoral Technical Committees, and through centralized management by a cross-ministerial directorate, under the Presidential Council of Ministers (PCM).

 Despite its careful design, Juntos has not been without its problems. For example, while sectors share information, they remain focused on their own agenda; illiterate community facilitators struggle to deliver key messages and many women see the programme’s demands as tasks to complete by order of the authorities, rather than as citizenship responsibilities. The programme also has the effect of dividing mothers and children into beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, which can cause resentment and anger, particularly as imperfect targeting mechanisms mean that some poor people have been unfairly excluded. Perhaps the most fundamental problem has been the incapacity of local services to fully cope with the increased demand, which has led to a strain on staff and resources and a decline in the quality of services.

 Still, this should not detract from the programme’s achievements; it has reached some of the poorest communities, increased access to health and education services, maintained broad public and private support and consistently avoided politicization. There has also had a positive impact on gender roles within beneficiary households, with men increasing their involvement in domestic responsibilities and childcare. Furthermore, the fact that services are struggling to cope with the increased demand may be a problem, but it has also served to highlight the urgent need for government spending on health and education in these impoverished areas. Given the involvement of the Health and Education ministries, there is some hope that, through greater resource allocation, these access issues will be tackled and that Juntos will act as a catalyst to further government action on these areas. In the long term, this may prove to be one of the programme’s greatest achievements.