CCT for kindergarten and school programs – opportunities and limits Maria Herczog Florence, 19 March 2013

CCT in Hungary Incentive, support or punishment? Politics and/or social policy? Independent program or part of a complex strategy? Planned, structured or ad hoc? Monitored, evaluated? Conclusions and outcomes

School allowance The restructuring of universal family allowance to school allowance Aim: regular school attendance of truant, drop out children Political message to the public on „bad” families Tool: referral to child welfare services, intervention by them – family case work Sanction:withdrawal of the allowance

School allowance Unprepared introduction Lack of consultation, negotiation with stakeholders Lack of preparation of families, administration, schools, child welfare services No budget allocated for growing spenditure on administration, postage (1.5 million letters of information and responds), care work Undisclosed conflicts of interests – schools, referral and co- operation culture, lack of protocolls and procedures, misuse of the limited apacity of service providers, lack of accountability of the institutions at all levels and stages No systematic evaluation on the synergies of the components(reasons of truancy and drop out, segregation and discrimination at schools, interst of the schools in non attendance, the motivation to study and regular school attendance, parents’ perception and skills, etc.

School allowance No impact analyses on the physical presence and achievement at school Lack of assessment of the families without support Lack of assessment of the out of home placements as a consequence Poverty and violence relation: school based violence, offences committed by children, system abuse

Kindergarten attendance allowance Aim: prevention of delays, support school readiness, enabling parents’ labour market participation Tool: starting early, at age 3 for children from families with multiple disadvantages Condition: enrollment and regular, full time attendance Low attendance at eh age of 3-4 in poor, low educated families

Kindergarten attendance allowance Introduction without preparation, assessment of the availble places, circumstances, readyness of staff No information, preparation, awareness raising for: -Families attached -Local authorities, assemblies -Professionals and staff working in day care and with families -Parents of already enrolled children and those on waiting lists -Public - media

Kindergarten attendance allowance Outcomes so far: -Lack of information and knowledge on the aims and procedure -Anger and prejudice with those eligible for the support (e.g. professionals’ websites) -Overcrowded centers and fear from lack of placement – working parents’ children not accepted -Lack of financial support and vocational training, assistance to care staff -Preference of in kind support – is the implementation appropriate? -Children attend kindergarten even if ill - not to loose the allowance – the condition fulfilled?! -Involvement and partnership with parents, development of parenting skills – not part of the program -App children enrolled (Kertesi, Kezdi 2012)

Achievement of the aim of CCT In itself CCT can not fulfill the planned aims and can not help decreasing poverty, increase motivation, quality of life, only if it is part of a complex, well-designed and carefully monitored, evaluated program. Preparation, strategic planning and proper implementation is essential Public awareness, motivation of the professionals, support to parents and children, inclusive, integrated programs

Thank you for your attention Maria Herczog