ChildONEurope Seminar Investing in children: what Member States would need to do to break the cycle of disadvantage Hugh Frazer Adjunct Professor, Maynooth University & Coordinator, European Social Policy Network

Context for Presentation - 1 Europe 2020 Strategy – Target on reducing poverty or social exclusion by 20 million (from116.4 to 96.4 million – i.e. 17.2% reduction) – Pro rata for children would be reduction of 4.3 million (from 25.2 to 20.9 million) – In fact extent of child poverty and social exclusion has got worse (& more severe) percentage points (+ 824,000 children) – Children (27.7%) at greater risk of poverty or social exclusion than population as whole (24.5%) – Wide divergence across EU

Evolution of share of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion (0-17) between 2008 and 2012

Children in EU at risk of poverty or social exclusion

We are failing more in some countries Wide (& growing) divergence across EU Children aged 0-17 at risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE), %, EU-28, 2013 [Source: Eurostat ] AROPE RateCountries Low 15-20% FI (13.0), DK (15.5), SE (16.2), CZ (16.4), NL (17.0), SI (17.5), DE (19.4) Medium 21-30% FR (20.8), BE (21.9), EE (22.3), AT (22.9) SK (25.5), LU (26.0), CY (27.7), EU-28 (27.7), HR (29.3), PL (29.8) High 31-35% PT (31.7), IT (31.9), MT (32.0), UK (32.6), ES (32.6), IE (33.9), LT (35.4) Very high 38-52% EL (38.1), LV (38.4), HU (43.0), RO (48.5), BG (51.5)

We are failing more in some countries Wide (& growing) divergence across EU Children aged 0-17 at risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE), %, EU-28, 2012 [Source: Eurostat l ] AROPE RateCountries Low 15-21% FI (14.9), DK (15.3), SI (16.4), NL (16.9), DE (18.4), CZ (18.8), SE (19.4), AT (20.9) Medium 22-30% EE (22.4), FR (23.2), BE (23.4), LU (24.6), SK (26.6), CY (27.5), PT (27.8), PL (29.3), MT (29.7) High 31-35% UK (31.2), LT (31.9), ES (33.8), HR (33.8), IT (33.8), IE (34.1), EL (35.4) Very high 40-52% LV (40.0), HU (40.9), RO (52.2), BG (52.3)

Context for Presentation Social Investment Package 2013 Commission Recommendation – Investing in Children: Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage – Overall Approach children’s rights and best interests of child; comprehensive, multi-dimensional & integrated approach; mainstreaming; balance universal and targeted policies; children facing multiple disadvantages; evidence-based approaches; sustained investment; full use of EU instruments – 3 pillar approach Access to resources; access to quality services; children’s rights to participate Expert Networks – European Network of Independent Experts on Social Inclusion & European Social Policy Network (ESPN) – 2014 report: Investing in children: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage: A study of national policies – 2015 report Social Investment in Europe A study of national policies (especially chapter 2 Support for early childhood development and chapter 3 Support for parents’ labour market participation) – Country reports are available on Commission website EU Networks (e.g. EU Alliance for investing in Children; Eurochild; EAPN; European Social Network)

Develop more comprehensive & integrated strategies - very wide variation in approaches

Low risk countries have most comprehensive sets of policies – Integrated multi-dimensional approach most evident in FI, DK, SI & SE (less so in NL, DE, CZ, AT) Medium risk countries fairly wide range of policies but not always well integrated – some making important efforts (BE, EE, FR, MT) – some rather piecemeal approach (LU, CY, FR, PL, PT) High risk countries often weak coordination & implementation – some quite developed policies (ES, HR, IE, IT, UK) but coordination & implementation challenges – Some (LT, EL) very weak and disjointed approaches Very high risk countries – HU given fairly high priority to child poverty but more integrated implementation & coordination needed – LV, RO, BG fall very far short of multi-dimensional & integrated approach

Foster a children’s rights approach Most evident in low risk countries & 2 of medium risk (CY, EE) and 1 high risk (HR) Several medium risk countries (BE, LU, PL, PT, SK) recognise children’s rights but in practice not sufficiently inform policy making & delivery Most high & very risk countries also give legal recognition to children rights but frequently significant problem in implementing & applying rights perspective to policy making – limited impact Need for guidelines on how a focus on children’s rights can be used to inform policy development

Why a children’s rights approach Key to the prevention of child poverty Puts the needs of the child at the centre of policy-making –addressing children’s needs becomes a core political obligation and not just a possible policy choice Puts focus on addressing the specific needs of the child here & now as well as improving position of their families & communities Provides a useful framework for developing a comprehensive strategy to prevent & reduce child poverty Links well-being of children with the well-being of parents and families & puts support for families at the heart of policies to tackle child poverty Puts a focus on the importance of adopting & enforcing strong anti- discrimination legislation Emphasises the right of the children to be heard & to participate in the decisions that affect them [Source: EAPN/Eurochild Explainer on child poverty in the EU]

Improve balance of universal & targeted policies Low risk countries mainly seem to have fairly universal policies for all children (SE, DK, FI, NL, AT) – 2 have more mixed approaches : more supplementing of universal with more targeted policies (DE, CZ) – several experts in low risk countries, while favouring predominantly universal systems consider some additional targeting could be useful Medium risk countries more varied approach – 2 are predominantly universal (FR, LU) – 3 favour “progressive universalism” (BE, EE, MT) all children supported but those with greater needs supported more – 2 moving from universal to more targeting (CY, PT) High risk countries: finding a balance seems problematic – establishing an effective approach of progressive universalism still to be achieved – in some countries (during crisis) move away from universal Very high risk countries finding a balance is even more problematic

Make better use of EU Structural Funds Generally Structural Funds are of greater importance in high & v. high risk countries esp. EL, ES, HR, HU, IE, LV – but also in some low and medium risk countries CZ, SI, EE, MT, PL, PT, SK In some high risk countries use of EU funds has been quite limited e.g. BG, IT, LT, RO, UK – often due to problem of low absorption capacity

Suggestions for making better use of EU Funds Approach & governance – making childhood and social inclusion a priority in the use of EU funds – better targeting of funds at most disadvantaged children and families – better analysis & diagnosis leading to a more strategic approach to using EU funds – development of more integrated approaches – better vertical-horizontal coordination – greater stakeholder involvement – improved monitoring

Suggestions for making better use of EU Funds Specific policy areas – making use of in-kind support for the most deprived through the European Fund for Aid to the Most Deprived and the European School Fruit Scheme (SI) – enhancing labour market participation of parents, especially women with a migration background (AT) – tackling educational disadvantage and improving transitions from school to work for (vulnerable) students (AT, LV, PL) – supporting Roma assistants in ECEC and school settings (SI) – enhancing ECEC provision (BE, IE, MT, PL); – better education and training for parents, especially lone parents and long-term unemployed parents (IE, UK) – Supporting health care (PL) – developing social services in the community (HR); – increasing support for family-work reconciliation (IE) – developing alternatives to institutional care (LV)

Foster evidence-based policy making Well established – in most low risk countries & gaining importance in others (e.g. DE, DK, CZ) – in several medium risk countries (EE, LU, PL) – In some high risk countries (ES, UK) and making progress in some (e.g. HU, IE) Needs further development – in several medium risk countries (e.g. CY, MT, SK, EL, HR) – In most high and very high risk countries

Foster evidence-based policy making Improve collection & timeliness of statistical data Better use of administrative and register data Complement quantitative with qualitative data Use child-specific material deprivation EU indicator (Guio, Gordon, Marlier) Data on child well- being as well as poverty Take account of views of children

Increase stakeholder participation Limited involvement in many MS of children or the organisations that work with them in the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy Commission and SPC should develop guidelines for the involvement of stakeholders – a specific section on involving organisations working with children & children Monitor and make recommendations in context of Europe 2020

Access to resources - enable parents’ participation in labour market - increase income support

Children aged 0-17 in (quasi-)jobless households, %, EU-28, 2012 GroupingsMEMBER STATES (low → high) Low 3 - <7% SI (3.2), LU (4.0), PL (4.5), CY (5.0), RO (5.1), DK (5.7), FI (5.9), AT (6.1), NL (6.4), CZ (6.6), DE (6.7), EE (6.8), IT (6.8) Medium 7-<10% FR (7.2), SK (7.2), EL (7.6), PT (8.5), MT (8.6), LT (9.2) High 10-13% SE (10.1), LV (10.3), ES (12.3), BE (12.9) Very high 15-26% HR (14.9), HU (15.7), UK (16.2), BG (16.6), IE (25.9) Source: EU-SILC (downloaded from Eurostat web-site on ). Notes: SE and BE figures are provisional and IE figures are for 2011.

Policies to increase labour market participation Ensure that work pays for parents tackle low pay & address inactivity traps Support & encourage parents’ employability better targeting & more outreach to single parents or (quasi)jobless couples (especially larger families) and to parents (particularly women) from disadvantaged and, especially, migrant or ethnic minority backgrounds increasing opportunities for parents to participate in subsidised employment or training programmes developing more tailor-made assistance for parents from disadvantaged backgrounds and developing more support and back up services improving access to information about programmes Ensure adequate & affordable early childhood education & care (ECEC) improve the affordability, availability and/or quality of ECEC better targeting of children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds and/or from more remote and rural areas of provision. Develop policies which promote work-life balance labour market reforms which acknowledge the importance of balancing home caring and work including paid parental and paternal leave more flexible work contracts, more flexibility in working routines of institutions of early childhood education more support for single parents

Many income support systems weak Low and many medium risk countries provide fairly adequate, coherent and efficient benefits but some improvements needed Most high and very high risk countries (e.g. BG, EL, ES, HR, IT, LT, LV, RO, UK) have inadequate benefit systems to sufficiently protect children against poverty – many deteriorated during crisis

Children under 18 at-risk-of-poverty rates before and after social transfers (excluding pensions from transfers) ranked by percentage reduction in pre-transfer poverty risk, 2013

Suggestions to improve income support Low risk countries Do more to support single parent & larger families Move from focus on legal status to focus on actual needs of families Provide more help to people with debt problems Increase unemployment benefit levels to narrow gap between labour market insiders & outsiders & their children Medium risk Adopt progressive universalist approach to child benefits (i.e. better balance security for all families & effectiveness in prevent child poverty) Consolidate payments at current levels during crisis Give more focus to vulnerable groups & ensure adequacy of benefits High & very high risk Increase adequacy Prioritise: single parents & large households; children with a disability; children from Roma or migrant backgrounds Reach out to families with children in poverty black-spots and marginal communities so as to overcome stigmatisation and low take-up Complement (not replace) with in-kind benefits Better link income support & child protection & family support services Better take into account energy costs

Access to quality services

Quality of services varies widely Affordable quality services major challenge for the very high risk and high risk countries – exacerbated during the crisis – IE & BG taking positive steps Most of low and medium risk countries good quality & affordable services – SK lags behind – but many have areas for improvement

Cross-cutting services’ challenges Increase investment in services Address uncertainty with a long-term perspective Tackle regional & rural disparities Improve targeting & outreach to those most at risk Increase awareness of diversity & intercultural differences Improve coordination & integration of services Better linking of social services & income support Increase involvement of stakeholders Listen to children Improve the quality of services

Key Education challenges Address social stratification, social & ethnic segregation & uneven quality Redress the negative impact of cutbacks in education on children from poor backgrounds Give more focus to disadvantaged groups – children from a migrant background – Roma children – Children with a disability Address regional disparities Tackle early school leaving

Key health systems challenges Increase overall investment in health care Increase access for children from disadvantaged backgrounds (esp. Roma children, children from rural/remote communities or living in poverty enclaves) – reduce costs – address cultural barriers Improve outreach Address regional disparities Improve targeting of most disadvantaged areas

Key housing challenges Increase social housing – especially for young families, lone-parent families & disadvantaged groups Reduce social segregation Reduce housing costs Assist people with housing indebtedness Tackle increasing homelessness

Key family support & alternative care challenges Most very high risk and some high risk countries still need significant improvements in family support and alternative care and, in particular, in de-institutionalisation So Develop local social services & child protection services Put more focus on de-institutionalisation and care in the community Enhance the outreach capacity of services

Enhance early intervention & prevention Early childhood development both prevents disadvantages compounding & ensures children’s well-being & future development – importance of delivering in integrated way across different policy areas (e.g. income support, health care, education and care, social services, family support, housing) 3 clusters countries who continue to maintain & further improve historically well-developed & comprehensive sets of policies to support early childhood development (DE, DK, FI, IS, NL, NO, SE, SI) countries which have fairly well-developed policies in some areas but still lack sufficiently comprehensive approach (AT, BE, CH, EE, FR, HU, IE, LI, LU, MT, PL, UK) countries with very low investment in and weak policies for supporting early childhood development (BG, CY, CZ, EL, ES, HR, IT, LT, LV, MK, PT, RO, RS, SK, TR) – a few have been making some efforts to increase social investment if from a very low base (e.g. BG, LV, SK) – in many fiscal consolidation has actually led to a reduction or freezing in investment in early childhood development and to the abandonment or curtailing of some previously positive development (e.g. CY, ES, LT, PT, MK)

In conclusion Commission Recommendation provides a very good framework but A long way to go in many countries Need to put Recommendation (& SIP) much more strongly at centre of EU Policy – Europe 2020 Strategy Annual Growth Survey; National Reform Programmes; Country Specific Recommendations; Child poverty target(s) – EMU: Strengthen social dimension & make child poverty part of of social surveillance (include specific indicator on children AROPE) – Develop minimum social standards/benchmarks for children Furthermore Too many countries going in the wrong direction – child poverty increased while pensioner poverty declined

2008 – 2013 spending on families fell in 21 out of 28 Member States but on old age increased in 26 MS

So we must do more to build public awareness & support Broadcast the facts and the reality Highlight the costs to children, society & the economy Challenge myths and stereotypes Stress the positive returns on investing in children Hold to account policy makers Restate the right of all children to grow up free from poverty

Some Key Sources EAPN/Eurochild Towards Children’s well-being in Europe: Explainer on child poverty in the EU available-in-eight- languages/?tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&cHas h=f8bfab168f19fe76cf17440e842546a3 available-in-eight- languages/?tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&cHas h=f8bfab168f19fe76cf17440e842546a3 European Commission Recommendation (2013), Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage. European Network of Independent Experts on Social Inclusion (2014), Investing in children: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage, Synthesis report & Country reports, European Commission. European Social Policy Network (2015), Social Investment in Europe A study of national policies (especially chapter 2 Support for early childhood development and chapter 3 Support for parents’ labour market participation), Synthesis report & Country reports, European Commission. Available at: ubmit&langId=en&policyArea=&type=0&country=0&year=0 ubmit&langId=en&policyArea=&type=0&country=0&year=0 EU Alliance for Investing in Children (2015),Implementation Handbook: putting the investing in children recommendation into practice, Available at: Gábos, A. (2013), Successful policy mixes to tackle child poverty: an EU-wide comparison, AIAS, GINI Discussion Paper 76.