Europaudvalget 2017
SWD (2017) 0258
Offentligt
1749030_0001.png
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 26.4.2017
SWD(2017) 258 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Taking stock of the 2013 Recommendation on "Investing in children: breaking the cycle
of disadvantage"
EN
EN
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
Commission Staff Working Document
Taking stock of the 2013 Recommendation on ‘Investing in children:
breaking the cycle of disadvantage’
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS USED ........................................................................................... 2
1.
2.
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3
CURRENT STATE OF PLAY ................................................................................... 5
2.1. Scene setter ........................................................................................................ 5
2.2. The role of the European Commission in supporting the
implementation of the Recommendation........................................................... 7
3.
IMPACT OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON EU POLICY-MAKING ............... 10
3.1. The European Semester ................................................................................... 10
3.2. 2014-2020 ESIF programming ........................................................................ 10
4.
PROGRESS ACHIEVED BY PILLAR IN THE MEMBER STATES .................... 11
4.1. First pillar: Support parents through access to paid work, child and
family benefits ................................................................................................. 14
4.1.1.
4.1.2.
4.1.3.
4.2.1.
4.2.2.
4.2.3.
4.2.4.
4.3.1.
5.
Active Labour Market Policy ............................................................ 14
Minimum Income Schemes and Unemployment Benefits ................ 16
Family and Child Benefits ................................................................. 16
Childcare............................................................................................ 18
Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) .................................. 20
Parental Leave ................................................................................... 20
Parenting Support Services................................................................ 21
Children's participation in decision-making affecting their
lives.................................................................................................... 24
4.2. Second pillar: Support parents with affordable quality services ..................... 18
4.3. Third pillar: Children's right to participate ...................................................... 23
REACTIONS AND FEEDBACK OF STAKEHOLDERS ...................................... 27
5.1. European Parliament ....................................................................................... 27
5.2. NGOs ............................................................................................................... 28
6.
CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 28
ANNEX I – LATEST AROPE FIGURES FOR CHILD POVERTY AND
SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2015 VERSUS 2013) ........................................................ 31
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
ANNEX II – EUROPEAN SEMESTER COUNTRY SPECIFIC
RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 32
ANNEX III – PROGRESS OF THE BARCELONA TARGETS FOR
CHILDCARE ............................................................................................................ 33
ANNEX
IV
–
NGOS
ASSESMENT,
COMMENTS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE INVESTING IN CHILDREN RECOMMENDATION ................................... 34
1
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0004.png
LIST OF ACRONYMS USED
ALMP
AROP
AROPE
COFACE
CR
CSR
EAPN
ECCP
ECEC
EMU
EPIC
ERDF
ESDE
ESF
ESIF
ESPN
EU
EU-SILC
ExAC
FEAD
FRA
MEP
NGO
OECD
OMC
PES
PICUM
PPA
SIP
UNCRC
Member
States
Active Labour Market Policy
At Risk of Poverty
At Risk of Poverty and Social Exclusion
Confederation of Family Organisations in the European Union
Country Report
Country Specific Recommendation
European Anti-Poverty Network
European Code of Conduct on Partnership
Early Childhood Education and Care
Economic and Monetary Union
European Platform on Investing in Children
European regional Development Fund
Employment and Social Development in Europe
European Social Fund
European Structural and Investment Funds
European Social Policy Network
European Union
European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions
Ex-ante Conditionality
Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived
Fundamental Rights Agency
Member of the European Parliament
Non-Governmental Organisation
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
Open Method of Coordination
Public Employment Services
Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants
Preparatory Pilot Action
Social Investment Package
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
Belgium/BE; Bulgaria/BG; Czech Republic/CZ; Denmark/DK; Germany/DE;
Estonia/EE; Ireland/IE; Greece/EL; Spain/SP; France/FR; Croatia/HR; Italy/IT;
Cyprus/CY; Latvia/LV; Lithuania/LT; Luxembourg/LU; Hungary/HU;
Malta/MT; Netherlands/NL; Austria/AT; Poland/PL; Portugal/PT; Romania/RO;
Slovenia/SI; Slovakia/SK; Finland/FI; Sweden/SE; United Kingdom/UK
2
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0005.png
1.
I
NTRODUCTION
In February 2013, the Commission adopted the Recommendation ‘Investing in Children:
Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage’ (the Recommendation)
1
. In July 2013, the Council
of the European Union gave its unanimous support. The Recommendation reflects a
broad political consensus across the EU and is the fruit of more than a decade of work to
tackle child poverty. This is work which started in 2010 at the Belgian presidency
conference on child poverty in Laeken. The Recommendation calls on the Member States
to invest more in policies on children to strengthen child rights, reduce child poverty and
improve child well-being. It is part of a much wider ‘social investment package’ (SIP)
2
providing Member States policy guidance on social investment.
The rationale behind social investment is to strengthen people’s current and future
capacities by helping them to ‘prepare’ for life’s risks rather than simply ‘repairing’ the
consequences. Social investment requires a life-cycle approach. This means ensuring that
budgetary spending on human capital is efficient, adequate and sustainable. It also means
supporting people’s participation in the current and future labour market and confronting
new poverty and social risks (such as family breakdown, precarious work, work-life
balance, ageing, etc.). The risks and needs of the whole life-cycle of individuals have to
be taken into account. Social investment is oriented towards children, and policies for
children (childcare, benefits and education) play a crucial role in this. Social investment
also recognises that there is a link between individuals’ circumstances and the collective
well-being. More efficient and effective social policies are crucial to ensuring the future
adequacy and sustainability of budgets for social policies.
Investing in children is perhaps one of the best examples of social investment.
Due to
its strong multiplier effect, social investment not only pays off for children individually
but also for society as a whole. Indeed, it is far more beneficial for societies to invest
adequately during the early years of children’s life than to try to solve the problems of
adolescents or young adults later on. There is ample evidence, for example, that
disadvantaged children who benefited from early childhood education and care (ECEC)
are less likely to leave secondary school early and to become unemployed, a situation
that often leads to a number of other social problems.
Declining child well-being, rising child poverty and social exclusion can affect a child’s
economic and social rights. Children growing up in poverty are much less likely to reach
their full potential, enjoy good health, complete their education, find a job, and in so
doing become productive taxpaying adults. This is a situation that Europe’s ageing
societies cannot afford. Therefore, the Recommendation takes an explicit
child rights
approach
by referring to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
3
which all EU Member States have ratified.
Commission Recommendation 2013/112/EU, of 20.02.2013, ‘Investing in children: breaking the cycle of
disadvantage’ (OJ L 59 of 2.03.2013, p. 59).
Commission Communication ‘Towards social investment for growth and cohesion — including
implementing the European Social Fund 2014-2020’ (COM(2013)83 final of 20.02.2013).
3
2
1
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 44/25 of
20.11.1989. Entry into force 2.09.1990, in accordance with Article 49.
3
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
Reducing child poverty and breaking the cycle of disadvantage across generations
requires an
integrated approach
focused on children and their families. This means
identifying and removing structural barriers and combining prevention and support. It is
about doing more for the development and well-being of all children and specifically
improving the situation of the most vulnerable. The Recommendation takes this
approach. The Recommendation underlines not only the need for parents’ participation
in the labour market and child-related benefits but also the need for equal access to
inclusive and non-segregated quality education, safe and adequate housing, strong family
support, and quality alternative care. The Recommendation urges support for the
participation of all children in play, recreation, sport and cultural activities, and support
for children’s right to be heard in all decisions that affect them. It also urges focusing on
children who are at greater risk because of multiple disadvantages, such as Roma
children, certain migrant or ethnic minority children, children with special needs or
disabilities, children in alternative care, street children, children of imprisoned parents, as
well as children in households at particular risk of poverty, such as single-parent or large
families.
It is broadly acknowledged that the cost-effectiveness of policies is greater when there is
a stronger focus on the
early years
(and, in particular, the pre-school years when a child
is under three). There is substantial evidence that this is essential to break the cycle of
inequality and disadvantage. The early acquirement of a range of cognitive, social, and
emotional competencies makes learning at later ages more proficient, easier and more
likely to continue; it also contributes to better health and has psycho-social benefits.
The Recommendation sets out a
comprehensive integrated approach
built on three
pillars:
a)
parents’ access to resources
preferably in the form of paid work but also
through adequate child and family benefits;
b)
parents’ access to quality services,
such as ECEC;
c)
children’s right to participate
in play, recreation, sport and cultural activities
and to be heard in all decisions that affect their lives.
The integrated policies advocated by the Recommendation are complex and require time
to develop and implement. In many cases existing institutions need to be rethought and
reformed, and changing current practices is often a complex process.
The Recommendation was adopted during the economic crisis triggered in 2008 making
its implementation clearly more difficult but also its policy approach more relevant. This
needs to be taken into account when reviewing progress. Member States that were in
urgent need of fiscal stabilisation were also often confronted with high levels of
unemployment and poverty; hence, policy often had to concentrate on the most urgent
economic and social challenges. Such an adverse situation made a full and integrated
implementation of the Recommendation, in the short time available, extraordinarily
difficult. On the other hand, those Member States under less economic and social
pressure have been more successful.
The need to improve children's life chances is at the core of the Commission's proposal
for the European Pillar of Social Rights. A wide consultation on the first outline of the
4
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0007.png
Pillar confirmed the importance of improving children's rights, with the ultimate goal of
enhancing social convergence and fairness.
Now, four years after the Recommendation’s adoption and in the light of the consultation
processes to date, it is time for a first review of progress achieved, both in general policy
terms and for each of the three pillars. To this end, this staff working document examines
the Recommendation’s state of implementation and its impact on policy-making for
children and families in the EU. Its purpose is to describe how the Recommendation has
been implemented so far. The document includes a number of good practices and
practical examples of actions and offers valuable information for moving forward with
the Recommendation.
It is worth noting that the findings for the first and second pillar are taken from the 2015
report on Social Investment in Europe by the European Social Policy Network (ESPN)
4
.
The ESPN is a network of 28 independent national social inclusion experts (referred as
"experts" in the text) which provides the Commission with independent information,
analysis and expertise on social policies. It helps the Commission monitor progress on
the EU social protection and social inclusion objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy
5
. For
the third pillar, it has to be underlined the implementation of the Recommendation has
been more limited and much less evidence and data are available for presenting a detailed
state of play.
2.
STATE OF PLAY
2.1.
Scene setter
The EU’s social and economic future greatly depends on its capacity to stop the
transmission of disadvantage from one generation to the next.
Child poverty and social exclusion not only have a negative imprint on a child’s future
but are also a huge waste of potential that Europe’s ageing societies cannot afford.
Analysis of the correlation between the educational achievements of parents and those of
children suggests that people from families experiencing disadvantages face considerable
obstacles in achieving better living standards. There is solid evidence that the
socioeconomic status of a child is a good predictor of adult health: growing up in a
disadvantaged environment can have a long-lasting negative impact on health that
upward social mobility can do little to reverse.
The long recession that started in 2008 has led to a marked deterioration in the child
poverty and well-being indicators of many EU Member States; and not just in the
countries on the periphery most affected by the crisis but also in several of the central
European countries. Child poverty also increased in the poorer neighbourhoods of the
4
5
See ‘Social
Investment in Europe: a study of national policies’,
2015.
At the end of 2017 the ESPN experts will present an update of their 2014 evaluation report on the
implementation of the Recommendation. This report will address the situation in each Member State
with detailed evidence on the progress made in policy-making and in the absorption of EU funds.
5
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0008.png
EU’s major cities, where an increasing proportion of the resident child population is
growing up in low-income families, both native-born and migrant, who have been
negatively affected by the crisis. But even well-off middle-class children can be affected
when economic hardship undermines family stability.
The latest available figures
6
show that the risk of poverty and social exclusion for
children aged 0-17 in the EU stood at 26.9 % in 2015. This means that more than a
quarter of all children in the EU, around 25 million, are growing up in a household which
either earns less than 60 % of the median income, suffers from material deprivation or is
a quasi-jobless household. Moreover, some groups are more affected and, in particular,
the children of parents originating from third-countries display a much higher rate of risk
of poverty. On the positive side, since 2010, the proportion of children at risk of poverty
or social exclusion in the EU has decreased slightly, from 27.5 % in 2010. However,
significant differences exist between Member States.
One of the main policy challenges ahead is to overcome the income losses of parents who
lost their job during the recession by creating new jobs. Another significant challenge is
to ensure that children growing up in a situation of particular disadvantage (i.e., children
with disabilities, children in alternative care, children with a migration background and
Roma children) enjoy equal access to measures intended to invest in their future.
Badly designed tax-benefit systems or high childcare costs can indeed work as financial
disincentives for single parents and second earners, making it unattractive to accept low
paying (mostly part-time) jobs. But parents can also be discouraged from accepting a job
because of, for instance, a shortage of affordable childcare or inflexible working time
arrangements that prevent a parent from balancing professional and private life. In
eastern and southern Member States, many working parents may also suffer from in-
work poverty due to insufficient wages. This is caused by the lack of, or too low, a
minimum wage and/or inadequate child and family-income support measures.
Reconciling paid work and family care can also be difficult if there is no paid parental
leave and if there is no childcare or it is too costly. There is still a shortage of quality
services, notably ECEC for children under three in 22 Member States (see details on
ECEC in chapter 4.2.2).
One of the Recommendation’s horizontal principles is that governments should try to
‘(M)aintain an appropriate balance between universal policies, aimed at promoting the
well-being of all children, and targeted approaches, aimed at supporting the most
disadvantaged’
7
.
This is precisely what can be observed in the best policy approaches for
addressing child poverty.
These policies are embedded in a wider system that deals
with poverty and inequality (social exclusion) through several broad policy
instruments;
namely, supporting the labour market participation of both parents,
supporting wages and income, and ensuring adequate parental leave policies and equal
access to services utilised by families, particularly those in a situation of multiple
disadvantages.
6
See latest update for 16.11.2016:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7738122/3-16112016-
AP-EN.pdf/c01aade1-ea44-411a-b20a-94f238449689.
7
See the 4th horizontal principle mentioned on page 2 of the Recommendation.
6
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0009.png
Countries with lower or decreasing levels of child poverty and social exclusion have, as
overall approach, redistributive policies. Such policies ensure that parents have access to
decent jobs paying an adequate income or have adequate income support. These
countries manage to redistribute wealth equitably with effective tax and social protection
systems, and they ensure access to good-quality services offering opportunities to most
children. At the same time, extra support must be given to disadvantaged vulnerable
children. These cases also make clear that reducing the structural causes of poverty and
inequality requires a long-term strategic and integrated approach.
2.2.
The Commission’s
implementation
role
in
supporting
the
Recommendation’s
Child poverty is a cross-cutting issue, involving a wide range of policy areas. While the
Member States are for the most part responsible for child and family policies, the
Commission has a role to play and has taken steps to implement the Recommendation.
These include:
a)
Regularly monitoring
child and family policies, especially through the
European
semester.
Member States’ national policies in this field have received strong
attention in the country reports. Where appropriate, this has resulted in country-
specific recommendations (CSRs)
8
. In addition to its work in the European semester,
the Commission is also monitoring child outcomes in its regular reports, such as its
annual report on ‘Employment and Social Developments in Europe’
9
.
b)
Financially supporting
Member States’ reforms through the
European Structural
and Investment Funds.
In the 2014-2020 programming period there are
significantly more funding possibilities for children in the European Social Fund
(ESF) and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).
c)
Providing operational and financial support
to key EU-level NGO networks such
as Eurochild, the Confederation of Family Organisations in Europe (COFACE), the
European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN) and the Platform for International
Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), who have formed an EU
Alliance for Investing in Children with 20 other non-governmental organisations.
d)
Creating a special website on Europa in 2013 called the European Platform on
Investing in Children (EPIC) for an easier exchange of information and best
practices
between Member States, stakeholders and institutions
10
. This platform is a
mutual learning tool where users can share evidence-based practices related to the
various aspects of the Recommendation. It also presents concise up-to-date reports on
child and family policies for each Member State. The contract for the website has just
been renewed for 4 more years.
8
9
For further details, see Section 4.1 below.
The 2016 report is available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=7952&furtherPubs=yes
10
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1246&langId=en.
7
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0010.png
e)
Organising national seminars to raise awareness
of the Recommendation.
Between 2014 and 2016, 11 national seminars were organised
11
where
implementation was discussed in more detail. They were well attended by regional
and local authorities and by NGOs, who are potentially important project applicants
in calls for proposals organised by the national ESF and ERDF management
authorities.
f)
Organising six peer review seminars
on child and family-related topics between
2014 and 2016 as part of the open method of coordination (OMC) on social
inclusion
12
. The topics covered were support for marginalised families, local
consultation platforms, conditional cash transfers, quality ECEC, and prevention and
early intervention.
g)
Financially supporting the OECD Family Database
13
which collects detailed
statistics on child and family policy from different sources, as well as a number of
detailed policy briefs on work-life balance and child well-being.
h)
Actively promoting integrated child protection systems
14
aimed at preventing and
responding to all forms of violence against children. Children growing up in a
situation of disadvantage, such as children at risk of poverty or social exclusion, may
be at greater risk of violence from external factors
15
. At the June 2015 European
forum on the rights of the child, the Commission tabled a reflection paper on
integrated child protection systems, including the ‘Ten principles for integrated child
protection systems’
16
. The Commission has funded and continues to fund projects to
strengthen national child protection systems and address violence against children,
including through the rights, equality and citizenship programme
17
.
i)
Strengthening synergies across policy areas of high relevance for social inclusion
of children
and making use of existing statistics and administrative data to monitor
the impact of policies on children and their families. Boys and girls (especially early
school leavers, children left behind, unaccompanied children, and children with
11
In IT, EL, ES, HU, LV, RO, BG, IE, SK, MT and PL.
12
More information about these peer reviews can be found on:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?year=0&country=0&theme=5&catId=1024&langId=en&mode=searchS
ubmit#searchDiv.
13
14
15
http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm.
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/rights-child/protection-action/index_en.htm.
These include children in migration or seeking international protection, including unaccompanied,
undocumented or stateless children; children who are neglected, or without appropriate care; children in
detention or in residential care; children who go missing, who are abducted by a parent or are victims of
trafficking; children who are discriminated against, including Roma children and children with disabilities;
children in conflict with the law; children left behind by parents moving abroad for work; children of
parents in prison; or children in situations of extreme material deprivation.
16
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/rights-child/protection-systems/index_en.htm
and
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/rights-child/european-forum/ninth-meeting/index_en.htm.
17
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/image/document/2016-
49/compilation_previously_funded_projects_rights_of_the_child_and_violence_against_children_40298.p
df.
8
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0011.png
disabilities, as well as in the Roma community) are one of the most vulnerable groups
to trafficking in human beings. The EU legal
18
and policy
19
framework addressing
trafficking in human beings is human rights based, child sensitive and gender
specific. The Commission published a study on high risk groups for trafficking in
human beings, in particular on children
20
, a study on Commission funded anti-
trafficking projects including, inter alia on child trafficking
21
, collects data in child
trafficking
22
and children are mentioned as particularly vulnerable in its reports
23
.
j)
Highlighting the importance of monitoring and improving the situation of
children with a migrant background,
notably in the frame of the European
Semester. More specifically, the Commission has proposed a series of actions in the
Action Plan on the integration of third-country nationals
24
and in the recent
Communication on The Protection of Children in migration
25
.
k)
Developing research activities:
the EU research Framework Programmes for
Research and Innovation (Horizon 2020 and FP7) have funded a substantial body of
research on issues related to early childhood education and care
26
, families, social
inclusion and children well-being
27
. Their results have been discussed in a two days
18
Directive 2011/36/EU of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and
protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA
The EU Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings 2012–2016
19
20
Study on
high-risk groups for trafficking in human beings (2015)
https://ec.europa.eu/anti-
trafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files/study_on_children_as_high_risk_groups_of_trafficking_in_human_be
ings_0.pdf
21
Study on Comprehensive policy review of anti-trafficking projects funded by the European Commission
(2016)
https://ec.europa.eu/anti-
trafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files/study_on_comprehensive_policy_review.pdf.
23% of Commission funded projects between 2004 and 2015 were on child trafficking. Funded projects on
child trafficking were awarded EUR 30.5 million in the same period.
22
Eurostat, Statistical Working Papers, Trafficking in human beings (2015 edition)
http://ec.europa.eu/anti-
trafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files/eurostat_report_on_trafficking_in_human_beings_-
_2015_edition_0.pdf
23
Commission Staff Working Document, Mid-term report on the implementation of the EU strategy
towards the eradication of trafficking in human beings, Brussels, 17.10.2014, SWD(2014) 318 final and
Report on the progress made in the fight against trafficking in human beings Brussels, 19.5.2016
COM(2016) 267 final
https://ec.europa.eu/anti-
trafficking/sites/antitrafficking/files/report_on_the_progress_made_in_the_fight_against_trafficking_in_hu
man_beings_2016.pdf
24
COM(2016) 377 final.
COM(2017) 211 final.
CARE – Curriculum and Quality Analysis and Impact Review of European Early Childhood education
and care
http://ecec-care.org/
Projects are listed in the publication "Great Start in Life!"
http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-
sciences/pdf/project_synopses/ki-01-16-979-en.pdf
25
26
27
9
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0012.png
conference in Brussels at the end of 2016
28
. Co-organized by Directorate General for
Education and Culture and Directorate general for Research and Innovation, it
brought together about 300 researchers, policy makers, teachers and practitioners.
3.
I
MPACT OF THE
R
ECOMMENDATION ON
EU
POLICY
-
MAKING
3.1.
The European semester
As part of the yearly cycle of economic policy coordination (the European semester), the
Commission undertakes a detailed analysis of EU Member States’ plans for budgetary,
macroeconomic and structural reforms. It proposes CSRs for the next 12-18 months,
which are then discussed and adopted by the Council. These are meant to help reach the
objectives of the EU’s long-term strategy for jobs and growth (the Europe 2020 strategy).
The Commission has actively monitored the Recommendation’s implementation by
discussing reforms of child and family policies within the context of the European
semester. The Recommendation has served as an important policy lever in this respect.
National policies in this field have received strong attention in the country reports,
resulting in a regular series of CSRs. The most frequently addressed policy topics are
income support, childcare/ECEC, inclusive education for Roma children and financial
disincentives for single parents and second earners.
However, compared to 2014 and 2015, fewer CSRs were issued in 2016
29
. This was
partly because the Commission wanted to narrow its focus to areas where Member State
action was most needed. This was to encourage better implementation and more
ownership by national authorities, social partners and other stakeholders. Nonetheless,
part of the reason there were fewer CSRs in areas such as financial disincentives,
inclusive education, childcare and youth activation is because of improved policy reform
in various Member States.
3.2.
2014-2020 ESIF programming
The Member States also receive a considerable amount of funding under the European
Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) to help carry out reforms.
The Recommendation played an important role in negotiating the new 2014-2020 ESIF
programming period. It was successfully used to leverage more funding possibilities for
children and their families in the European Social Fund (ESF) and the ERDF. What is
new compared to the previous programming periods is that
25.6 % of the total ESF
allocation of EUR 86.4 billion is earmarked for social inclusion measures
and all
Member States have to allocate at least
20% of ESF resources to social inclusion.
This
can include measures for access to childcare. Moreover,
EUR 8 billion is set aside for
measures tackling early school leaving.
Thanks to the Recommendation there is a
stronger focus in programming on issues such as ECEC and alternative community-based
28
Conference Great Start in Life! The Best
https://ec.europa.eu/education/great-start-in-life_en
For details on the 2014-2016 CSRs, see Annex II.
Possible
Education
in
the
Early
Years
29
10
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0013.png
care. Under the ERDF, EUR 11.9 billion has been earmarked for measures promoting
social inclusion and combating poverty. In addition, approximately EUR 5.9 billion has
been earmarked for investment in education facilities, out of which EUR 1.22 billion are
planned for ECEC infrastructures.
Moreover, the new Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD) makes
available EUR 3.8 billion for fighting poverty and helping the most vulnerable in Europe.
This fund can be used to address some of the specific needs of families with children in
precarious situations that are exposed to material deprivation. A strong point of the
FEAD is the built-in cooperation with NGOs.
The management authorities in Member States are implementing these allocations. The
main challenge is to be able to select enough good projects to make an efficient use of the
budgets available for children and families, as well as to ensure the sustainability of the
investments. The optimisation of investment can be better achieved when there is a good
partnership between all the stakeholders. Here again the idea of an integrated strategy
promises to be very useful.
To this end, the Commission has together with the Member States agreed on a new
European code of conduct on partnership
(ECCP). This code helps Member States to
organise a meaningful partnership with the relevant stakeholders.
It is thanks to this new
code that NGOs can now claim a seat in the monitoring committees of the various
programmes. Their presence will be helpful to develop and implement projects. In this
way the NGOs can play a vital role when it comes to the full absorption of the funds in
the Member States.
The so-called
thematic ex-ante conditionalities (ExAC)
are another new programming
instrument used in the current 2014-2020 programming period
30
. They aim at ensuring
that the funds are deployed in an efficient and effective way consistent with policy
priorities. There are, for instance, ex-ante conditionalities which aim at promoting active
inclusion and Roma inclusion in particular. There is also a special ExAC to promote
lower early school leaving rates. One of the ExAC calls for the adoption of a national
action plan. The non-fulfilment of a precondition constitutes a ground for the
Commission to suspend (interim) payments.
By mid-March 2017, all action plans for the ex-ante conditionalities on active inclusion
had been completed. Also, four out of six action plans for the ExAC on Roma and 10 of
the 11 action plans for the ExAC on early school leaving had been finalised. This
demonstrates significant progress in adopting strategies that can contribute to more
effective and efficient social investment in children.
4.
P
ROGRESS ACHIEVED IN EACH PILLAR IN THE
M
EMBER
S
TATES
As explained earlier, the Recommendation proposes a comprehensive, integrated and
rights-based approach built on
three
main pillars. The idea of an
integrated,
comprehensive approach
to address child poverty and well-being is perhaps the most
30
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/nl/information/legislation/guidance/.
11
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0014.png
novel aspect of the Recommendation. Successfully implementing such an approach takes
political will and excellent cooperation between all local players involved in supporting
families and their children. An effectively integrated approach also calls for careful
interplay between active labour market policies (as suggested in the first pillar of the
Recommendation) and various social policies (as covered in the second pillar).
Good practice — Leave No Child Behind from North Rhine Westphalia in Germany
This comprehensive integrated programme focuses on prevention and uses the life-cycle
approach. It tries to make all vulnerable groups visible and create a mechanism for
accountability. This project, which is 50 % funded by the ESF, is a good example of
‘progressive universalism’, meaning a combination of a universal service for everyone and a
targeted additional action for the most needy.
A key policy tool of this project is the ‘local council-run prevention chains’ which cover the
period from maternity leave to the (re-)transition to working life. These chains combine
support services across sectorial lines and along life courses, and are operated by public
institutions and local community organisations. For this to work, all players need to be
supportive of the shared cooperative approach. Within the prevention chains, the services
offered by the players are synchronised and coordinated with a view to sustained assistance
and support. And extra attention is given to vulnerable transitions such as the changeover
from pre-school to primary school.
https://www.kein-kind-zuruecklassen.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Flyer/LNCB_web.pdf
The three sub-sections below present in more detail the activities developed in the
Member States for each of the three pillars.
It is important to note that the findings described in this chapter are even more relevant to
the situation of children with particular disadvantages. Unfortunately, specific data and
evidence on the living conditions of these children are difficult to collect and, when
available, often partial and fragmented. Before presenting the general situation, the issues
of children in particular situations of disadvantage are highlighted by way of example
31
:
•
Roma children
32
:
EU-MIDIS II shows that (i) every third Roma child (30 %) lives in
a household that had faced hunger at least once in the previous month, and (ii) Roma
children lag behind their non-Roma peers on all education indicators. Only about half
(53 %) of Roma children between the age of 4 and the starting age of compulsory
primary education participate in early childhood education; on average 18 % of Roma
between 6 and 24 years of age attend an educational level lower than the level
corresponding to their age; and the proportion of Roma early school-leavers is
disproportionately high compared with the general population. It should be noted that
ESIF investments in segregated education for Roma children are excluded.
31
Children with disabilities are not included due to lack of specific data.
32
‘Second
European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey — Roma — Selected findings’.
Report
by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), 2016.
12
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0015.png
•
Children living in institutions:
according to NGOs, in 2015, despite considerable
progress, more than 500,000 children were still living in institutions across the EU.
These children frequently grow up isolated from the care and support that families
and communities can provide
33
. General poverty-alleviation measures play an
important role here given that, in many cases, children are moved to the institutions
for poverty. Prevention measures focus on ensuring access to high-quality education,
social care and healthcare services to eliminate all barriers for children with special
needs. The specific ESIF ‘ex-ante conditionality’ rule on de-institutionalisation
encourages the shift to community-based care by promoting investments in small-
scale community-type services that provide the basic conditions for independent
living.
In addition, ESIF can be used for investments in de-institutionalisation processes,
including the improvement of the quality and capacity of existing infrastructures for
community-based services, as well as the development of infrastructure for family-like
placements for children. ESIF investments in long-stay residential institutions are
excluded, regardless of their size.
Homeless children:
children living in poverty are more exposed to overcrowded
housing conditions and the risk of homelessness. The number of children living in
families spending more than 40 % of family income on housing has grown
considerably since the onset of the crisis. In 2015, severe housing deprivation
affected more than half of all poor children below 18 in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania
and more than 20 % of poor children in Latvia, Italy, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia.
The number of children in homeless shelters also increased. In Ireland, for instance,
the number of homeless families almost doubled between 2015 and 2016
34
. Children
suffering from housing deprivation frequently encounter many barriers in access to
education, school attendance, educational attainments, good health and overall well-
being.
Children in migration and unaccompanied minors:
in 2015 and 2016 roughly one
in four asylum applicants in the European Union was a child.
35
In 2016, 95 000
children arrived by sea to Europe.
36
According to Eurostat, 96 465 unaccompanied or
‘separated’ children arrived in the EU in 2015
37
. Children in migration face a
multitude of challenges, from identification and registration, reception conditions not
adapted to their circumstances, access to asylum procedures and procedural
safeguards, and access to integration measures, as well as access to education and
healthcare from the earliest moment of arrival. For unaccompanied children, there is
a lack of trained and qualified guardians and/or delays in appointment of guardians as
http://www.openingdoors.eu/poverty-pushing-children-into-institutions-11-country-snapshots/.
http://www.homelessdublin.ie/homeless-families.
•
•
33
34
35
The terms ‘children in migration’ in this document covers all third country national children (persons
below 18 years old) who migrate to and within the EU territory, be it with their (extended) family, with a
non-family member (separated children) or alone, whether or not seeking asylum. The term ‘separated
child’ is defined as set out in para 8 of
General Comment No 6 of the UN Committee on the rights of the
child.
36
https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/download/53447.
See
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_asyunaa&lang=en.
37
13
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0016.png
well as a lack of adapted accommodation such as foster care or other small-scale
family-based care. Children in migration are exposed to risks including violence in
reception/transit centres, exploitation, physical and sexual abuse and trafficking.
Children may go missing or become separated from their families. The challenges for
children in migration in accessing housing, education, and healthcare makes them
extremely vulnerable to poverty, and their situation therefore demands specific
attention. Accesses to adapted reception, education and healthcare from the earliest
moment are therefore hugely important, and cannot wait until a decision on asylum
has been made, as these procedures may take several months. Early integration
measures and addressing child poverty are discussed in the Commission’s 12.4.2017
Communication on the protection of children in migration.
Better data to analyse the situation of these groups of children is one aspect where more
work is still needed for assessing the Recommendation’s implementation.
4.1.
First pillar: Support parents through access to paid work, child and
family benefits
The Recommendation states that Member States should support the labour market
participation of parents by ensuring (i) paid parental leave, (ii) available and affordable
ECEC/childcare, and (iii) sufficient working time flexibility. It also argues that the
adequate livelihood of families can be secured with social transfers and integrated quality
services. The tax-benefit system and/or in-work benefits, such as an earned income tax
credit, are also effective policy instruments to overcome possible financial disincentives
to accept paid work and to address in-work poverty.
As outlined in the Recommendation, when supporting parents, it is important to strike the
right balance between a universal and more targeted approach. The most effective
systems combine universal benefits for everyone (at least partly aimed at compensating
for the cost of raising children) with a separate conditional or means-tested provision
targeted at those who are the most disadvantaged. Universal provision is also important
to maintain a sense of solidarity between the tax-paying and benefit-receiving citizens of
our societies. The universal provision of in-kind (instead of cash for) services such as
childcare allows authorities not only to guarantee the quality of the service but also to
reach out to groups at the margins of society. In many countries without universal
provision, childcare services are proportionally less utilised by low-income families. This
is problematic because, as said above, poor children especially benefit greatly from
quality childcare especially when it is provided in a socially mixed context. In particular,
participation to ECEC can contribute to the integration of children with minority and
migrant background by enabling them to acquire the language of instruction.
4.1.1.
Active labour market policies
Most Member States encourage parents to find paid employment by linking their
minimum income schemes to requirements and incentives. Usually the focus is on
‘positive’ incentives such as work-related benefit top-ups or income disregards
38
. There
38
‘Income disregards’ is the portion of income from work that is ‘disregarded’ when calculating social
assistance benefits. It is therefore a work incentive for benefit recipients.
14
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0017.png
is also the obligation to register with the public employment services (PES) and
participation in active labour market policy (ALMP) measures.
The analysis done in the context of the European semester process has shown that in
many countries
39
there are financial disincentives that make it unattractive for single
parents or second earners to enter the labour market. Perverse interaction between a new
pay check, taxes and lost benefits can sometimes undermine the idea that ‘work should
pay’, at least in the short term.
Many parents, particularly women, achieve an optimal work-life balance to care for their
young children by opting to work either
flexible hours
or by working
fewer hours
as a
part-timer.
Voluntary part-time is common in the Netherlands, the UK, Germany,
Austria, Belgium and Sweden. In all these countries more than one third of all working
women work part-time. In practice, most parents in these countries establish their own
individual arrangements for combining (in)formal childcare, parental leave, flexible
hours and/or part-time. Nevertheless, it has to be noted that part-time working has a cost
in terms of lower pay, fewer promotion opportunities and reduced pension entitlements.
Part-time workers have a higher risk of poverty and are less likely to be entitled to
unemployment benefits or re-employment assistance if they become
unemployed
40
. Satisfaction with work-life balance tends to be higher in countries where
there are more opportunities to reconcile work and private life
41
. A lack of affordable
childcare capacity and/or paid parental leave can act as a barrier for parents who prefer to
work full-time.
39
40
41
NL, LU, DE, BE, IT, AT, FR, EE, IE, LU, HR, CZ, LV, LT, PT, RO, SK and FI.
Source: OECD, 2011-2012.
Source: Eurofound, 2013.
15
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0018.png
Good practice — The Nantes childcare project for single parents
working evenings and weekends
• Ensures an integrated tailored approach; services adapt to families, not the other way
around.
• Crosscuts three public policies: ECEC, social protection and return to employment. Gives
access to employment, preparatory training and individualised and responsive approach.
• Offers single mothers childcare at both regular and atypical times
• Offers childcare at atypical times, and emergency childcare at child-minders’ homes to
cope with irregular or flexible working hours during evening shop hours.
• Adopts a social investment approach.
• Ensures each childcare centre accommodates about 60 children from 3 months to 4 years
old, divided over three separate groups of 20.
• Involves a large number of stakeholders.
• Develops solutions adapted to actual needs, both in terms of public service and family
support. Good coordination between early childhood providers and social policy experts is
key to this project’s success. Strong local political backing from the mayor and the
responsible city councillor.
See
http://www.eurocities.eu/eurocities/news/Cities-at-work-Integrated-childcare-services-
Nantes-WSPO-9U3LZS
4.1.2.
Minimum income schemes and unemployment benefits
When analysing the adequacy of
minimum income schemes,
it should be kept in mind
that such benefits are often not the only source of revenue for low-income families and
that the amount varies according to household composition. Minimum income schemes
generally play a key role in reducing the intensity of child poverty.
For more details on minimum income schemes, see the staff working document on the
implementation of the 2008 Commission Recommendation on the active inclusion of
people excluded from the labour market.
4.1.3.
Child and family benefits
Child and family benefits are crucial for investing in children. They help to ensure that
families have sufficient income for children to grow up in a safe and healthy environment
with all the basic necessities.
There have been cut-backs and/or additional conditions and means-testing. Also, some
governments
42
have failed to increase benefits in line with living costs in recent years.
This seems to be in clear conflict with the Recommendation’s horizontal principle to
42
CZ, EL, ES, FI, HR, HU, IE, LV, PT, RO and SI.
16
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0019.png
‘recognise children as independent rights-holders’
43
. It also paves the way for more
stigmatisation of children receiving benefits whose number continues to decline.
The impact of family benefits in reducing the harmful effect of the recession on child
poverty has varied widely across the EU. Experts report a strong positive impact in
reducing child poverty and protecting children during the financial crisis in eight
Member States
44
. In some of these countries
45
the overall reduction in family benefits
was offset by an increase in ECEC provision
46
. Several experts in countries with fairly
generous systems say that the system is inefficient in combating child poverty (Belgium,
Germany and Croatia). Another problem can be the very limited amount of family
benefits in a country and the unwillingness to make changes (Bulgaria, Greece, Poland
and Romania).
Member States tend to fall into one of three groups. However, this must be seen as a
snapshot of what is a dynamic process heavily influenced by the recession. Therefore,
these groups should not be considered permanent.
A
first group
47
consists of Member States who still have and continue to improve their
historically well-developed and comprehensive sets of policies to support early childhood
development.
A
second group
48
includes Member States that have traditionally paid less attention to a
comprehensive approach but have fairly well-developed policies in some important areas
(AT, BE, EE, FR, IE and MT). In response to the hardship and challenges posed by the
crisis, most of them are reviewing their policies and taking positive steps to develop more
comprehensive approaches to early childhood development.
A
third group
49
comprises Member States that have recently been investing little in
policies supporting early childhood development, even if a few of them (Bulgaria, Latvia
and Slovakia) have been increasing spending (albeit from a very low baseline). To
understand the performance of these countries, it is important to realise that at the
beginning of the crisis several of them
50
were forced to adopt urgent fiscal consolidation
measures. This led to an initial freezing or even reduction in spending. Now that
unemployment has started to come down and fiscal stabilisation is in progress, spending
on child and family benefits has started to recover slowly. However, an integrated
43
44
See the horizontal principles of the Recommendation in the introduction.
AT, CY, CZ, FI, HU, IE, NL and SI.
FI, HU, IE, LV and NL.
For further details, see Section 4.2.2 below.
DE, DK, FI, NL, SE and SI.
AT, BE, EE, FR, HU, IE, LI, LU, MT, PL and UK.
BG, CY, CZ, EL, ES, HR, IT, LT, LV, PT, RO and SK.
CY, ES, LT, PT and EL
45
46
47
48
49
50
17
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0020.png
approach is still lacking in some countries
51
and there is a tendency to develop new
services in a fragmented way.
Reductions in spending on families and children are not confined to this third cluster of
Member States. Between 2008 and 2012, spending on families across the EU fell in 21
out of 28 Member States. Even allowing for some demographic changes over this period,
this is in stark contrast to an increase in spending for old-age pensions in 26 Member
States during the same period. The distribution of adjustment costs of fiscal consolidation
between young and old appears to have been unevenly disadvantaging the young
52
.
More positively, the experts note that in some countries
53
there has been some increase in
spending in favour of children and families, though in some cases from a very low
baseline.
4.2.
Second pillar: Support parents with affordable quality services
4.2.1.
Childcare
The provision of affordable quality childcare services is an excellent example of a
win-
win social investment strategy.
It not only boosts children’s development, it also
enables parents to accept paid work. In most cases, the extra tax revenue (over the life
course) generated by the increased participation of parents in the labour market is enough
to cover the cost of the extra childcare. If affordable quality childcare is not available, the
costs of centre-based care for two children can, in some countries, amount to more than
one fifth of the disposable income of a low-earning couple. Such prohibitively high costs
act as a barrier to the use of childcare and effectively discourage parents from working.
At the 2002 Barcelona summit, the European Council decided to set specific targets,
referred to as the
‘Barcelona targets’,
for the provision of childcare. The objective of the
targets was to provide childcare by 2010 to (i) at least
90 % of children between 3 years
old and the mandatory school age,
and (ii) at least
33 % of children under 3 years of
age.
At the time, it was argued that more childcare was needed to achieve more gender
equality in the EU labour market. According to the latest EU statistics on income and
living conditions (EU-SILC) available (2015), 13 years after the Barcelona summit the
following picture emerges:
51
BG, EL, HR, IT, PT and RO
Darvas, Z. and Wolff, G.B. (2014), ‘Europe’s social problem and its implications for economic growth’,
Bruegel Policy Brief, Issue 2014/03.
AT, BG, DE, HU, IT, PL, SE, SI, SK and UK.
52
53
18
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0021.png
0-3 category
Category over 3 (mandatory school age)
The EU-28 average is below the target, at The EU-28 average is below the target, at
30.3 % of children 0-3 in formal childcare 83.3 %
18 Member States are below the target
19 Member states are below the target
14 Member States are significantly below 13 Member States are 10 pp or more
the target (10 pp or more)
below the target
8 Member States are less than halfway to 5 Member States are significantly below
the target
the target (20 pp or more)
Seven years after the original 2010 deadline, there is still a clear lack of childcare
capacity for children under three
54
. The availability of
accessible, affordable and
quality childcare
varies widely between the Member States, and it is important to note
that these differences often reflect differences in respective starting positions. Four
groups of Member States can be distinguished, reflecting what has happened among the
Member States.
The
first group
consists of the ‘historical Scandinavian forerunner’ Member States
55
that
have been particularly successful in ensuring relatively broad access to quality childcare
at an affordable cost.
A
second group
includes Member States
56
where more attention has been paid to
childcare over the last two decades as women’s participation in the labour market has
grown, even if there are still areas that need to be improved (e.g. supply, quality or cost
of childcare or existing regional differences).
A
third group
of Member States
57
includes new Member States where efforts to increase
the availability of childcare are more recent.
Finally, in the
fourth group
of Member States
58
, the major weaknesses are in the
availability, affordability and quality of childcare. In some cases there are even signs of
further cut-backs due to fiscal consolidation. When it comes to the financing of childcare,
experts highlight the positive role played by EU funds
59
.
54
55
56
57
58
59
For details, see Annex III.
DK, FI, SE, with SL.
AT, BE, DE, FR, LU, NL and PT.
CY, EE, HU, LV, MT and PL.
BG, CZ, EL, ES, HR, IE, IT, LT, RO, SK and UK.
CZ, EL, HU, LT, PL and SK.
19
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0022.png
4.2.2.
Early childhood education and care (ECEC)
There is broad and growing acceptance that investing in
ECEC
significantly promotes
children’s socio-economic development. The
first group
of Member States
60
with fairly
well-developed ECEC systems has kept their systems intact during the economic crisis
and some have even improved the quality and extended coverage (Denmark, Finland and
the Netherlands).
In the
second group
of Member States
61
, with
less developed ECEC systems,
steps
have been taken to address shortcomings. However, progress is often slow, and
significant differences in access by social background remain. Two recent, successful
examples in this group are the ‘sure start children’s houses’
62
, in Hungary, and the ‘area-
based child poverty initiative’
63
, in Ireland.
The
third group
of Member States
64
has
very limited services
and very low rates of
enrolment in ECEC, especially for 0-3 years olds. While the problem is often
acknowledged in official documents, very limited increases in expenditure and poor
implementation measures restrict progress.
There is a risk, even in rich Member States, that children from disadvantaged
backgrounds disproportionately miss out on formal ECEC. In France and Ireland, for
instance, children from low-income families are over four times less likely to use formal
ECEC than children from high-income families.
The Commission has developed a
quality framework for ECEC
65
with the Member
States. There are
10 key principles
on access, workforce, curriculum, monitoring,
evaluation and governance. This useful framework emphasises that a crucial aspect of
quality must be the close involvement of parents. It is often through ECEC that one can
best develop a constructive relationship with the parents of disadvantaged children. Such
a relationship combined with parenting support services is one of the best ways to
improve the home situation of a disadvantaged child
66
.
4.2.3.
Parental leave
Besides the availability of childcare, a
well-designed, generous and sufficiently flexible
(but not excessively long) maternal, paternal and/or parental leave system
plays a
key role in parents’ participation in the labour market.
60
61
62
DE, DK, FI, NL, SE and SI.
AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, EE, EL, HU, IE, LV, LT, MT, PL and UK.
http://jobbadni.hu/en/sure-start-childrens-house-bodvalenke/
https://www.dcya.gov.ie/docs/Area_Based_Approach_to_Child_Poverty_Initiative/2574.htm
BG, CZ, HR, RO and SK.
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/policy/strategic-
framework/archive/documents/ecec-quality-framework_en.pdf
.
See also Section 4.2.4 below.
63
64
65
66
20
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0023.png
Paid parental leave schemes are largely paying for themselves thanks to the increase in
taxes and social contributions across the life cycle. Parental leave, and in particular paid,
non-transferable paternal leave, gives both parents a chance to bond with their child in a
meaningful way, helping their children to grow up into independent emotionally secure
adults. More paternity leave and/or parental leave used by both parents can also help to
promote gender equality on the labour market.
The length and coverage of schemes in nine Member States
67
are given a positive
assessment. It is difficult to give a clear-cut assessment of whether leave schemes can be
a disincentive to work. This is because, irrespective of the length and generosity of these
schemes, the availability of childcare at the same time plays a key role in facilitating
parents’ employment. What appears to be most crucial is not to have a gap between the
end of parental leave and the availability of childcare. The experts note that such a gap
exists in Austria, Croatia, Greece, Luxembourg, Romania and the UK. There are also
many shortcomings in promoting a gender-balanced use of leave schemes. In quite a few
countries there is no statutory entitlement to paternity leave. Mothers generally use
parental leave much more than fathers and for longer periods. The low replacement rate
of some parental leave schemes may be one of the reasons why fathers’ take-up is
generally so low
68
.
The extensive
length of maternal/parental leave
creates an obstacle to female
participation in the labour market in Croatia, Estonia, Hungary and Slovenia. In Croatia
the lack of flexibility of existing leave schemes and their ‘confusing’ rules are
questioned. Experts of Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy and the UK warn of a social gradient
in the use of leave linked to the parents’ socio-economic background.
Several countries have undertaken reforms of parental leave schemes to address the
gender balance
69
, increasing the length of some schemes
70
, introducing elements of
flexibility or work incentives
71
and extending coverage
72
.
4.2.4.
Parenting support services
The most common types of support services are parental education, family counselling
offices, maternal and child health clinics, outreach visits to mothers and babies by
midwives, family assistant support to vulnerable families, psychological support, and
support for parents with disabled children. A simple but also labour-intensive way of
adopting an integrated approach in practice would be to assign every disadvantaged
family with an individual case officer who would be able to make house visits.
67
CY, DE, EL, FI, LV, NL, RO, SE and SI
In particular in CY, HR, IE, LU, MT and UK.
FR, IT, PL, SI and UK.
BE, LV and PL.
BE, CZ, DE, HU LV, MT, NL and PL.
HU and IT.
68
69
70
71
72
21
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0024.png
Moreover, the Recommendation emphasises the importance of family support (including
preventive services) and quality alternative care in preventing in so far as possible
children’s removal from their family setting and their placement in an institution. Where
alternative care is necessary, the focus should be on quality of care in line with the
United Nations Guidelines for the alternative car of children. In any case, if a child does
have to be removed from their family setting, the Recommendation calls for quality
support including in the transition to adulthood. 25.6 % of the ESF budget is earmarked
for projects on social inclusion, including deinstitutionalisation.
In addition, Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Slovenia and the UK are among the
Member States that have quite an extensive range of parenting support services, and
several are making further improvements. These services are lacking in seven Member
States
73
. In these countries there is little evidence of any effort to improve services in
response to the Europe 2020 strategy or the Recommendation. At the same time, some
positive developments are also cited for others
74
.
Good practice — TRIPLE P: Positive Parenting Project, counselling of both children
and parents
•
Thoroughly evaluated programme (originally elaborated in Australia),
rated as
best
practice by the EPIC.
Used all over the world and in most EU Member States, available
in many languages.
•
Parents are the most important factor
determining a child’s well-being during the early
years of life. Supported parents feel more productive and confident, happier and less
subject to marital conflict and depression.
•
Five different levels of engagement based on parental need:
simple general lecture for
everyone on how to communicate with your child; a special workshop for learning skills to
overcome certain problems (e.g. not sleeping or incontinence); intensive individual family
case management with regular home visits for troubled families
•
Philosophy:
parents first need to have a good relationship with their child before you can
deal with any misbehaviour; emphasis is on positive parenting and on positive feedback to
encourage good behaviour.
• Triple P
license costs about EUR 30,000 per year.
To this must be added the cost of
training the social workers plus the fixed cost needed for translating the training modules.
• In a
Glasgow prison project,
fathers who participated in Triple P received as a bonus
more time to see their children and were less likely to reoffend later on compared to fathers
who had not.
See EPIC:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1251&langId=en&mode=7
73
EL, HR, HU, LT, PL, PT and RO.
BE, EE, FI, FR, IE, LT, LU, NL, PT and UK.
74
22
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
4.3.
Third pillar: children’s right to participate
The third pillar of the Recommendation consists of measures to support children’s
participation in play, recreation, sport and cultural activities, as well as measures to
facilitate children’s participation in decision-making affecting their lives. It is of crucial
importance for the well-being of a child, in particular when it comes to the goal of
"breaking the cycle of disadvantage". Participation in after-school activities can provide
disadvantaged children with new perspectives and positive role models that can strongly
influence their future social mobility.
Overall, the third pillar has achieved significantly less than the other two. Even though
the Recommendation clearly states that it wants to promote an integrated rights based
approach that is in line with UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), the
implementation focus was on the first two pillars. There is little evidence of activities on
the child’s right to be heard, for example in judicial proceedings or administrative
proceedings concerning them, nor is there evidence of the mainstreaming of child
participation in the other pillars of the Recommendation (for example in consulting
children on service design, delivery and review).
4.3.1.
Children’s participation in play, recreation, sport and cultural
activities
The strand of the Recommendation focusing on a child’s
right to participate in play,
recreation, sport and cultural activities
has been less successful than the other two
strands.
At EU level, the Erasmus+ programme (that supports education, training, youth and sport
in Europe) funds projects which deal indirectly with children's rights, empowerment and
well-being. Since its beginning in 2014, the Erasmus+ programme has funded roughly
2,000 projects dealing with children's participation. The Creative Europe programme
supports audience development and improved access to cultural and creative works with
a focus on children, young people, people with disabilities and under-represented groups.
One third of the European Cooperation projects selected for funding in 2016 focused on
this priority. In addition, the Creative Europe programme funded 12 transnational
projects in 2016, addressing the role of culture in the integration of refugees, of which
one third focused on cultural activities for children, children refugees and
unaccompanied refugee children.
23
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0026.png
Good practice: Brussels’ Toekomst Atelier/Atelier d’Avenir (TADA)
Children from underprivileged backgrounds miss the insight into the ‘future’ (toekomst) more
than others. They usually have few opportunities to meet people from diverse professional
backgrounds whom they can ask about ‘now and in the future’. TADA wants to open the door
‘to the world’ for these children by allowing them to discover all aspects of society through
experiential learning classes on weekends.
The bilingual (Dutch-French) non-profit organisation TADA provides supplementary,
voluntary, motivational and society-oriented education to children aged 10 to 14, who come
from the most socioeconomically disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Brussels. Over the course
of 3 school years the TADA pupils discover diverse aspects of society in weekly experiential
classes. Every Saturday the TADA pupils receive courses from inspiring professionals
—
volunteers —
from all areas of the labour market, for example entrepreneurs, engineers,
chefs, lawyers, and journalists. Through experiential learning and courses on topics such as
law or finances for children, TADA shows children what the ‘future’ could have in store for
them.
See
http://www.toekomstatelierdelavenir.com/
4.3.2.
Children’s participation in decision-making that affects their lives
The Recommendation explains how
a child’s right to participate in decisions that
affect their lives
should be ensured. For instance, Member States should take steps to
involve children in the running of services such as care, healthcare and education and
support the participation of children from disadvantaged backgrounds. They should also
implement a child’s right to be heard in all justice-related decisions and promote child-
friendly justice, in particular by giving children effective access to court and judicial
proceedings.
The right to participate is also one of the 10 principles the Commission proposed in 2015
for integrated child protection systems
75
. A key component of an integrated child
protection system is inter-departmental and multi-disciplinary action to tackle root causes
of violence against children, such as poverty, exclusion and discrimination. It includes
proactive policy and preventive outreach measures, parenting and family support,
universal and targeted social services, and specific strategies to reduce child poverty.
In 2015, the Commission published a study entitled ‘Evaluation of legislation, policy and
practice on child participation in the EU’
76
. The study identifies examples of good
practice at local, municipal, and city level for schools, care settings and town planning. It
shows that child participation can tackle everyday life issues with tangible and
measurable results
77
. Respect for children’s participation rights leads to better decision-
75
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/2015_forum_roc_background_en.pdf
76
http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/evaluation-of-legislation-policy-and-practice-of-child-participation-in-the-
eu-pbDS0614240/
and
http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/evaluation-of-legislation-policy-and-practice-of-child-participation-in-the-
european-union-eu--pbDS0514101/
.
77
See Commission work on child participation, and guidance for perspective projects that apply under the
rights, equality and citizenship programme (Lundy Model):
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-
rights/rights-child/child-participation/index_en.htm
.
24
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0027.png
making and benefits society in general as well as children. Country reports were also
drawn up
78
as well as a catalogue of resources
79
.
There is, however, much more scope to involve children in actions and decisions that
affect them. Are there possibilities to involve children in policy or service design? Are
the views of children on services delivered to them and challenges they face reflected in
policy elaboration? Accessible guidance on how to ensure child participation is set out in
the Lundy Model of Participation and the Lundy Voice Model Checklist for Participation
(Professor Laura Lundy of Queen's University, Belfast
80
).
78
Click
on ‘related publications’ to see
national reports
http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/evaluation-of-legislation-policy-and-practice-of-child-participation-in-
the-european-union-eu--pbDS0514101/
https://bookshop.europa.eu/en/evaluation-of-legislation-policy-and-practice-of-child-participation-in-the-
eu-pbDS0614241/?CatalogCategoryID=cOwKABstC3oAAAEjeJEY4e5L
79
80
Laura, Lundy (2007) ‘ “Voice” is not enough: conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child’, British Educational Research Journal, 33:6, 927- 942
Lundy Model of Participation and Lundy Voice Model Checklist:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-
rights/files/lundy_model_child_participation.pdf
Ireland, Department of Children and Youth Affairs,
National Strategy on Children and Young People's Participation in Decision-Making 2015-2020 (17 June
2015), p. 21-22. Accessible here:
http://dcya.gov.ie/documents/playandrec/20150617NatStratParticipationReport.pdf
Lundy Model of Participation and Lundy Voice Model Checklist:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-
rights/files/lundy_model_child_participation.pdf
25
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0028.png
Good practice: Youth participation in digital matters
Youth participation is an inherent part of the work that the
Insafe network of Safer Internet
Centres
(SICs), which are co-funded and coordinated by the European Commission, carry
out at national level. SICs organise short- or long-term youth panels where they invite
children and young people to join and get involved in different activities, such as face-to-
face and online meetings, focus groups, creation of resources, organisation of events and
campaign, etc. Each SIC develops its own youth participation strategy adapted to national
trends and needs. However many have included on their agenda the engagement of young
people in reaching out to policy makers, either at national level through participation in
events or at European level during the European Youth Panel and
Safer Internet Forum.
At
European level, the
Insafe coordinator
organises youth webinars with youth panellists to
prepare them for actively participating in the Safer Internet Forum, but also in other
European and international events, such as
EuroDIG
and
Internet Governance Forum.
Examples of good practices of Safer Internet Youth Panels stimulating participation and
inclusion:
•
the Danish SIC involved young people aged 13-17 years old to prepare
recommendations for policy makers in 2017. The Danish Media Council and the
helpline
Cyberhus
are working to engage vulnerable young people in creating a better
internet for children and young people by organising online debates on Cyberhus’s
anonymous platform;
The Swedish Media Council in partnership with Attention conducted a
research
about
the media habits among children with neuropsychiatric disorders, which found that
this group uses media more often and for longer time than the national average;
In the UK, Childnet developed
STAR,
a toolkit with practical advice and teaching
activities to help educators explore internet safety with young people with autism
spectrum disorders;
On Safer Internet Day 2014, several young ambassadors of the European Insafe
network launched the
“Youth
Manifesto”,
a crowd-sourced initiative by youth for
youth to raise their voice and be directly involved in policymaking. The Youth
Manifesto publication contains 10 selected principles which reflect the digital rights
and opportunities that Europe's young people view as most essential for building a
better internet.
•
•
•
26
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0029.png
Good practice — The Small World School in Antwerp
A school in the south of Antwerp whose pupils were mostly from different ethnic
backgrounds organised a Freakies festival with a cultural NGO called De Veerman.
Professional actors from the NGO worked with the pupils to put on the festival. The event
revolutionised the climate, reputation and attractiveness of the school. It changed the
school’s image to a multi-cultural small world school that is now also very popular among
indigenous middle-class children.
The idea was to create an extended school with after-school activities that would:
• focus on the many dimensions of children’s development (cognitive, health, social, etc.)
to compensate for the many disadvantages;
• offer a wide range of services (health care, social support, ICT, library and arts
education);
• involve parents, youth work, cultural centres, local associations and social partners;
• have extended opening hours/periods;
• cater for continuity across different stages of education, and;
• be flexible, demand-driven, project-based and bottom-up.
The school cooperates with the De Veerman cultural centre and with pedagogical
knowledge centres. No major extra funding was needed, as local community resources
covered the costs of the extra-curricular activities.
For more information (in Dutch) see
https://www.stedelijkonderwijs.be/dekleinewereld,
and
http://www.veerman.be,
contact
[email protected]
5.
S
TAKEHOLDERS
R
EACTIONS AND
F
EEDBACK
5.1.
European Parliament
Since the Recommendation’s adoption four years ago, the European Parliament has been
active in pursuing its full implementation. In November 2015, the Parliament adopted an
own-initiative report by MEP Ines Zuber on ‘Reducing inequality, in particular child
poverty’
81
. The Zuber report fed into the development of the European Parliament’s
special written declaration on investing in children that was adopted in December 2015
with the support of 428 MEP signatures
82
.
Both the written declaration and the report call on the Commission to consider including
a
specific and binding indicator on the number of children at risk of poverty or
social exclusion
in the social dimension of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU).
81
‘Réduire les inégalités, en particulier la pauvreté des enfants’ (MEP Ines ZUBER — A8-0310/2015 /
P8_TA-PROV(2015)0401).
82
http://www.eurochild.org/fileadmin/public/05_Library/Thematic_priorities/02_Child_Poverty/European_
Union/WD_Investing_In_Children-1.pdf
.
27
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0030.png
The Commission is also asked to request all Member States to introduce
specific
national (sub)targets on reducing child poverty and social exclusion.
This is to
contribute to the Europe 2020 target to reduce poverty. Finally, urge is, first, put on the
Member States to use
EU funding
and all other available instruments to implement the
Recommendation and, second, on the Commission to draw up a
roadmap and adopt
child well-being indicators,
in line with the Recommendation, and put in place a
child
guarantee.
In its reply, the Commission stated that specific national targets for child poverty, as
requested by the European Parliament, are not desirable. This would probably, the
Commission explains, lead to a proliferation of targets and become counterproductive in
the context of closer EMU. Moreover, in the current political context, there is little
support in the Council for setting specific national targets on child poverty.
It is worth noting that, since then, the European Parliament has included a preparatory
pilot action (PPA) in the 2017 budget to develop the necessary analytical basis for a child
guarantee scheme
83
.
5.2.
NGOs
The EU Alliance for Investing in Children brings together over 20 European NGO
networks sharing a commitment to promote child well-being
84
. The Commission
provides financial support to a number of key EU wide umbrella NGO networks such as
Eurochild, the COFACE), the EAPN and the PICUM.
The NGOs have always been supportive of the Recommendation but are critical of the
gaps in its implementation. Overall the Recommendation is welcomed as an agenda-
setter promoting a comprehensive child-rights approach that resulted in highlighting the
importance of an integrated approach to the early years and to more financial support
from the ESIF. However, the NGOs deplore the lack of visibility of issues related to the
Recommendation in the European Semester. According to their assessment, the
Recommendation has not yet had the impact on policy reform in the Members States that
was expected
85
. Focus has instead been on a few policy areas (e.g. childcare, inclusive
education for Roma children), and a comprehensive approach is still lacking.
6.
C
ONCLUSIONS
Since the Commission’s adoption of the Investing in Children Recommendation and the
Council’s unanimous endorsement of it, four years have passed. The global picture that
has emerged from its implementation is variable and dynamic, suggesting that this is still
very much work in progress.
83
See preparatory action (budget line 04 03 77 25) voted in the 2017 "Child guarantee scheme /
establishing A European child guarantee and financial support".
See the implementation handbook of the Investing in Children Alliance, March 2015.
For more details, see Annex IV.
84
85
28
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
Compared to 2013, the number of children under 18 in the EU at risk of poverty and
social exclusion (AROPE) has decreased slightly to 26.9 % (from 27.7 %). The four main
risk factors for child poverty (i.e. single parenthood, working poor, inactivity traps and
migration background) are fairly stable, but the last factor has become more important
due to the recent large inflows of asylum seekers and will require stronger monitoring in
the future. The EU average hides wide-ranging trends and performances in Member
States. While in some Member States the situation has improved, albeit coming from a
very high level, in others child poverty has increased.
The gap in performance between north-west and south-east Europe results from a
substantial difference in their starting position and the impact the recession has had on
their economy. Some countries have had to deal with economic urgencies first, while
others, for lack of capacity, have not been able to act against child poverty in an effective
and integrated way. These differences in starting position, in the severity of the recession
and in institutional capacity all have to be taken into account.
From the beginning, the Recommendation received strong support both at national and
EU level, including from the European Parliament and civil society. However, the
Recommendation is still neither well-known nor properly used within the Member States
at local level, where concrete policy mechanisms have to be developed and implemented.
The setting-up of meaningful partnerships between all the stakeholders is crucial in this
respect.
The Recommendation’s main message has inspired many positive projects and
experiences. Public debate and civil society have played a crucial role in promoting
implementation by identifying areas where progress is needed and by engaging in a
number of concrete forward-looking innovative initiatives.
The Recommendation has been, to various degrees, successfully used as a policy lever in
the European Semester, resulting in relevant CSRs to Member States on topics ranging
from childcare capacity, income support and disincentives to inclusive education. It also
has had a positive impact on the 2014-2020 ESIF programmes. The Recommendation
was effectively used as a lever during the negotiations resulting in larger budget
allocations.
There is now considerable ESIF funding earmarked for family and child policies. This
has created great potential for financial support that should generate a large number of
quality project applications from local authorities and NGOs. Close cooperation between
management authorities, local authorities and other stakeholders such as NGOs, which
the Recommendation calls for, will reduce the risk of under-absorption and increase the
efficiency of the funds used.
Most Member States agree that only a comprehensive integrated approach is an effective
strategy capable of breaking the cycle of disadvantage of vulnerable children. This plea
for an integrated approach was perhaps the Recommendation’s most innovative message;
it requires improved cooperation between all stakeholders at local level and renewed
focus, something many Member States find challenging.
Still, progress on the 2002 Barcelona target of 33 % childcare coverage for children
under 3 has been poor. The EU-28 average is only 30.3 % and 20 Member States are
below target. Most Member States agree that it is socially fair and economically sound to
29
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
invest more during the early years and that ECEC is the best way to do this. However, the
Recommendation’s appeal to spend more on ECEC has not gained enough traction yet.
In terms of achievements, the Recommendation’s first two pillars, on access to income
and services, have been more influential in bringing about concrete policy changes and
developing projects. The third pillar, on children’s rights to legal and social participation,
has received much less attention. So far there has been little interest in social/legal
participation and in the rights of vulnerable children, despite the fact that child
participation is a right and has proven benefits in terms of improved decision-making, for
individual children, children as a group and for society in general.
The Recommendation’s key message that one should ‘always take the child’s best
interests as a primary consideration and recognise children as independent rights-holders’
has not been sufficiently acknowledged. Both the European Parliament and NGOs have
suggested that the best way to respect children’s rights is to put in place an EU-wide
child guarantee. Moreover, there has to be more data on the situation of specific groups
of vulnerable children before there can be any adequate monitoring of their rights.
This Recommendation has made progress thanks to a number of important measures that
have supported its implementation: ESIF financing (EUR 8 billion set aside for children);
EU awareness-raising actions in the Member States (notably through peer review
seminars); financial support for EU NGOs; and sharing of knowledge and best practices
through the EPIC website containing a repository with evidence-based best practices (for
each of the three pillars and up-to-date country reports on child and family policies in
each Member State).
The public consultation on the preliminary draft of the European pillar of social rights
highlighted the need to continue efforts to combat child poverty, to mainstream rights of
the child with a clear focus on protection from poverty and strengthen the work-life-
balance for both parents. It indicated that one of the best ways to address child poverty is
by creating the conditions that make it possible for parents to earn their own living. The
consultation also strongly emphasised the need to take concerted action to break the cycle
of disadvantage faced by so many children and give a strong boost to the
Recommendation’s implementation. The Work-life balance initiative, presented in the
framework of the European pillar of social rights, aims at improving the situation of
working parents, in particular working mothers. Progress achieved through this initiative
can have a positive impact on children.
The experiences presented in this report on four years of implementation will be
instrumental for further action at local, national and EU level.
***
***
***
30
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0033.png
A
NNEX
I — L
ATEST
AROPE
(2015)
FIGURES FOR CHILD POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Figure 1: Change in the percentage of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion
(0-17) between 2008 and 2015
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC), EU27 for 2008.
Figure 1 shows that the strongest increases in child poverty between 2008 and 2015 took
place in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Italy, Ireland, Malta and Spain. The
situation is much more serious for children raised by a single parent. They suffer from a
risk of poverty twice as high as for children raised by two parents. Other risk categories
are children growing up in large families and with an ethnic or migrant background.
Figure 2: Percentage of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion (0-17), 2013
and 2015
Between 2013 and 2015 the average AROPE for children in the EU decreased slightly
from 28 % to 27 %. But as figure 2 shows, there are wide differences between the
Member States, with reductions in Bulgaria, Hungary and Greece and increases in
Cyprus, Spain and Italy.
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
31
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0034.png
A
NNEX
II — E
UROPEAN SEMESTER COUNTRY
-
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
The table below gives an overview by topic of the CSRs issued in 2014, 2015 and 2016
to the various Member States on child poverty and well-being as covered by the
Recommendation.
Overview of the 2014, 2015 and 2016 country-specific recommendations
on families and children
Policy Topic
Countries receiving
a family/child CSR
in 2014
Countries receiving
a family/child CSR
in 2015
Countries receiving
a family/child CSR
in 2016
86
IE, IT (N.B. ‘national
anti-poverty strategy’)
IE, IT, UK, ES, HU,
BG, RO, PT, LV
FI, RO, EE,HR, LV,
ES, BG
IE, IT, SK, RO, PL,
DE, EE, CZ, AT, UK
SE, ES, SK, RO, PT,
MT, IT, DK, DE, FR,
CZ, BE, AT, PL, HU,
HR, EE, BG
[AT, DK, SE – young
people with a migrant
background]
Affordable housing
Financial
disincentives to the
labour market
Reconciliation
Youth activation
UK, SE, NL
NL, LU, DE, BE, IT,
AT, FR, EE, IE, LU
MT, PL, LU
LU, LT, LV, UK, SE,
FI, SK, SL, PT, HU,
IT, HR, FR, ES, IE,
DK, BG, BE
BG, RO, LV, ES
BG, HU, CZ, RO, SK
NL, SE, UK
HR, CZ, DE, EE, IE,
LV, LT, PT, RO, SK
IT
IT, RO, SK, ES, FI
BG, RO
IE, NL, SE, UK, LU
DE, IE, FR, FI
BG, CZ, HU, IT, LV,
LT, PT, RO, SL, ES
HR, IE, IT, FI
BG, ES, FR, HU, HR,
IE, IT, LT, LV
HR, ES, IT
Child poverty
Income support
Efficiency/effectivene
ss of social protection
support
ECEC/childcare
(access, affordability,
quality)
Inclusive education/
Early school leaving
AT, CZ, EE, IE, RO,
SK, UK
AT, BG, CZ, EE, HU,
IT, LV, LT, MT, PT,
RO, SK, UK
CZ, IE, ES, IT, SK,
UK
BG, CZ, HU, RO, SK
[AT, BE — young
people with a migrant
background]
Access to health
Roma-related
BG, LV, LT, RO
BG, CZ, HU, RO, SK
BG, CY, LV, PT, RO,
SI
BG, CZ, HU, RO, SK
86
To avoid duplication Cyprus and Greece did not receive any CSRs in 2014 and 2015; they were still
following macroeconomic adjustment programmes. However, Cyprus received CSRs in 2016.
.
32
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0035.png
A
NNEX
III — P
ROGRESS ON THE
B
ARCELONA TARGETS FOR CHILDCARE
Table 1: Formal childcare enrolment in % in 2015
Age 0-3
30 hours + Total
15.6
30.3
26.8
50.1
8.4
8.9
1.7
2.9
69.6
77.3
16.1
25.9
17.8
21.4
8.9
30.6
6.5
11.4
20.6
39.7
25.7
41.7
9.5
11.8
16.9
27.3
11.4
20.8
22.0
22.9
7.7
9.7
34.9
51.8
10.8
15.4
7.2
17.9
5.3
46.4
8.6
22.3
4.2
5.3
42.9
47.2
5.2
9.4
34.9
37.4
0.9
1.1
24.6
32.5
42.6
64.0
4.3
30.4
Age 3 - mandatory school age
<30 hours 30 hours + Total
33.9
49.4
83.3
21.7
77.1
98.8
3.3
68.2
71.5
22.6
54.9
77.5
9.2
88.0
97.2
34.6
55.0
89.6
6.8
86.1
92.9
73.4
18.6
92.0
41.1
26.0
67.1
46.6
45.4
92.0
36.9
56.7
93.6
6.5
46.4
52.9
23.3
62.6
85.9
49.4
32.0
81.4
3.1
79.2
82.3
5.0
68.8
73.8
27.0
54.9
81.9
9.6
79.5
89.1
34.6
53.8
88.4
77.5
13.2
90.7
57.7
27.6
85.3
7.5
35.5
43.0
6.4
83.5
89.9
50.9
7.3
58.2
8.8
82.1
90.9
14.0
53.6
67.6
23.2
59.6
82.8
25.9
70.3
96.2
48.8
24.0
72.8
EU28
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Croatia
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
<30 hours
14.7
23.3
0.5
1.2
7.7
9.8
3.6
21.7
4.9
19.1
16.0
2.3
10.4
9.4
0.9
2.0
16.9
4.6
10.7
41.1
13.7
1.1
4.3
4.2
2.5
0.2
7.9
21.4
26.1
Source: EU-SILC 2015
33
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
1749030_0036.png
A
NNEX
IV — NGO
S
’
ASSESSMENT
,
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE
THE
R
ECOMMENDATION
’
S IMPLEMENTATION
On 6 December 2016, the European Commission organised a strategic dialogue meeting
of the main European NGOs working, directly or indirectly, on children-related policies
to discuss the state of implementation of the Recommendation. The main messages
conveyed by those stakeholders are summarised below.
The NGOs underlined the Recommendation’s main
positive results:
•
•
•
•
•
•
it worked as an important
agenda-setter
for all stakeholders;
it allowed NGOs to persuade several Member States to use the Structural Funds more
efficiently for children;
it led some Member States (Belgium, Ireland, Portugal and Estonia) to adopt an
integrated policy approach
to children-related issues;
the Recommendation’s key message to focus on the early years and on ECEC was
taken up in most Member States, and it became a priority in 12 of them;
it also generated more financial support for de-institutionalisation projects and Roma
children (in particular girls);
it also led to children’s actual involvement in policy-making in a few Member States.
The NGOs were somewhat more critical when it came to the Recommendation’s
implementation. Their main
comments
are the following:
•
The Recommendation lacks
visibility
at national level: only four European countries
referred to it in their national reform programmes. The fact that many ministers
responsible for social affairs are unfamiliar with it undermines its implementation. A
better partnership between civil society organisations and national governments
would be needed to bridge the gaps between different levels of governance.
The Recommendation’s
integrated strategy
has not sufficiently influenced the way
in which the European Semester addresses policy reforms. Too often proposals are
considered to be fragmented and piecemeal. Some countries go for a quick fix and
create ‘one-stop-shop’ services in the form of a single-ticket window without a well-
integrated back office.
Funding
is spent inefficiently. According to NGOs, spending should be done in a
more children-friendly way. It would appear that in some countries ESIF money is
managed in too centralised a way to actually contribute to the integration of local
communities. The lack of management capacity in many countries also results in
funds remaining unspent. The focus appears to be on projects that are easy to
implement and not necessarily on what is most urgent/needed.
•
•
34
 swd (2017) 0258 - Ingen titel
•
The Recommendation’s implementation is limited by a huge
disparity
in resources
and management capacity
between the Member States.
In this case, one size clearly
does not fit all.
Finally, the NGOs put forward interesting and constructive
proposals
to improve the
Recommendation’s implementation in the near future. These include the following:
•
On the whole the UNCRC, the Recommendation, the European Semester and
national actions need to be
much more coherent.
There should be a clear political
link between what the countries do under the Recommendation and are obliged to do
under the UNCRC. The Recommendation should reinforce the actions already
undertaken under the UNCRC and vice-versa.
Now it is time to start looking also at
children’s rights.
The prevention of violence
in families requires more attention as some are under extraordinary pressure that can
easily erupt into violence. A change in mentality is needed to recognise that children
are first of all human beings; they are not just objects of our actions but legitimate
actors of change.
The NGO networks
with their national member organisations
should have more
influence
on the implementation of the ESF, especially in Eastern Europe. There is
unequal access to information and not enough technical assistance. NGOs can help
develop and implement projects at local level and in this way improve the absorption
of funds. The obvious legal instrument for this is the new European code of conduct
on partnerships. To solve the lack of management capacity, more training of national
civil servants is needed.
The European Parliament’s proposal for a
European child guarantee
could take the
form of a
childcare guarantee
similar to the successful youth guarantee.
The Commission should continue to facilitate mutual learning, spread good practices
and provide evidence via research activities. The European Platform for Investing in
Children has great potential as a tool to monitor the Recommendation’s
implementation in the Member States. However, specific child benchmarks on well-
being have to be developed. EU funding of social research on child and family
matters must continue to allow for more future proofing of social policies.
•
•
•
•
35