Transcript Slide 1

Children in the National Action Plans
for Social Inclusion in the selected
EU member states
Erika Kvapilova
“Children’s Experiences with Poverty and
Social Exclusion – Challenges for Research
and Policies”
Vienna, June 28-29, 2007
Structure
Recent trends in focusing on child
poverty) at the EU level
 Child poverty on the EU social
inclusion agenda, focus on V4
countries (NAPs/ Incl 2006-2008)
 Linking research and policies – some
challenges in V4 countries

Child poverty agenda in the EU
Member states




child poverty has been on the agenda of some
EU Member states for decades
different approach to address the issue
depending on the type of the welfare state
children’s well-being has been very often
perceived from an adult’s perspective, and
focusing primarily on policies aimed at:
 improving family income (paid work and
social transfers)
 reducing family costs (subsidizing child day
care, education, health care)
 ensuring inclusiveness (access to
educational system, safe neighborhoods,
child protection services, housing…)
Child poverty on the EU social
inclusion agenda

2001 - NAPs/inclusion 2001 low interest in child poverty

2004 - thematic study to analyze policies effective in
reducing child poverty (P. Hoelscher)

2006 (March) the European Council “to take necessary
measures to rapidly and significantly reduce child
poverty, giving all children equal opportunities, regardless
of their social background”

2006 (July) the Commission’s Communication “Towards
an EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child”, a
comprehensive EU strategy to promote and effectively
implement the rights of the child in internal and external
EU policies
“Towards an EU Strategy on
the Rights of the Child”

The Communication gives visibility and
puts emphasis on children’s rights as a
set of self-standing human rights that
merit specific actions (within a
framework of UN CRC)

reemphasis on children’s perspective on
well-being/ poverty/ social exclusion
(important, e.g. when defining child
poverty and well-being indicators)
Other developments
2006: The EU and Social Inclusion:
Facing the Challenges (Atkinson,
Marlier, Cantillon and Nolan) – child
mainstreaming
 2007: NAPs/Inclusion – focus on child
well-being….

Children in NAPs/ Inclusion
2006-2008 in V4 countries
commonalities and differences
(Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Czech
Republic)
Laeken indicator 1:
relative child poverty rate 2003/4. Source:
Eurostat 2007
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
no
dk
si
fi
cy
se
is
fr
cz
at
hr
be
lt
hu
lu
nl
lv
de
ee
gr
bg
ie
ro
uk
pl
pt
es
it
sk
tr
Laeken indicator 2:
% children 0-17 living in jobless
households 2006. Source: Eurostat 2007
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
lu gr si cy pt es
lt
it dk nl
fi
lv at cz ee mt hr fr
ro de pl ie sk be hu bg uk
Slovakia
Reduction of child poverty and
generational transmission of
poverty through supporting
families with children (an explicit
goal)
 Intervention areas:

Education
 Family (related) benefits
 Legal protection (children at risk)

Slovakia
Strong focus on education as the
prevention to intergenerational
transmission of poverty, however,
limited number of related measures,
focus on conditional benefits and
subsidies;
 Vague formulations related to
“preventing segregated
education…Roma children”

Slovakia

Family and child benefits:
Universal child benefit (a condition –
school attendance)
 Parental benefit (non-working and
working parents/ conditions for
entitlement)
 Tax bonus (working parents)


Legal protection and services - limited
number of measures
Hungary
Fight against child poverty (an
explicit goal in the NAP/Inclusion)
 Intervention areas:

Employment policy (ALMP)
 Education and child day care
 Welfare services
 Health protection/ prevention

Hungary


Promoting employment of parents (various
ALMP and incentives)
Prevention against the transmission of
poverty between generations
• Extending access to child-day care and pre-school
facilities (services)
• Improving quality of basic education (a new M&E
system)
• education for children with special needs and
focus on minority children (Roma)
• prevention against early drop outs,
Hungary
Indexation of family and child benefits
(reforms in 2006, no radical changes
envisaged)
 Strengthening welfare services (legal
framework, access and quality)
 Health protection of children and the
youth (improve and access and focus
on 0-3 years old)

Poland


Support for families with children (demographic
argument rather than the rights of the child)
Intervention areas:
 Integrated social services for families with children (at
a local level)
 Social housing (at a local level)
 Food support (local level)
 Equal access to education (children from rural areas)
 Access to child care services (local level)
 Flexible working schemes for parents
Czech Republic
Strengthen family cohesion and
awareness of intergenerational
solidarity and the rights of the child
 Intervention areas:

Family welfare services
 Education (focus on integration of
disadvantaged children – minority,
disabled)

Summary and challenges


Differences in focus: children (HU) vs.
families (SK, CZ, POL)
Differences in strategies:


focus on individual activation and financial
incentives for parents and children/ students
(SK)
Focus on development of (public) social,
health and education services (POL, CZ,
HU)
• Access and coverage (POL, CZ, HU)
• Quality (HU)
Summary and challenges: differences
in areas of intervention (matrix)
benefits
and cash
incentives
LMP Social
services
education housing
SK
X
X
HU
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CZ
POL
X
health
X
Legal
protecti
on
X
X
X
X
X
Summary and challenges


Differences in targets and indicators
Various degree of involvement and capacity
of research/ Academia/ NGOs in formulation
of policies and measures



Involvement of research and Academia
(POL, HU)
Involvement of NGOs (CZ)
No/limited involvement of neither research or
NGOs (SK)
Summary and challenges
Lack of children’s views/ perceptions
on poverty and social exclusion (all
countries)
 Increased recognition of children’s
rights as a framework for shaping the
measures and policies, however need
for more awareness raising
