ChildONEurope SeminarCurrent EU Framework for addressing child poverty and well-beingJulie Bélanger, Research Leader26 November 2015

2

European policy context• Barcelona targets (2002)• Europe 2020 headline target (2010): Lifting 20 million people

out of poverty and social exclusion by 2020– European platform against poverty and social

exclusion (one of seven flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 Strategy)

• Commission Recommendation (2013) - Investing in Children: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage

• European Platform on Investing in Children (EPIC) – RAND Europe (2013)– EPIC is a tool that helps Member States

implement the Recommendation.

3

Evolution of share of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion (0-17) between 2008 and 2013 (AROPE means below 60% of median income + severe material deprivation)

•

4

We need to address problems specific to children and youth• 27% of children (aged 0-17) in the EU-27

were at risk of poverty or social exclusion compared to 20% of old (aged 65+)

• Family benefit expenditure across the EU-27 is raising slightly despite government cuts

• Youth (aged 15-24) unemployment rate is more than twice as high as the adult rate – over 20% against 9%

• Of early school leavers, about 55% are inactive across the EU-27

Photo by PictureYouth via Flickr. Used in accordance with Creative Commons License CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

5

Main trends in child poverty• Crisis has led to an increase in the child AROPE , in

several MS it is >30%!• Not having a job is main reason for being poor• Poverty is highest for children of lone parents, migrant

and Roma children and for children in large families (i.e. more than 3)

• Work disincentives for lone parents and second earners on low income (due to cost of childcare and articulation with benefits)

• Cost of childcare are important barrier • Significant social gradient registered for those children

under 2 attending ECEC services

6

Drivers… …level of child poverty

Countries Tentative diagnosis

Impact of social transfers is high Low share of children in jobless households Low risk of poverty of children whose parents are working

Low risk of child poverty

DK AT SI

FI SE

(CY)

Lowest rates of child poverty thanks to a good balance between income support, labour market conditions and services that facilitate labour market participation of both parents.

Impact of social transfers is relatively high Relatively high share of children in jobless households Low risk of poverty of children whose parents are working

Low to Medium risk

of child poverty

CZ NL

BE

DE FR

(LT EE)

Low to above average rates of child poverty thanks to a good income support, but the share of children living in jobless households is high.

Impact of social transfers is high High share of children in jobless households Relatively lower risk of poverty Average level of in-work poverty

High risk of child poverty

(low poverty

gap)

IE UK

HU

Average child poverty rates. The high impact of social transfers is mitigated by disincentives to work and lack of adequate and affordable child care for some categories of parents (e.g. lone parents)

Low impact of social transfers in reducing child poverty. Limited share of children in jobless households Very high risk of poverty of children whose parents are working

Very high risk of child

poverty

(high poverty gap)

PL LV

RO BG SK

PT IT

EL ES MT

Highest rates of child poverty due to insufficient support for families, both in and out of work, in terms of income and services and poor access to quality jobs, especially for second earners.

7

Focus must be on young children: The earlier you start the better

8

Formal childcare servicesTypes• Preschools• Day care centres• Registered

childminders/nannies

Opportunities• Vital for child development

and well-being• Essential step towards equal

opportunities in employment between women and men

Challenges• Availability• Affordability• Flexibility• Quality of care

9

What are the EU targets for formal childcare provision?Barcelona targets for formal childcare provision (2002):

• At least 33% of children under 3 years of age

• At least 90% of children between 3 years old and mandatory school age

A decade after the targets were set, there are still large differences in childcare

coverage across Europe

10

A typology of the progression towards the Barcelona targets

11Denmark Sweden

Luxembourg Belgium

Netherlands France

Slovenia Portugal

Spain United Kingdom

Ireland Germany

Finland EU

Cyprus Latvia

Estonia Italy

Malta Austria Greece

Lithuania Bulgaria Croatia

Hungary Romania

Poland Slovakia

Czech Republic

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

From 1 to 29 hours30 hours and overBarcelona Target

Source: Eurostat 2013 data

Children under 3 years of age in formal care

12Belgium France

Slovenia GermanyPortugal

Cyprus Latvia

Lithuania United Kingdom

Croatia

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

From 1 to 29 hours30 hours and overBarcelona Target

Source: Eurostat 2013 data

Children from 3 years of age in formal care

13Note: Where the partner earns the average wage (AW) and the female partner earns 50 per cent of the average wage.SOURCE: Based on Mills et al. (2013, 16), OECD 2011.

Chi

ldca

re-r

elat

ed c

osts

and

ben

efits

, % o

f ave

rage

wag

eAffordability of care as an

obstacle

14

RAND Europe report recommendations• Recommendations on

stepping up efforts in order to meet the Barcelona target

• Recommendations on indicators to measure the realisation of targets

• Moving beyond the Barcelona targets

15

2013 RecommendationInvesting in children – Breaking the cycle of disadvantage

Acce

ss to

ade

quat

e re

sour

ce • Support parents’ participation in the labour market

• Provide for adequate living standards through a combination of benefits

Acce

ss to

qua

lity

& a

fford

able

serv

ices • Investing in early childhood education and care

• Education systems • Universal right to

health care• Safe, adequate

housing and living environment

• Enhance family support and the quality of alternative care settings

Child

ren’

s rig

ht to

par

ticip

ate • Promote children’s

participation in decision making that affects their lives

• Support the participation of all children in play, recreation, sport and cultural activities

16

European Platform for Investing in Children (EPIC)

• Follows from the EC’s recommendation on ‘Investing in Children- Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage’

• An EU evidence-based platform that aims to collect evidence on child focused policies and practices• In addition to a dedicated website as a knowledge bank (http://europa.eu/epic/), EPIC brings EU and government representatives together in thematic seminars

17

Policy objectives of EPICSupport parents’ participation in the labour market

Invest in early childhood education and care

Provide for adequate living standards through a combination of benefits

Enhance family support and the quality of alternative care settings

Support children’s right to participate in play, culture and decisionmaking

18

‘Practices that Work’ section

Two registries that complement each other

User Registry

Capturing a variety of interesting and

innovative practices

Sharing relevant experiences with

users and stakeholders

Evidence Based

Practices

Practices where evidence of

effectiveness is available

19

20

21

Thank you for your attention!

belanger@rand.org

@belanger_edu

http://europa.eu/epic