Los hijos del umbral de la pobreza (la niñez indigente en los países ricos) (Parte II) (página 3)

(5) Strengthen the "inclusive growth" elements of the Europe 2020 Strategy, in particular the strategy"s flagship initiative "European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion" which identies child poverty as an issue of concern for Member States. As child poverty continues to increase at a greater rate than poverty amongst other groups, it is important that a sub-target for child poverty is set within the European Platform Against Poverty"s overarching target of reducing poverty and social exclusion by 20 million by 2020. The targeting of poverty-related issues in the annual Country Specific Recommendations adopted by the European Council should be expanded to focus on reducing child and family poverty. Progress towards implementing these recommendations should be monitored. Key mechanisms supporting the social inclusion policies of the Europe 2020 Strategy including the Social Protection/Inclusion Open Method of Co-ordination should be renewed and significantly strengthened.

(6) Give greater visibility to children in poverty and their families in the EU"s Multi Annual Financial Framework (2014-2020) through the inclusion of comprehensive measures which can be traced and monitored, and by linking direct and indirect support to families facing poverty (eg. Multi-child families, single-parent households).

(7) Ensure the availability of more adequate and timely child poverty and social inclusion data at EU and Member State level. A comprehensive mix of quantitative and qualitative child poverty indicators, including at- risk- of child- poverty measures, and measures of material deprivation, should be agreed and standardized by the EU and its Member States. e data should be collected and published on an annual basis. e availability of this data will allow for evidence-based policy development by Member States and promote the most cost-effective use of their public resources. is data should also be used to assess the impact of the economic crisis and related austerity measures on the most vulnerable children and their families.

(8) Set annual targets for tackling child poverty as part of Member State"s National Reform Programmes. Member States should also be required to set specific sub-targets relating to child poverty in their National Reform Programmes in consultation with all of the relevant national and local authorities, as their contribution to the headline European poverty-reduction target. Progress towards achieving these child poverty reduction targets should be monitored in the evaluation of the implementation of the Member State"s National Reform Programmes (NRPs).

(9) Involve civil society in a partnership approach to tackling child poverty. the EU and its member states should promote a genuine involvement of civil society in the preparation, planning, monitoring, implementation and evaluation of child poverty-related programmes and initiatives. Effective partnership principles should be developed between the Commission, Member States and civil society, and should become mandatory. In particular, partnership contracts between the European Commission and Member States should prescribe a clear role for civil society.

(10) Enhance mutual exchange and learning in order to promote more effective approaches to tackling child poverty at EU and Member State level. Caritas Europa supports the establishment of an appropriate structure at EU level to foster the scaling up, transfer and dissemination of best practices in relation to tackling child and family poverty and promoting child well-being. This would assist in capturing the richness of knowledge and practice that exists at Member State level in relation to addressing child poverty.

Informe Investing in children – Breaking the cycle of Disadvantage – A study of national policies – European Commission – 2014

1. Summary, conclusions and recommendations

1.1. Summary

1.1.1. Assessment of overall approach and governance

Member States with a high (31-35%) (UK, LT, ES, HR, IT, IE, EL) or very high (40-52%) (LV, HU, RO, BG) proportion of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion face the biggest challenges in reforming their overall approach and strengthening their governance arrangements in line with the Commission Recommendation on investing in children. However, even the Member States with a low (15-21%) (FI, DK, SI, NL, DE, CZ, SE, AT) or medium (22-30%) (EE, FR, BE, LU, SK, CY, PT, PL, MT) proportion of children at risk have areas in which improvements could be made.

The Commission Recommendation stresses the importance of countries having a comprehensive set of policies and integrated multi-dimensional strategies, a children"s rights approach which leads to effective mainstreaming of children"s policies and rights, an effective balance between universal and more targeted policies, the involvement of stakeholders (including children themselves) and an evidence-based approach to policy making. The importance of protecting children from the crisis is also stressed.

Integrated multi-dimensional strategies

The Commission Recommendation puts significant emphasis on developing integrated and multi-dimensional strategies (at both national and sub national levels) to promote the well-being of children and to combat child poverty and social exclusion. From the experts" reports, one can begin to identify six key elements which can help to ensure such an approach at both national and sub-national levels:

••Include the fight against child poverty and social exclusion and the promotion of child well-being in the objectives of all the relevant government departments and agencies;

••Put in place cross-governmental coordinating arrangements (at national and sub-national levels) for the development, implementation and monitoring of strategies to promote the well-being of children and to reduce child poverty and social exclusion. In doing this, ensure that integrated approaches at national level are translated into integrated approaches at regional and local level and that there are effective arrangements to ensure synergies between national and sub-national policies for children;

••Collect and analyse relevant data documenting the situation of children and identifying key areas requiring policy attention, and use these results to set one or more clear evidence-based overall (quantified) objective(s);

••Underpin the overall objective(s) with objectives relating to specific policy domains, to the most vulnerable groups and also to processes;

••Identify actions and implement work programmes to achieve each objective;

••Monitor and report regularly on progress.

In general, the countries with the lowest rate of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion already have a fairly comprehensive set of policies in place that help to prevent child poverty and social exclusion. However, an integrated and multi-dimensional approach to the needs of children is more evident in four countries (FI, DK, SI, SE) whereas in the other four (NL, DE, CZ, AT) an integrated approach is less developed and could be strengthened.

In the case of medium risk countries, most also have a fairly wide range of policies in place to promote the well-being of children that cover most areas outlined in the Commission Recommendation. Some (e.g. BE, EE, FR, MT) are taking important steps to increase their efforts. However, in some countries (e.g. LU, CY, FR, PL, PT) the approach is rather piecemeal and ought to be better integrated. Finally, in SK the expert considers that a more comprehensive, integrated and multi-dimensional approach is urgently needed.

Among the high risk countries, several (e.g. ES, HR, IE, IT, UK) have quite developed policies in favour of children but often these are not sufficiently well coordinated and there are weaknesses in implementation. For some, achieving an appropriate balance between national and sub-national levels and effective integration at local level is a particular challenge. There are two countries (LT, EL) in this grouping whose approaches are particularly weak and disjointed and fall a long way short of a comprehensive, integrated and multi-dimensional approach.

One of the countries where there is a very high rate of child poverty or social exclusion (HU) has given a fairly high priority to child poverty. However, significant improvements are still needed in the implementation and coordination of policies. The other very high risk countries (LV, RO, BG) fall far short of the type of multi-dimensional and integrated approach recommended in the Commission Recommendation.

Children"s rights and mainstreaming

A children"s rights approach and an effective mainstreaming of children"s policies and rights are most evident in countries with low rates of child poverty and social exclusion levels. Two of the medium risk countries (CY, EE) also have a fairly strong children"s rights focus which takes into account key social inclusion issues such as housing, education and the integration of migrants. However, in five of the medium risk countries (BE, LU, PL, PT, SK), although they recognize children"s rights, in practice they do not sufficiently inform the making and delivery of policies for children. Similarly, while most of the high risk countries give clear recognition to children"s rights in legislation, there is frequently a significant problem in implementing and applying a rights perspective to policy making. However, there is one positive exception (HR), where there is a strong policy framework for promoting children"s rights which is reflected in legislation, institutional coherence and strategic frameworks. Just as with the high risk countries, in the very high risk countries, while they have laid a clear foundation of children"s rights on which to build, their actual impact on policy making has been limited.

Universal versus targeted policies

The majority of countries with low child poverty or social exclusion rates generally seem to have fairly universal policies for all children (SE, DK, FI, NL, AT). Others of this group of countries (DE, CZ) have somewhat more mixed approaches with a greater emphasis on supplementing universal policies with more targeted ones. Several experts in low risk countries, while in favour of predominantly universal systems, do consider that some additional targeting of most disadvantaged groups or areas could be useful. A predominantly universal approach is also found in two of the medium risk countries (LU, FR). Several of this group of countries (BE, EE, MT) favour an approach that is essentially "progressive universalism" with overall measures that are designed to benefit all children complemented with supplementary initiatives to provide extra support for certain (vulnerable) sub-groups. In two of the medium risk group of countries (CY, PT), there has been a move to more targeting and more successful universal approaches are put at risk.

In most of the countries with a high rate of child poverty or social exclusion the balance between universal and targeted policies seems problematic and establishing an effective approach of progressive universalism remains to be achieved. In some countries (e.g. EL, HR, IT, UK), in part as a response to the economic crisis, there has been a move away from universal programmes. The problem of achieving an effective balance between universal and targeted policies is even more evident amongst the very high risk countries, especially since the economic crisis.

Involvement of stakeholders

While the involvement of relevant stakeholders is fairly widespread amongst the countries with low or medium levels of child poverty or social exclusion, efforts to support the involvement of children are quite limited. Belgium and Malta are highlighted for their good practice in stakeholder involvement and some other countries (e.g. CY, PL, SK) are noted for having made improvements in this respect. Amongst the countries with high and very high levels of child poverty or social exclusion, the picture often tends to be more negative. Several experts are particularly critical at the low level of consultation (e.g. EL, HR, IE, HU, RO, UK). However, there are more positive developments in some countries (e.g. ES, LV).

Evidence-based policy making

In most of the countries with low levels of child poverty or social exclusion, evidence-based policy making is quite well established and in some (e.g. DE, DK and CZ) it is gaining in importance. However, even in countries with low levels of child poverty or social exclusion there is room for improvement, particularly in the area of using impact assessments. Several of the countries with medium levels of child poverty or social exclusion (e.g. EE, LU, PL) also have quite a strong emphasis on evidence-based policy development and have developed quite effective systems of monitoring though ex ante impact assessment is often quite limited. However, in some instances (e.g. CY, MT, SK) experts argue that evidence-based policy making needs further development. A few of the countries with high levels of child poverty or social exclusion (ES, UK) have a fairly strong tradition of evidence-based policy making and monitor child related policies, even if not sufficiently or are making improvements in this regard (e.g. IE). However, evidence-based policy making is weak in several countries in this group (e.g. EL, HR). This leads several experts to recommend improvements in data collection and analysis. In the countries with very high levels of child poverty or social exclusion, evidence-based policy making is weak and needs to be significantly developed. However, improvements are being made in Hungary.

Protecting children from the crisis

Most of the countries with a low rate of child poverty or social exclusion have largely sustained investment in children and families during the crisis and have made efforts to ensure that children are protected from the impact of the crisis. Nonetheless, several have had difficulties in maintaining the quality of services at local level. Also, in many medium risk countries (CY, EE, FR, LU, PL, SK) efforts have been made to protect children and families and some have introduced measures to mitigate the impact of austerity measures. However, the picture is less positive in Portugal where there is no evidence of policies introduced as a response to the effects of the current crisis on children. Most experts (EL, ES, HR, IT, UK) in countries with a high rate of child poverty or social exclusion are very critical of the failure to protect children sufficiently from the impact of the crisis. The impact of the crisis in countries with a very high rate of child poverty or social exclusion has been uniformly negative and measures to protect children have been inadequate.

1.1.2. Parents" participation in the labour market

Policies to support parents" participation in the labour market, especially those at a distance from the labour market and in households at particular risk are crucial in ensuring access to adequate resources and reducing child poverty and social exclusion. In several countries, the high number of children living in "very low work intensity households" or, put differently, "(quasi-)jobless households" is an especial challenge. Across the EU, the share of children living in these households is 9% but there is a significant variation across countries ranging from 3% in Slovenia to 26% in Ireland.

In the countries that experience relatively high levels of (quasi-)joblessness, it is clear that there is a combination of challenges that need to be addressed by Member States if they are to successfully increase parents" participation in the labour market. They need to ensure that work pays for parents, to support and encourage parents" employability, to ensure adequate and affordable provision of early childhood education and care (ECEC) and to develop policies which promote work-life balance.

Make work pay for parents

Most of the countries with low levels of (quasi-)joblessness (with Romania as the sole exception) and several with medium levels (FR, SK, EL, PT, MT, LT) have given significant attention to policies to make work pay for parents and avoid inactivity traps. However, in some of these countries (e.g. IT, PT, RO) there is a real problem of low pay that doesn"t lift families out of poverty which needs to be prioritized.

In many of the countries with high (SE, LV, ES, BE) or very high (HR, HU, UK, BG, IE) levels of (quasi-)joblessness, making work pay for parents is much more frequently identified by experts as a key issue that needs to be better addressed.

Increasing employability

Most Member States with low and medium levels of (quasi-)joblessness give significant attention to increasing the employability and participation of parents, especially single parents and second earners in paid work, and support their reintegration after parental leave. However, some experts (e.g. EL, LT, RO) identify significant weaknesses in provisions. Also, many experts identify areas for improvement such as focusing more on women from a migration background and better targeting active labour market policies at lone parents, women with small children, parents from a disadvantaged background or rural areas and seasonal workers.

Most experts from countries with high or very high levels of (quasi-)joblessness identify serious limitations in existing policies to increase employability of parents in the labour market. However, there are a few countries in this group (e.g. BE, IE) who are taking important measures to increase support to parents, especially single parents, to work. Many experts recommend a range of improvements that are needed in active labour market measures in order to increase employability. These include: better targeting of and more outreach of programmes to single parents or (quasi-)jobless couples (especially larger families) and to parents (particularly women) from disadvantaged and, especially, migrant or ethnic minority backgrounds; increasing opportunities for parents to participate in subsidized employment or training programmes; developing more tailor-made assistance for parents from disadvantaged backgrounds and developing more support and back up services; improving access to information about programmes.

Early childhood education and care (ECEC)

The provision of high quality and affordable ECEC is a key element in investing in children both because it plays a key role in children"s development and well-being and because it helps to increase parents access to employment and thus to an adequate income. Most countries with low and medium levels of (quasi-)joblessness are quite successful in ensuring effective access to affordable, quality early childhood education and care and adapting the design and eligibility of services to increasingly diverse working patterns and supporting parents in their job search, though in Romania ECEC provision is particularly weak according to the expert. Several experts (e.g. AT, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FR, IT, LU, NL, PL, RO, SK, SI) note some areas where improvements are needed. These include addressing significant regional differences in provision, increasing accessibility and affordability, giving more focus to provision for children up to 3 years, improving quality, better targeting of poorer families and children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds and more remote and rural areas, and taking more account of diverse working patterns.

The provision of ECEC is particular weak in most of the countries with high and very high levels of (quasi-)joblessness. In many, there is a shortage of provision and often affordability is an issue. Particular problems can arise in more marginalized communities and especially in isolated rural areas and marginalized Roma communities. Belgium is somewhat of an exception in this group of countries as access to childcare is improving. Several experts (e.g. BE, BG, HU, HR, IE, SE, UK) make recommendations for improving provision of ECEC. These cover improving the affordability, availability and/or quality of ECEC, as well as better targeting of children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds and/or from more remote and rural areas of provision.

Work life balance

Most of the low and medium risk countries have policies which promote quality, inclusive employment and a working environment that enables parents to balance their work and parenting roles on an equal footing. However, several experts identify areas for improvement. These include: making the system of family allowances more flexible, extending mandatory paternity leave, improving tax incentives for employment in favour of dual-earner families, developing more flexible working arrangements for parents and promoting more gender equality in the labour market and in the care of children.

Many of the countries with high levels of (quasi-)joblessness need to do much more to promote a better work-life balance. However, Belgium is again an exception in this group in taking some significant positive initiatives. Amongst the improvements suggested by experts are labour market reforms which acknowledge the importance of balancing home caring and work including paid parental and paternal leave, more flexible work contracts, more flexibility in working routines of institutions of early childhood education and more support for single parents.

1.1.3. Income support

The Commission Recommendation emphasizes that policies which provide adequate living standards through an optimal combination of cash and in kind benefits is the other key strand of policies necessary to ensure that children have access to adequate resources. Most of the countries with a low rate of child poverty or social exclusion provide fairly adequate, coherent and efficient benefits (including through an adequate balance of universal and targeted schemes, by avoiding inactivity traps, by reflecting the evolution of household types and ensuring redistribution across income groups). However, some of the experts from these countries (e.g. CZ, DE, NL, SE) recommend improvements. These include doing more to support single parent and larger families, moving away from focusing on the legal status of families to focusing on actual needs of families, providing more help to people with debt problems, increasing unemployment benefit levels so as to narrow the gap between labour market insiders and outsiders and their children.

Some of the experts from countries with medium levels of child poverty or social exclusion (e.g. BE, PL, PT, SK) are quite critical of the lack of attention given or the approach taken to changing their income support systems. There are, however, some countries in this group, whose experts consider having quite extensive and redistributive systems (e.g. FR, LU). Several experts make suggestions for improvements. These range from: adopting an approach of progressive universalism to child benefits to better balance security for all families and effectiveness in preventing child poverty; consolidating payments at current levels during the economic crisis; giving more focus to vulnerable groups and to ensuring adequacy of benefits.

The inadequacy of benefit systems to sufficiently protect children against poverty or social exclusion is a key feature of many of the countries with high or very high rates of child poverty or social exclusion (e.g. BG, EL, ES, HR, IT, LT, LV, RO, UK) and, in many instances, systems have deteriorated as a result of cut backs and restrictions during the crisis. As a result, many experts make recommendations for improvements in the adequacy and availability of income support systems. These include: prioritizing single parent and large households, children with a disability, at risk groups such as children from a Roma or migrant background; better linking income support for families with children with quality child protection and family support services; and better taking into account energy costs.

In-kind benefits

In most low and medium risk countries, the balance between in-kind and income support is not a significant issue. However, in some countries (e.g. LU) there is an increased tendency to complement cash income support schemes with relevant in-kind benefits. The importance of and (in some cases) the need to increase the provision of in-kind benefits to complement but not as a substitute for adequate cash benefits is more frequently referred to by experts from the countries with high and very high levels of child poverty and social exclusion (e.g. ES, HU, RO).

Avoiding stigmatization and low take-up

In most of the countries with low and many with medium levels of child poverty or social exclusion, stigmatization and low take-up is not identified as a priority issue, though two (BE, CZ) are identified as needing to do more to increase take-up. In some of the high and very high risk countries more needs to be done to reach out to families with children in poverty black-spots and marginal communities so as to overcome stigmatization and low take-up.

1.1.4. Access to affordable services

The issue of access to affordable quality services is especially challenging for the group of countries with a very high rate of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion and for some of those countries with a high rate. A few have taken some positive steps (e.g. BG, IE) but often these fall short of what is necessary or are accompanied by cutbacks in other services for children. Indeed, in many of these countries services have been cut back due to the financial crisis and this has particularly affected children. Most of the low and medium risk countries provide good quality and affordable services for children though several experts note some overall issues that need to be addressed. Slovakia lags someway behind the other medium risk countries.

There are a number of cross-cutting challenges in relation to the provision and delivery of services that are identified by experts. These include: increasing investment in services, addressing uncertainty with a long-term perspective, tackling regional and rural disparities, better targeting and outreach to those most at risk, increasing awareness of diversity and intercultural differences, improving coordination and integration of services and better linking of social services and income support, increasing involvement of stakeholders and listening to children, and improving the quality of services.

Education

The Commission Recommendation stresses the important role that can be played by education systems in breaking the cycle of disadvantage (in particular, by addressing additional barriers such as costs, fostering desegregation, providing personalized support). However, in most of the countries with very high rates of child poverty or social exclusion much more needs to be done to break the cycle of educational disadvantage and it is also an important challenge in some of the countries with high rates. Most of the countries with low and medium levels of child poverty or social exclusion have well developed education systems for most children. However, several experts note some urgent challenges that need to be addressed.

Among the areas prioritized by experts for priority action are addressing stratification, social and ethnic segregation and uneven quality, redressing the negative impact of cutbacks in education budgets on children from poor backgrounds, giving more focused attention to disadvantaged groups (such as children from a migrant background, Roma children or children with a disability), addressing regional disparities and tackling early school leaving.

Health systems

The Commission Recommendation stresses the importance of ensuring the responsiveness of health systems to address the needs of disadvantaged children (in particular, by ensuring universal access to healthcare, addressing barriers such as costs or cultural barriers, and by enhancing prevention). However, in the countries with very high levels of child poverty or social exclusion lack of access to adequate health care for children from disadvantaged backgrounds -such as Roma children or children from rural/remote communities and/or poverty enclaves- is identified as a key issue. Generally, the issue of health care is not so critical in the high risk countries. However, several experts in these countries (EL, HR) prioritize this as an area for improvement. Amongst the low and medium risk countries the health services are generally good for most children. However, in some countries (e.g. SI) their accessibility and responsiveness to the needs of children from disadvantaged backgrounds needs further focus.

Recommendations made by experts in this area include increasing overall investment in health care systems, reducing costs, increasing access for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, improving outreach, addressing regional disparities and better targeting of the most disadvantaged areas.

Housing and living environment

The Commission Recommendation stresses the importance of providing children with an adequate housing and living environment (in particular, by providing families at risk of homelessness with affordable, quality housing). However, in several of the countries with a very high or high rate of child poverty or social exclusion (e.g. HU, IE, LV, RO) issues in relation to housing (especially social housing) and the living environment are a major challenge. Several experts (e.g. ES, HU, IE, IT, UK) also highlight the growing problem of homelessness.

Housing issues are not such a significant challenge for most of the countries with low and medium levels of child poverty and social exclusion. However, some experts here (BE, CZ, DK, PT, SI, SK) do prioritize a number challenges.

Examples of experts" recommendations for action in this area include: increasing the provision of social housing especially for young families, lone-parent families and disadvantaged groups; reducing social segregation; reducing housing costs; assisting people with housing indebtedness.

Family support and alternative care

The Commission Recommendation emphasizes the importance of family support services and high quality of alternative care and, in particular, the importance of strengthening prevention and making sure children in alternative care have access to quality services and are supported in their transition to adulthood. However, in most of the countries with a very high and some with a high rate of child poverty or social exclusion significant improvements are still needed in family support and alternative care and, in particular, in de-institutionalization and several experts prioritize recommendations in this area (e.g. BG, HR, HU, LT, LV). Support for children and families is generally quite well developed in most of the low and medium risk countries. However, here too, some experts (e.g. BE, DK, EE, FR, LU, MT, PT, NL) prioritize the need for further improvements.

Key areas for improvement emphasized by experts include developing local social services and child protection services, putting more focus on de-institutionalization and care in the community and enhancing the outreach capacity of services.

1.1.5. Addressing child poverty and social exclusion in the European Semester

National Reform Programmes (NRPs)

Amongst the countries with low levels of child poverty or social exclusion, these issues are not specifically addressed in several NRPs (DE, FI, NL, SI, SE) though several cover the improvement of educational opportunities. However, three countries cover them to some extent (AT, CZ, DK). Amongst countries with medium levels of child poverty or social exclusion only a few (BE, MT, PL) give a high priority in their NRPs to child poverty and social exclusion. On the other hand, several of this group of countries (CY, EE, FR, LU, SK) do not make tackling child poverty and social exclusion a priority issue but do include some measures that will contribute to tackling them.

Amongst countries with high levels of child poverty or social exclusion, several (EL, ES, LT) give these issues quite a high, if not sufficient, priority. However, coverage is quite limited in three (IE, IT, UK). The countries with very high levels of child poverty or social exclusion (BG, HU, LV, RO) do cover these issues to some extent in their NRPs. However, they tend to do so in too limited and piecemeal a way.

Integrating the Recommendation into the European Semester

The experts" reports include a range of suggestions for encouraging Member States to integrate the Recommendation into national policies and especially into future NRPs. At EU level, experts" recommendations cover: compulsory reporting in NRPs, enhanced use of Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs), setting an EU child poverty or social exclusion target, applying social impact assessments in programme countries and establishing guidelines for greater participation by children and the organizations working with them in the European Semester process. Their recommendations at national (and sub-national) level include setting national targets, developing more comprehensive and integrated coverage of children"s policies in NRPs, making greater use of social impact assessments, improving reporting and monitoring, better targeting of children at most risk and better linking employment and economic policies with social inclusion of children. Several also suggest specific policy areas that should receive more attention in the NRPs.

A number of experts identify barriers to getting child poverty addressed in the NRPs. These cover four main areas: lack of political commitment, lack of financial resources, the fact that the NRPs are primarily seen as being about fiscal correction and economic growth, and compartmentalization and the lack of capacity in policy making.

1.1.6. Mobilizing relevant EU financial instruments

The experts assessed the extent to which Member States have made appropriate use of EU financial instruments (in particular, the European Social Fund [ESF] and other structural funds, the European Fund for Aid to the Most Deprived, European School Milk and Fruit Schemes) to support relevant priorities intervention. Generally, they find that Structural Funds are of greater importance in countries with high and very high rates of child poverty or social exclusion than in those with low or medium rates, with a few exceptions. Amongst most of the countries with low levels of child poverty or social exclusion the Structural Funds have only played a fairly small role in addressing these issues. However, EU funds play a very important role in two of the low risk countries (CZ, SI). Amongst many countries with medium levels of child poverty or social exclusion (e.g. BE, CY, FR, LU) the Structural Funds are not particularly focused on the social inclusion of children, though several do focus on improving transitions from school to work, improving employment of parents and participate in the European school milk and fruit schemes. EU funds play a bigger role in five of the medium risk countries (EE, MT, PL, PT, SK).

Most countries with high or very high levels of child poverty or social exclusion (e.g. EL, ES, HR, HU, IE, LV) make considerable use of EU funds, particularly ESF, to promote social inclusion of children. In this group, there are some countries (BG, IT, LT, RO, UK) where the use of EU funds has been quite limited, which is often due to a general problem of low absorption capacity.

Suggestions for the upcoming programming period

Experts make a range of suggestions for improving support for projects investing in children. Essentially, these fall into two categories: improvements in approach and governance and suggestions for actions in specific policy areas. There are seven main areas in which experts make suggestions for improvements in approach and governance that should help to increase the investment of EU funds in promoting the social inclusion and well-being of children. These are: making childhood and social inclusion a priority in the use of EU funds; better targeting of funds at most disadvantaged children and families; better analysis and diagnosis leading to a more strategic approach to using EU funds; development of more integrated approaches; better vertical-horizontal coordination; greater stakeholder involvement; and improved monitoring.

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

1.1.7. Key country priorities according to national experts

The final section of the report contains a country by country summary of what the national experts consider are the key priorities in each Member State in order to implement the Commission Recommendation.

1.2. Conclusions and recommendations

1.2.1. Conclusions

This synthesis of the experts" reports highlights that implementation of the Commission Recommendation on investing in children represents a much greater challenge for some countries than others. Overall, those Member States with high levels of child poverty or social exclusion tend to face the biggest challenge both in terms of adapting their overall approach and governance arrangements and in investing in more effective policies. However, there are improvements to be made in all countries.

It is encouraging that those countries that perform best in promoting the social inclusion and well-being of children tend to be those who already have in place many of the approaches advocated in the Recommendation. This shows that investing in effective strategies to promote the inclusion of all children leads to positive results. This should be an encouragement to all Member States to take seriously the implementation of the Recommendation. It also means that there are many examples of good practice in this area which can assist less advanced Member States in the development of their policies.

In many, but not all, countries children and their families have been disproportionately affected by the economic and financial crisis and by austerity measures developed in response to it. Too often, the impact of such measures on children has not been sufficiently, if at all, taken into account. Indeed, services for children and their families have often been cut back just when they are most needed. This is also particularly evident in the measures imposed on programme countries. This is a very short term approach and stands in stark contradiction to the philosophy of investing in children that underpins the Commission Recommendation. It means that increasingly children"s rights are put at risk as a result of the lack of access to adequate income, protection, services and support.

The experts" analysis reveals that, up to now, the integration of issues to do with promoting the social inclusion and well-being of children has received rather limited priority in most Member States" implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy. Even when some attention is devoted to these issues in some NRPs, the approach is often too narrow, focusing mainly on educational disadvantage and policies to support parents" participation in the labour market. A key to the successful implementation of the Recommendation will be encouraging Member States to take a much more comprehensive approach which also gives attention to income support issues and access to services.

One area that emerges quite strongly across the 28 Member States is the particular risks faced by children from an ethnic minority background, particularly Roma children, and children from a migration background. Also the situation of children with a disability is often highlighted. The risks for these groups have become even more severe with the economic crisis. Thus, in implementing the Recommendation particular attention will need to be paid to investing in their well-being.

One striking finding is the key role that is already played by EU Funds in supporting initiatives that benefit children in many of the countries facing the most severe levels of child poverty or social exclusion. However, in many cases it is clear that the Funds could be used more extensively and strategically in conjunction with national resources to make a lasting impact. Also, in some countries there are important challenges of capacity-building that need to be addressed, particularly in some of the most disadvantaged and remote areas, if the Funds are to be used to greatest effect in favour of the most disadvantaged children and their families. It is clear from this that, in the next Programming period, EU Funds can play a central role in helping to implement the Recommendation.

1.2.2. Recommendations

The individual country reports and chapter 7 of this report contain many recommendations as to what priorities countries should set in implementing the Recommendation. Many of these are reflected in the body of this report and we do not repeat them here. However, we would stress that they could provide a useful resource for discussions between the Commission and individual Member States on the implementation of the Recommendation. Here, in the light of our overall findings, we make a number of suggestions as to how the implementation of the Recommendation could be further supported at EU level.

Integrating the Recommendation into Europe 2020

If Member States are to give a high priority to the implementation of the Recommendation on investing in children, it is essential that it becomes, as is intended, a key component of the Europe 2020 governance cycle. To ensure this, we would suggest the following:

••the Annual Growth Survey should devote a specific section each year to assessing the situation in relation to child poverty and social exclusion. This would report on the implementation of the Recommendation and propose key priorities for the coming year;

••all Member States should be asked to include a specific section in their 2014 and future NRPs outlining their key priorities for implementing the Recommendation and reporting on progress;

••Member States, as part of their Europe 2020 social inclusion target(s), should be encouraged to consider setting specific sub-targets on child poverty and social exclusion;

••the Commission should make greater use of composite Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs) on child poverty and social exclusion, i.e. CSRs which would address several key issues at the same time and would cover all three strands of the Recommendation. These should be particularly focused on those countries with high or very high levels of child poverty or social exclusion and those showing significant negative trends;

••consideration should be given to setting an EU child poverty and social exclusion target as part of the overall Europe 2020 poverty and social exclusion target as this would demonstrate the political importance being given to the implementation of the Recommendation;

••implementation of the Recommendation should be regularly reviewed and reported on at the Annual Convention of the European Platform Against Poverty and Social Exclusion.

Promoting child well-being as a key part of the social dimension of EMU

If investing in children is to be mainstreamed at the heart of EU policy making, it must be fully taken into account not only in the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy but also in EU economic and monetary policy making and, in particular, in the development of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). To encourage this we suggest that:

••in line with the emphasis, in the Commission Communication of October 2013 on strengthening the social dimension of Economic and Monetary Union (COM(2013) 690), on reinforcing surveillance of employment and social challenges and strengthening policy coordination under the European Semester the issue of child poverty and social exclusion should be made a key part of that surveillance.

Putting child well-being at the heart of the Social Open Method of Coordination (OMC)

Given the key role that the Social Open Method of Coordination (OMC) should play in ensuring a strong social dimension to the Europe 2020 Strategy, it will be vital that the implementation of the Recommendation is made a core element of the Social OMC. To this end, we would suggest that:

••the Social Protection Committee (SPC) and the European Commission develop a multiannual work programme on preventing and tackling child poverty and social exclusion to follow up on and implement the Commission Recommendation and to institute regular reporting and monitoring on progress. The programme and reporting process could then be endorsed by the EU "Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs" (EPSCO) Council of Ministers;

••all Member States should be asked to elaborate in their National Social Reports (NSRs) on the policies and programmes they are developing to implement the Recommendation. This would elaborate on and underpin their reporting in their NRPs. These reports could then become the basis for a peer review process under the auspices of the SPC.

Child proofing austerity policies

Given that this report has highlighted the negative impact on children and their families of the financial and economic crisis and resulting austerity measures, it will be important to ensure that in future investing in children is put at the heart of responses to the crisis. Thus, we would suggest that:

••Member States should be encouraged to put the issue of child poverty and well-being at the heart of austerity policies and bail out packages and ex-ante social impact assessments should be used when developing and implementing relevant policies. For instance, in the case of programme countries the Troika (European Central Bank, International Monetary Fund and European Commission) could explicitly assess the potential impact of packages on children before these are agreed upon between the country and the Troika and before measures are adopted by the country concerned to implement the package. Ex-post child impact assessments should also be introduced to ensure that measures taken in this context have not resulted in increased child poverty, social exclusion or inequalities.

Enhancing evidence-based policy making and target setting

Given that this report has highlighted weaknesses in evidence-based policy making in several countries and given that this seems to be often linked to the lack of appropriate and timely data on the situation of children, there is a need to make further improvements in this regard at both national and EU levels. This will also be important in assisting Member States to set achievable and evidence-based social outcome targets and to carry out more systematically ex-ante policy impact assessments. Thus, we would suggest the following:

••Member States should be encouraged to: further improve the collection and timeliness of statistical data on children, make full use of the unique potential offered by administrative and register data, and to complement quantitative data with (more) qualitative data where needed, for example on the number and living conditions of children in institutions;

••at EU level, in order to deepen understanding of child poverty and social exclusion, greater use should be made of the child-specific material deprivation EU indicator suggested by Guio, Gordon and Marlier. It will also be important to develop indicators and collect data for measuring child well-being as well as child poverty and social exclusion in the EU;

••given the importance of taking into account the views of children, Member States should be encouraged to develop a survey of children. Recommendation 13 of the 2008 SPC report on Child poverty and well-being in the EU: current status and way forward provides a very useful way forward in this regard.

Strengthening children"s rights

In order to strengthen the children"s rights approach advocated in the Recommendation and in view of the finding that, in many countries, although children"s rights are recognised, they have little impact on the policy making process as it affects child poverty and social exclusion, more needs to be done to give practical expression to enforcing children"s rights in the policy areas outlined in the Recommendation. Thus, we would suggest that:

••the Commission and SPC should give careful consideration to how the implementation of the Recommendation and the reporting process associated with it can be brought into closer line with both the reporting processes that all Member States are required to follow in relation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the implementation of the Commission"s own EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child;

••the Commission and SPC should consider preparing guidelines for Member States on how a focus on children as rights" holders can in practice be used to inform the development of policies for the social inclusion of children.

Improving the balance between universal and targeted approaches

Given the finding of this report that in most of the countries with high or very high levels of child poverty or social exclusion the balance between universal and targeted policies seems problematic and establishing an effective approach of progressive universalism remains to be achieved, further efforts will be needed to help Member States to achieve a more successful balance. Also, as it appears that in some countries successful long-term universal policies are being put at risk as a result of austerity measures and an over-reliance on short-term targeted policies, the importance of long-term investment in all children needs to be constantly reiterated. Thus, in the light of these findings we would suggest that:

••the Commission should consider making the issue of progressive universalism a key theme in the exchange of learning and good practice as a means of highlighting positive examples in more successful Member States.

Enhancing the exchange of learning and good practice

It is clear from the experts" reports that there is a vast amount of good practice and experience in Member States on developing effective strategies and programmes to invest in children. Drawing on and sharing this reservoir of knowledge will be crucial in helping Member States to implement the Recommendation. Reports such as those prepared by the experts and this synthesis report are valuable resources in this regard. The Commission has already taken important steps to support the implementation of the Recommendation through enhanced exchange and learning with initiatives such as the European Platform for Investing in Children (EPIC). In addition, we would suggest the following:

••the Commission should ensure that the Knowledge Bank that was announced as part of the Social Investment Package (SIP) gives a high priority to issues of child poverty and social exclusion and develops close links with the EPIC;

••the Commission should ask the future European Social Policy Network to report regularly on progress in Member States on the implementation of the Commission Recommendation and, in doing so, to identify interesting examples of effective policies that countries could learn from;

••the Commission, in its monitoring of the situation of child poverty and social exclusion, could usefully identify "clusters" of Member States facing similar child poverty and social exclusion challenges which could then be used as a basis for enhanced mutual learning (including Peer Reviews).

Reinforcing stakeholder participation

Given the finding in this report that there has been limited involvement in many Member States of children or the organizations that work with them in the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy it will be very important, if the implementation of the Recommendation is to be effectively mainstreamed into the Europe 2020 cycle in future, that this changes. To progress this, we would suggest that:

••the Commission and SPC, drawing on existing examples of good practice, should develop guidelines for the involvement of stakeholders including people experiencing poverty in the development, monitoring and implementation of strategies and policies to prevent and tackle poverty and social exclusion. These guidelines should include a specific section on involving relevant organizations working with children and children themselves. They would then become a basis for monitoring Member States" progress in the context of the implementation of both the European Commission Recommendation on investing in children and the social (inclusion) dimension of Europe 2020.

Maximizing the use of EU Funds for children

This report has clearly demonstrated the critical role that can be played by EU Funds in the implementation of the Recommendation. It is encouraging that the Commission is already putting significant emphasis in the next programming period on the use of Structural Funds to support social inclusion measures. However, to ensure that these are used to full effect for the well-being of children we would suggest the following:

••the Commission should challenge Member States, particularly those with high or very high poverty or social exclusion rates, to make the social inclusion of children a programming priority in the use of EU funds in the next programming period and it should stress the need to target funds at most disadvantaged children and families;

••the Commission should encourage Member States to use Structural Funds in a strategic manner as part of an overall strategy to tackle child poverty and social exclusion and to promote child well-being…

2. Assessment of overall approach and governance

2.6. Protection from the crisis

The impact of the crisis across the EU has been particularly severe on children in some countries. For the EU as a whole, the proportion of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion has risen by 1.5% between 2008 and 2012 compared to 1% for the population over 18. However, the increase in child poverty has been severer in some countries than others, and several Member States have experienced particularly large rises (e.g. BG +8.1 percentage points (pp), LV +7.6pp, HU +7.5pp, EL +6.7pp, CY +6.0pp). To a significant extent, this reflects the varying effectiveness of measures taken by Member States to protect children.

2.6.1. Low risk countries

Most of the low risk countries have largely sustained investment in children and families during the crisis and have made efforts to ensure that children are protected from the impact of the crisis. However, several have had difficulties in maintaining the quality of services at local level.

In Sweden, so far, the crisis has had a limited impact and there have not been any crisis driven retrenchments. However, in Finland it is clear that the extensive responsibility of local authorities makes it difficult to ensure an even service standard across the country and in the current economic situation the local authorities are really struggling to ensure the children"s services across the country. The challenge of ensuring a consistent approach across local authorities is also evident in Denmark. In the Netherlands, in response to the negative effects of the crisis on children at risk of poverty, the national government has provided municipalities and voluntary organizations with extra money for policy on poverty. The State Secretary for Social Affairs and Employment strongly advises municipalities to invest in the participation of children and to identify debt problems at an early stage in order to prevent problems from multiplying. She said that children must be able to develop and explore their potential and fully participate in society.

2.6.2. Medium risk countries

In many medium risk countries (CY, EE, FR, LU, PL, SK), efforts have been made to protect children and families and some have also introduced measures to mitigate the impact of austerity measures. For instance, Cyprus introduced a new single parent benefit in 2012 which is paid on top of existing social benefits. In Estonia, the child allowance system reform of July 2013 might have been induced by the need to solve the problem of poverty of families with many children and of single parents, which sharply arose at various levels of Estonian community in 2012 and which to a large extent is a consequence of the economic crisis. In France, there has been a 25% increase over 5 years of the "Allocation de Soutine Parental" (parent support allowance). However, the French expert considers that the resources allocated to support measures programmed in the multi-year plan may not be sufficient given the need to reduce the budget deficit. In Poland children seem not to have suffered from the crisis. Child poverty actually decreased, and some child policy measures show improvement: increase of the income thresholds for means-tested benefits, prolonged maternity leave, and development of kindergartens. Likewise, in Slovakia family policy has not been negatively influenced by crisis. Investment in children and families to protect from the impact of crisis has been sustained. Child benefits and parental allowances have been regularly indexed. However, minimum income benefits and allowances to the basic benefit have not been indexed since 2009 and this affects many households with children. Malta was not affected extensively by the international crisis and social benefits were not impacted at all; indeed in some areas welfare benefits were increased. As such no special policies were devised to protect children, except of course in so far as the protection of jobs, to which a lot of attention was given during the crisis. However, the picture is less positive in Portugal where there is no evidence of policies introduced as a response to the effects of the current crisis on children, thus failing to address the Recommendation"s horizontal principle regarding the need for a sustained investment in children and families.

2.6.3. High risk countries

Most experts (EL, ES, HR, IT, UK) in high risk countries are very critical of the failure to protect children sufficiently from the impact of the crisis. For instance, in Croatia just as general social inclusion concerns have not been at the forefront of responses to the crisis, issues of the impacts of the crisis on children have barely been considered even though there is some evidence that both the crisis itself and some of the macro-economic and fiscal measures taken in response may have had a significant negative impact on child well-being. In Greece, the need for sustained investment in children and families has been left completely aside by the Government"s current plans in this policy area and no visibility of action is there to changing this situation in the near future. Signs are rather in the opposite direction. In Italy, since 2008 a significant reduction in financial resources has influenced all national funds relevant to the well-being of children. The Spanish expert insists that cuts in social expenditure affecting children in terms of both benefits and services must be stopped in order to reduce child poverty rates and promote the welfare of children and their families. Only in this way can the targets of the NRP 2013 and the II PENIA 2013-2016 have any hope of making an impact. In the United Kingdom recent austerity measures and benefit reforms have had the biggest impact on those with children, especially on low incomes.15 The Children"s Commissioner for England has undertaken a detailed evaluation of the impact of the austerity measures on children, and concluded that: "The analysis of the tax, benefit and tax credit systems has shown that successive policies have led to families with children losing a greater share of their income than those without children. It is also of great concern that some of the most vulnerable families with children are losing proportionally the most!.

2.6.4. Very high risk countries

The impact of the crisis in very high risk countries has been uniformly negative and measures to protect children have been inadequate. For instance, in Hungary the response to the crisis with regard to its impact on children is weak and not universal. The only universal measure affecting some children positively was the introduction of the flat rate tax system with child tax allowance. But in case of those families with parents already without work or losing their jobs, all measures introduced had a negative effect (cut back on social provisions, unemployment benefit, new public work scheme etc.). This is reflected in the worsening of child poverty indices. In Latvia, fiscal consolidation measures undertaken by the government during the economic crisis have had a direct negative impact on child poverty as well as further aggravated the situation of children and families with children. Thus, policy planning must move from the formal social impact assessment to the actual social impact assessment. The given impact assessment should serve as the basis for the implemented policy measures that would ensure a sustained investment in children and families. In Romania the response to the economic crisis was an increase in fiscal austerity, complemented by an emergency response with redefining targeted benefits (for example, the recent introduction of heating aids for electric energy users) to occurring circumstances. The effects on children have been dramatic; while monetary poverty did not increase dramatically (at least for children under 6 years), material deprivation and lack of access to basic services, and especially preventive ones, did increase. The social costs of these deteriorations already started to become evident and keep increasing the costs of any future policy…

3. Access to adequate resources

Annex 1: Key figures on child poverty and social exclusion and child well-being

The social and economic future of the EU depends to a great degree on its capacity to fight child poverty and social exclusion and improve child well-being. Yet, as can be seen from Figure A1, children (defined here as persons below the age of 18) are more confronted to the "risk of poverty or social exclusion" than the overall population. Only in five Member States are children less at risk than the total population (Denmark, Slovenia, Finland, Germany and Estonia; differences between -3.7 and -1 percentage points [pp]). In Lithuania, Cyprus and Greece, both rates are very close (differences between .06pp and +0.8pp). In as many as 13 countries, the difference is at least +3pp and is above +7pp in the UK (+7.1pp), Malta (+7.5pp), Hungary (+8.5pp) and Romania (+10.5pp). At EU-28 level, the difference is +3.3pp, with 28.1% children at risk of poverty or social exclusion versus 24.8% for the whole population.

In terms of numbers, these percentages mean that in 2012 123.1 million people in the EU- 27 (124.5 if we add Croatia, which joined the EU in 2013) are at risk of poverty or social exclusion and that 26.2 (26.5) million of these are children. Put differently, one fifth of all people at risk of poverty or social exclusion in the EU are children. By far, the largest group of AROPE children are children who live in a household whose income is below the poverty risk threshold: 19.5 million AROPE children are in this situation at EU-27 level; 11.0 million are severely deprived and 8.4 million live in (quasi-)jobless households. The sum of these three figures is higher than 26.2 million because a number of AROPE children combine two or even all three difficulties: indeed, out of ten children at risk of poverty or social exclusion, four are in this situation and one out of these four live in households that are income poor, severely deprived and are (quasi-)jobless.

Figure A3a shows the trend that will be needed at EU level if the target is to be achieved (the years on the graph are the survey years, i.e. the 2010-2020 trend is from 2008 data to 2018 data). This graph also provides the numbers for the (survey) year preceding the adoption of Europe 2020 which is the first year for which data are available for all 27 EU countries.

The Europe 2020 Strategy currently does not include an EU social inclusion target in relation to the specific situation of children even if a number of EU Member States have adopted children targets at the national level. Yet, it is worth looking at the agreed EU social inclusion target from a child perspective. This is what Figure A3b does by replicating Figure A3a and assuming that exactly the same effort would be made for children – i.e., a decrease of 17.2% of the number of AROPE children over the period 2010-2020 (2008-2018 survey data) which means going from 25.2 million down to 20.9 million. Of course, because of the urgent need to invest more in children and also because children are largely overrepresented in the AROPE group, this strictly proportional effort should not be considered sufficient. However, this trend already provides a useful starting basis for reflecting on the implementation of the European Commission Recommendation. An important lesson that can be drawn from both Figures A3a and A3b is the significant increase in the number of AROPE people (including children) since the EU social inclusion target was agreed upon in 2010.

The situation is particularly alarming for children, with 19 Member States having statistically significant increases in the proportion of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion between 2008 and 2012. In seven countries, these increases are in the range of 6-8pp: BG (8.1pp), IE26 and HU (7.5pp), LV (7.3pp), EL (6.7pp), MT (6.2pp), CY (6pp). Only three Member States recorded significant decreases in the proportion of children at risk: DE (1.7pp), PT (1.7pp) and PL (3.6pp).

Better measuring child deprivation

The main limitations of the material deprivation indicators currently used at EU level are the small number (nine) of items on which they are based and the weak reliability of some of these items. This is a primary reason why a thematic module on material deprivation was included in the 2009 wave of EU-SILC. A second important reason for this is the need to respond to the willingness of EU countries and the European Commission to complement the current set of EU social protection and social inclusion indicators with additional measures reflecting the situation of children; therefore, the 2009 material deprivation module includes specific children"s items.

A report assessing the 2009 EU-SILC material deprivation data was produced in 2012 by a team of researchers participating in the EU-funded "Second Network for the analysis of EU-SILC (Net-SILC2)" (Guio et al., 2012 , Op.Cit.). This report proposes an analytical framework for developing robust EU material deprivation indicators for the whole population as well as for children.

An important outcome of this report is a proposal for a new EU material deprivation indicator related to children (aged 1-15) consisting of 13 child-specific deprivation items (1) and five household deprivation items (2). The choice of complementing children deprivation items with relevant household deprivation items was motivated by the aim of the proposed indicator, namely to measure and compare the living standards of children in different households (and different countries) which makes it necessary to consider both deprivations that solely affect children and also deprivations affecting the households in which children live and that are likely to impact on their living conditions. This approach has to be interpreted from a holistic and life-cycle point of view, which takes account not only of deprivations directly impacting on immediate children"s standard well-being but also of deprivations which may have an indirect or future impact on their well-being.

Figure B1 provides the distribution of national material deprivation rates calculated on the basis of this indicator with a threshold set at three deprivations (out of 18). National proportions of deprived children vary hugely across EU countries, from 3-7% in Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Finland and Luxembourg to more than 70% in Bulgaria and Romania. The EU average is 21%.

(1) Child-specific items are: Some new clothes (enforced lack [i.e. lacks due to insufficient resources and not to choices or lifestyle preferences]); two pairs of shoes (enforced lack); fresh fruits and vegetables daily (enforced lack); meat, chicken, fish daily (enforced lack); suitable books (enforced lack); outdoor leisure equipment (enforced lack); indoor games (enforced lack); place to do homework; leisure activities (enforced lack); celebrations (enforced lack); invite friends (enforced lack); school trips (enforced lack); holiday (enforced lack).

(2) Household items are: Replace worn-out furniture (enforced lack); computer and Internet (enforced lack); arrears; home adequately warm; car (enforced lack). (The latter three items are part of the current EU material deprivation indicator.)

Informe Pobreza infantil y exclusión social en Europa – Una cuestión de derechos Save the Children – 2014

Resumen Ejecutivo

Cerca de 27 millones de niños y niñas en Europa están en riesgo de pobreza o exclusión social y la actual crisis económica, financiera y social está incrementando aún más ese riesgo. Aunque la estrategia de Europa 2020 para un crecimiento inteligente, sostenible e inclusivo aspira a sacar al menos a 20 millones de personas del riesgo de pobreza y exclusión social para 2020, en este momento Europa se está alejando del cumplimiento de este objetivo.

En todos los países europeos, incluyendo los tradicionalmente igualitarios estados del bienestar nórdicos, hay niños y niñas que viven en situación de pobreza. En los 28 Estados miembros de la Unión Europea (UE) el 28% de las personas menores de18 años está en riesgo de pobreza y exclusión social. En muchos países, la brecha entre los ricos y los pobres se está haciendo cada vez mayor.

Los ingresos de los hogares, tanto en términos de salario como de prestaciones sociales, es uno de los principales determinantes de si un niño vive en la pobreza. Sin embargo, la pobreza no es solo la falta de dinero. La pobreza es pluridimensional y una de las causas fundamentales de las violaciones de los derechos de los niños en Europa. La pobreza está asociada a la exclusión social y a la falta de acceso a servicios como la atención a la infancia, una educación de alta calidad y una vivienda adecuada. En el caso de los niños y niñas, la pobreza incluye no poder participar en las mismas actividades sociales y culturales que los demás niños de su edad.

La desigualdad no es solo la causa profunda de la pobreza, sino que también es una de sus consecuencias. Los niños nacidos en regiones o barrios económica y socialmente desfavorecidos, los niños con discapacidades o aquellos que proceden de minorías o de familias inmigrantes tienen más probabilidades de comenzar sus vidas en situación de desventaja. Los efectos de la pobreza y la exclusión sobre los niños y las niñas no son a corto plazo, sino que, al contrario, pueden durar toda la vida y tener continuidad en generaciones futuras.

Por estas razones, Save the Children considera que la pobreza y la exclusión social infantil deberían ser abordadas desde un enfoque de derechos de la infancia. Esto permitiría afrontar todos los aspectos del impacto que tiene la pobreza sobre los niños y las niñas, y haría posible que éstos fueran parte activa en la identificación de las soluciones.

Nuestra investigación partía de la búsqueda de las causas profundas y los efectos de la pobreza y la exclusión social infantil y encontró que los factores con más influencia sobre la pobreza infantil son las intervenciones redistributivas de los estados y el empleo (salarios y condiciones laborales). Los países europeos con una desigualdad alta en las condiciones de empleo y con sistemas de transferencia social incapaces de redistribuir la riqueza para beneficiar a los niños más desfavorecidos, tienen las tasas más altas de pobreza y de exclusión social infantil.

La igualdad en el acceso a un cuidado infantil asequible y a una educación gratuita y de alta calidad es esencial para garantizar la igualdad de oportunidades y romper el ciclo de la pobreza.

Sin embargo, menos de la mitad de los países europeos han alcanzado el objetivo marcado en 2002: facilitar una atención infantil a, al menos, un tercio de todos los niños y niñas menores de tres años en 2010. En toda Europa, el 13% de los niños abandonan la escuela después del primer nivel de secundaria y no están en programas de formación u otros programas de educación. Esta cifra alcanza el 25% en algunos países.

Una vivienda inadecuada y prohibitiva en precio es otro aspecto relevante de la pobreza y la exclusión. En la UE, alrededor de un 11% de los niños viven en hogares que destinan más del 40% de los ingresos disponibles en gastos de la vivienda. En algunos países incluso sobrepasa el 30%. Hay muchos niños (el 17% en toda Europa) que viven en casas con goteras en el techo, humedades en el suelo o marcos de ventanas podridos.

La pobreza y la exclusión social infantil son una cuestión de derechos de los niños y las niñas y deberían abordarse a través de un enfoque de derechos. Según la Convención de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) sobre los Derechos del Niño, firmada y ratificada por cada uno de los países europeos, todos los niños y las niñas tienen derecho a desarrollar completamente su potencial social, emocional, cognitivo y físico, independientemente de las circunstancias de sus familias. Estos derechos incluyen el derecho a un nivel de vida adecuado, a servicios como educación y salud, a ser protegidos, a participar, al tiempo libre, al juego y a la cultura.

Sin embargo, la pobreza y la exclusión social impiden que los niños y las niñas de Europa disfruten de esos derechos, y limitan sus oportunidades de adquirir las habilidades y capacidades que les posibilitarían salir de la pobreza. La recesión económica está erosionando aún más esos derechos.

El 20 de febrero de 2013, la Comisión Europea (CE) adoptó su Recomendación sobre pobreza y bienestar infantil, Invertir en la infancia: romper el ciclo de las desventajas como parte de su Paquete de Inversión Social. La Recomendación es una herramienta fundamental para, y contribuye a combatir la pobreza infantil en Europa, y para ello coloca en el centro de los esfuerzos -y esto es crucial- los derechos de los niños, el interés superior del niño, la igualdad de oportunidades y el apoyo a los más desfavorecidos.

Save the Children insta a todos los Estados de la UE a implementar la Recomendación y a la CE a crear un seguimiento anual y un proceso de evaluación para medir dicha implementación. También instamos a todos los países europeos, a las instituciones de la UE y a quienes diseñan las políticas a que desarrollen estrategias y planes que aspiren a reducir la pobreza infantil desde una perspectiva de derechos de la infancia, con un enfoque transversal y paneuropeo. Invertir en la infancia debería ser un principio fiscal a nivel europeo, nacional, regional y local.

Instamos a la Comisión Europea a que desarrolle indicadores de amplio espectro para medir la pobreza y la desigualdad infantil junto con los Estados miembros de la UE, con el fin de comprometerse a objetivos concretos de reducción de la pobreza infantil dentro de las prioridades de política estratégica de la UE post- 2020.

Niños y niñas en riesgo de pobreza o exclusión social

La pobreza en Europa no tiene pasaporte. En todos los países europeos hay niños y niñas que viven en situación de pobreza, pero, como muestra el Gráfico 1 (en la siguiente página), el porcentaje de niños en riesgo de pobreza o exclusión social varía sustancialmente de país a país, dependiendo de su trayectoria histórica y socio-económica. En los países nórdicos (Noruega, Suecia, Dinamarca, Finlandia e Islandia) y Eslovenia, Holanda, Alemania, Suiza y la República Checa, entre el 12 y el 19% de los niños viven en riesgo de pobreza o exclusión social. En Grecia, Hungría y Letonia la cifra asciende hasta el 35-41%; y en Rumanía y Bulgaria se sitúa por encima de la mitad de los niños, un 52%.

Tendemos a asumir que los niños que más riesgo sufren de caer en una situación de pobreza o exclusión social son aquellos que viven en países con PIB más bajos. Pero esta percepción no siempre coincide con la realidad. Países miembros del G8, como Italia y Francia, con un PIB per cápita de entre 24.000-29.000€, tienen entre una quinta y una tercera parte de sus niños en riesgo de pobreza o exclusión social. En Irlanda, que tiene uno de los PIB per cápita más altos de Europa (alrededor de 33.000€), el 34% de los niños están en riesgo de pobreza o exclusión social.

La riqueza de un país no beneficia automáticamente a los más desfavorecidos de la sociedad, salvo que se (re)distribuya a través de los ingresos por trabajo o transferencias sociales (subsidios y planes directos e indirectos para los niños y las familias). La pobreza infantil está estrechamente relacionada con un apoyo económico insuficiente del sistema de bienestar, junto con las pobres condiciones laborales de los padres (en términos tanto de tiempo empleado como de niveles salariales).

Participación en el mercado de trabajo

El nivel de empleo de los padres desempeña un papel fundamental a la hora de determinar el nivel de pobreza infantil de un hogar. Participar en el mercado de trabajo y obtener unos ingresos mínimos y suficientes es esencial para garantizar unos ingresos adecuados en el hogar. Además, el empleo "aumenta la autoestima de los padres, incrementando su autonomía e independencia.

También puede contribuir al bienestar de los niños y las niñas, no solo porque refuerza la situación material del hogar, sino también porque ayuda a estabilizar la rutina de la familia, fortalece la ética del trabajo y proporciona estabilidad a la vida de los niños".

En Europa se están observando riesgos de pobreza mayores entre los niños que viven en hogares con una intensidad laboral muy baja (por debajo del 20% del potencial de los padres), comparados con aquellos con alta intensidad laboral (55-85%). La diferencia agregada en la cuota de niños en riesgo de pobreza entre los hogares con alta y baja intensidad laboral para los miembros de la UE 28 es de 56,7% (Gráfico 2). Se excluyen Noruega, Islandia y Suiza. Esto significa que los hijos e hijas de padres con muy baja intensidad laboral tienen un 56,7% más de probabilidades de estar en riesgo de pobreza o exclusión social que aquellos cuyos padres trabajan con intensidad.

¡Bienvenida clase media! (así decía un cartel en una "villa miseria" de Buenos Aires)

Si los norteamericanos o los europeos manejaran la ironía y el sarcasmo como lo hacen los argentinos, ese mismo cartel (escrito en inglés, francés, italiano, griego, portugués o español, y hasta en holandés o alemán –no se puede negar la evidencia-), podría "lucir" en muchas zonas poco privilegiadas de esos, países "supuestamente" avanzados, ahora, "irremisiblemente", en vías de subdesarrollo. Les propongo otro, más acorde con las nuevas tecnologías y el cinismo conducente: "Se ofrece "chabola" con wifi".

Es lo que hay (un desordenado recorrido por la hemeroteca del esperpento)

Del "american dream" al "american nightmare"

– 36 Statistics Which Prove That The American Dream Is Turning Into An Absolute Nightmare For The Middle Class (Business Insider – 4/5/11)

The U.S. middle class is being shredded, ripped apart and systematically wiped out. If you doubt this, just check out the statistics below. The American Dream is being transformed into an absolute nightmare. Once upon a time, the rest of the world knew that most Americans were able to live a middle class lifestyle. Most American families had nice homes, most American families had a car or two, most American families had nice clothes, most American families had an overabundance of food and most American families could even look forward to sending their children to college if that is what the kids wanted to do. There was an implicit promise that this was the way that it was always going to be. Most of us grew up believing that if we worked really hard in school and that if we stayed out of trouble and that if we did everything that "the system" told us to do that there would be a place for us in the middle class too. Well, it turns out that "the system" is breaking down. There aren't enough good jobs for all of us anymore. In fact, there aren't very many crappy jobs either. Millions are out of work, millions have lost their homes and nearly all of the long-term economic trends just keep getting worse and worse. So is there any hope for the U.S. middle class?

No, there is not.

Unless fundamental changes are made economically, financially and politically, the long-term trends that are destroying the U.S. middle class will continue to do so.

The number of good jobs has been declining for a long time. The good jobs that have been lost are being replaced by a smaller number of low paying "service jobs".

Meanwhile, the cost of everything is going up. It is getting really hard for American families to be able to afford to put food on the table and to put gas in the tank. Health care costs are absolutely outrageous and college tuition is now out of reach for millions of American families.

Every single month more American families fall out of the middle class. Today there are 18 million more Americans on food stamps than there were just four years ago. More than one out of every five U.S. children is living in poverty. Things are getting really, really bad out there.

The following are 36 statistics which prove that the American Dream is turning into an absolute nightmare for the middle class…

#1 The competition for decent jobs in America has gotten absolutely insane. There have been reports of people actually getting down on their knees and begging for jobs. Many Americans are starting to wonder if they will ever get a decent job again. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average duration of unemployment in the United States is now an all-time record 39 weeks…

#2 According to the Wall Street Journal, there are 5.5 million Americans that are unemployed and yet are not receiving unemployment benefits.

#3 The number of "low income jobs" in the U.S. has risen steadily over the past 30 years and they now account for 41 percent of all jobs in the United States.

#4 Only 66.8% of American men had a job last year. That was the lowest level that has ever been recorded in all of U.S. history.

#5 Once upon a time, anyone could get hired at McDonald's. But today McDonald's turns away a higher percentage of applicants than Harvard does. Approximately 7 percent of all those that apply to get into Harvard are accepted. At a recent "National Hiring Day" held by McDonald's only about 6.2 percent of the one million Americans that applied for a job were hired.

#6 There are now about 7.25 million fewer jobs in America than when the recession began back in 2007.

#7 The United States has lost an average of about 50,000 manufacturing jobs per month since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.

#8 A New York post analysis has found that the rate of inflation in New York City has been about 14 percent over the past year.

#9 The average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States is now up to $ 3.91 a gallon.

#10 Over the past 12 months the average price of gasoline in the United States has gone up by about 30%.

#11 Spending on energy now accounts for more than 6 percent of all consumer spending. Every time this has happened since 1970 we have also had a recession that followed.

#12 The average American driver will spend somewhere around $ 750 more for gasoline in 2011. Unfortunately, it seems likely that the price of oil is going to go up even higher. Already the price of oil is closing in on the all-time record….

#13 In the United States, over 20 percent of all children are living in poverty. In the UK and in France that figure is well under 10 percent.

#14 According to the U.S. Census, the number of children living in poverty has gone up by about 2 million in just the past 2 years.

#15 The wealthiest 1% of all Americans now own more than a third of all the wealth in the United States.

#16 The poorest 50% collectively own just 2.5% of all the wealth in the United States.

#17 The wealthiest 1% of all Americans own over 50% of all the stocks and bonds.

#18 According to a new report from the AFL-CIO, the average CEO made 343 times more money than the average American did last year.

#19 In 1980, government transfer payments accounted for just 11.7% of all income. Today, government transfer payments account for 18.4% of all income.

#20 U.S. households are now receiving more income from the U.S. government than they are paying to the government in taxes.

#2159 percent of all Americans now receive money from the federal government in one form or another.

#22 The average cost of tuition, room and board at America's public universities is now $ 16,000 a year. For America's private universities, that figure is, $ 37,000 a year.

#23 The cost of college tuition in the United States has gone up by over 900 percent since 1978.

#24 Approximately two-thirds of all college students graduate with student loan debt.

#25 17 million college graduates are doing jobs that do not even require a college degree.

#26 According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, health care costs accounted for just 9.5% of all personal consumption back in 1980. Today they account for approximately 16.3%.