EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 24.3.2021 SWD(2021) 62 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Recommendation

establishing a European Child Guarantee







{COM(2021) 137 final}



INTRODUCTION “It is our collective shame that almost 25 million children under the age of 18 are at risk of poverty or social exclusion. Children living in poverty are more likely to become adults living in poverty. We need to break this dangerous cycle. We must do better. To support every child in need, I will create the European Child Guarantee” – President-elect Ursula von der Leyen in her political guidelines for the next European Commission 2019–2024. The Commission proposal for a Council recommendation establishing a European Child Guarantee stems from the European Pillar of Social Rights and supports a number of its principles . It is an important and concrete deliverable of the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan and will contribute to the ambitious target set herein to lift at least 5 million children in the European Union out of poverty or social exclusion. The initiative follows from the 2013 Commission Recommendation ‘Investing in Children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage’ and complements the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child 2021 - 2024, adopted alongside this proposal. Altogether, these initiatives form a strong package to support children and boost investment in future generations. Social exclusion is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon. Its key drivers are insufficient resources and poverty, but also lack of equal access to goods and services due to various forms of disadvantage, preventing full participation in the society . Breaking the intergenerational cycles of disadvantage starts with investment to reduce the gap in access to key services between children in need and their better-off peers. The objective of the proposal is to prevent and combat social exclusion of children by guaranteeing access of children in need to early childhood education and care, education (including school-based activities), healthcare, nutrition, and housing. It delivers on the commitment to enhance equal opportunities and leave no child behind. While most children in the EU already have access to these services, inclusive and truly universal access is vital for ensuring equal opportunities for all children, and in particular those who experience social exclusion either due to poverty or other forms of disadvantage. The European Child Guarantee targets ‘children in need’, which refers primarily to children at risk of poverty or social exclusion. Alongside poverty, other forms of disadvantage create barriers for inclusion and participation in the society. Thus, the proposal caters for the specific needs of: (i) homeless children or children experiencing severe housing deprivation; (ii) children with disabilities; (iii) children with a migrant background; (iv) children with a minority racial or ethnic background (particularly Roma); (v) children in alternative (especially institutional) care; and (vi) children in precarious family situations. The focus on children in need is meant to prevent them from remaining at risk of poverty or social exclusion as adults. Although the risk of poverty or social exclusion for children in the EU decreased between 2014 and 2019, nearly one in four children are still exposed. The impact of COVID-19 and its economic consequences are likely to be harsher on children from disadvantaged backgrounds or living in low-income households. Investing in children is vital for a sustainable, efficient and competitive knowledge economy and a fair society. Future growth prospects and the sustainability of social protection systems depend on today’s children. Public expenditure incurred to correct the consequences of childhood poverty throughout a person's life is significantly higher than necessary investments to improve their life chances by supporting them during childhood. Targeting children from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds holds the promise of breaking the intergenerational cycle of disadvantage by levelling the playing field in child development. The proposal for a European Child Guarantee is particularly relevant in the context of the socio-economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. This pandemic risks worsening inequalities, and puts additional pressure on the availability of services. For children already living in poverty, school closures often meant that, on top of missing education, they no longer had access to school meals. Home-schooling also highlighted the educational divide and the digital divide, including in rural and remote regions. Children with disabilities faced additional risks of exclusion or discrimination due to a lack of accessible content, platforms and specialised support. This proposal will help mitigate the negative effects of the pandemic: it will work towards closing the gaps in access to quality services, foster social inclusion, and promote equality of opportunity. This staff working document accompanies the Commission proposal for a Council recommendation establishing a European Child Guarantee. It: (i) presents the challenges addressed by the initiative; (ii) proposes the responses to these challenges; and (iii) discusses the likely impact of these responses. Stakeholders were consulted over the period July to November 2020 on the preparation of the proposal. The main results from this consultation – and the positions expressed in it – have been taken into account throughout the process. A summary of the stakeholder consultations is included in Annex C to this document. 1.THE SOCIAL CHALLENGES UNDERPINNING THE PROPOSAL The EU has some of the highest levels of social inclusion and cohesion in the world. However, it cannot be complacent about its child poverty problem. Children in the EU remain structurally more exposed to poverty – which is a key driver of social exclusion – than the rest of the population (Figure 1). Furthermore, the overall impact of various social benefits (not only family-related benefits or child-related benefits) on child poverty varies greatly among Member States. The strongest poverty-reduction impacts are observed in countries with low or medium levels of child poverty (e.g. Finland, Hungary, Denmark, Ireland, Poland, Germany, Austria and Slovenia, see Figure 2). Figure 2: Share of children at risk of income poverty (AROP) and impact of social transfers (other than pensions) in reducing child poverty, 2019

Note: Being at risk of poverty (AROP) denotes living in a household that has disposable income (i.e. income after taxes and social transfers) that adjusted for household size is below 60% of the median equivalised disposable income in given country. (*) 2018 data for impact of social transfers; (**) 2018 data for impact of social transfers and child AROP.

Source: European Commission, JAF

Greater investment in children holds the promise of breaking the cycle of intergenerational disadvantage and has a high multiplier effect. A key role in breaking this cycle is played by early childhood education and care (ECEC), education and healthcare systems. Everywhere in the EU, public schools provide tuition-free education at the primary and secondary level. Most Member States also provide at least a year of pre-school ECEC universally and free of charge. Free healthcare for children – both curative and preventive – is also widely available, thanks to which only 3% of EU children at risk of poverty report unmet medical needs. The EU and its Member States also make efforts to support healthy lifestyles and adequate nutrition for children. However, while social protection expenditure levels on family benefits have on average increased per capita since 2008, the divergence between Member States has also increased. Family expenditure per child as a proportion of GDP per capita slightly increased between the 2008 crisis and 2018. Nevertheless, expenditure levels since 2011 have diverged across Member States. In 2016, expenditure per child ranged from around 6% of GDP per capita in Ireland, the Netherlands, Greece and Malta to above 16% in Denmark, Luxembourg and Germany. The highest increases were registered in Poland, Italy, Bulgaria, Latvia and Croatia (more than 25%), while Ireland and Lithuania registered sharp decreases (of above 30%). Children from disadvantaged backgrounds (including those living in low income households) still have difficulties in accessing the services they need. For instance, even under a tuition-free education regime, schoolbooks, school transport, meals and additional school activities (i.e. recreation, sport and cultural) place a burden on family budgets. In 2016, in 15 Member States, at least half of all households considered those expenses as significant . Affordability of ECEC is also an issue. This is because parents on moderate incomes find costs of ECEC for youngest children to be very high in around one third of Member States. As for ECEC availability, the enrolment rates in most Member States are still below the target levels set in Barcelona. In several Member States, only some healthcare-related services for children are fully free of charge. In 2014, 4% of EU children lived in households that could not afford daily fruit and vegetables or sources of protein for all of their children. In six Member States, more than 10% of children experienced severe housing deprivation. Homelessness has increased in all Member States except Finland, and this is also affecting children. The COVID-19 pandemic is likely to have a negative impact on the situation of children living in disadvantaged households. Thanks to the bold and swift policy measures adopted both at Member State and EU level, the immediate employment and social effects of the pandemic have been mitigated. Nonetheless, the pandemic has increased socio-economic risks for people who were already vulnerable in the labour market, such as precarious workers, single parents, people with disabilities, people with a migrant background and people living in areas and households with limited or no digital connectivity, e.g. in rural or remote regions. Low-income and middle-income groups are at a higher risk of income loss, due to fewer telework possibilities andincreasing unemployment. Before the pandemic, the proportion of at-risk of poverty households with children that reported arrears on utility bills was approximately three times the average of the total population. Single-parent households were twice as likely as total population to have arrears, even if they were not at risk of poverty. The direct impact of COVID-19 on the educational achievements of young Europeans, and on their living and social environments, has also been significant. Although online learning has a lot of potential, it is more effective when children, teachers and schools are well prepared and equipped. This was not the case during the spring 2020 lockdown, when most teachers (67%) had to teach online for the first time. Both the financial resources of parents and their support are key for successful learning at home. For this reason, children from disadvantaged backgrounds are likely to experience, as result of the lockdown, a larger decline in learning outcomes than their more advantaged peers. 2.CHILDREN IN NEED The effects of social exclusion on children can last a lifetime and be carried on into future generations. Without the necessary support, children from disadvantaged backgrounds or low-income families are likely to experience the intergenerational transmission of disadvantage. This chapter examines the categories of children that face situations of disadvantage that would warrant extra support in access to key services. 2.1.Children at risk of poverty or social exclusion Low incomes and joblessness in households with children remain the key factors driving social exclusion of children. In order to monitor poverty and social exclusion, the Union has used the notion of being at risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE), which combines three different aspects of disadvantage: income poverty, severe material deprivation and living in a household with very low work intensity (see Figure 3 for details). Children at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (17.9 million overall in EU-27 in 2019) are a very diverse group. The risk of poverty or social exclusion for children (22.2% for EU-27) varies from 11.7% in Slovenia to 35.8% in Romania. The total number of children living in EU-27 at risk of income poverty (AROP) in 2019 was estimated at 14.9 million (18.5% of all children), around 930 000 fewer than the year before. The highest shares of children at risk of income poverty were recorded in Romania (30.8%), Bulgaria (27.5%), and Spain (27.4%), with lowest incidence reported in Finland, Denmark, Czechia and Slovenia (all close to 10%). In 2019, more than 4.5 million children (5.7%) across the EU-27 lived in households experiencing severe material deprivation (SMD). There are great differences between the Member States in SMD rates. For instance in Luxembourg, Sweden and Germany, fewer than 15% of all children at risk of poverty or social exclusion live in households experiencing SMD. In most Member States, about half of those experiencing SMD do not have an income below the poverty line. Very low work intensity (VLWI) poses a challenge principally as a driver of poverty and deprivation. This is because VLWI households with dependent children are significantly more likely to fall into poverty than VLWI households without dependent children (respectively 70.2% and 55.6% in the EU-27 in 2019). At the individual level, living for a long time in a household with very low work intensity can adversely affect child’s aspirations of finding a job, as their parents have a very weak link to employment. In 2019, some 1.2 million children lived in households with very low work intensity, but were neither income poor, nor severely materially deprived. Figure 3: Risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE) in 2019 for children. Intersections between its components

Source: EU SILC [ilc_pees01], extracted 2.12.2020. The depth and persistence of poverty seem to have remained higher among children than among the rest of the population over the last decade. The poverty gap in 2019 was slightly higher among children (25.4%) than among the rest of the population (24.3%), with the difference slowly declining over recent years. Furthermore, the persistence of poverty remains higher among children (14.1%) than among the rest of the population (10.8%) and neither the levels nor the difference with the rest of the population have significantly decreased over the last decade. This slow progress hampers equality of opportunities. Children from lower-income households fare worse throughout their lives, scoring lower on tests of cognitive skills in early childhood, being more likely to drop out of school and less likely to attain tertiary education. 2.2.Homeless children

Homelessness is an extreme manifestation of social exclusion. Even a short spell of homelessness can lead to persistent social exclusion, as well as to rapid deterioration in physical and mental health, in employability and in social skills. The homeless suffer from limited access to healthcare, social services and other services. They are also not always able to exercise their basic human and civil rights. The longer-term consequences of homelessness can be irreversible. More and more European families with children experience homelessness, even if these families usually manage to stay in temporary or insecure accommodation rather than being forced to sleep rough. The risk that young people leaving institutional care will become homeless is also greater because they are often forced to become self-sufficient at a much younger age than their peers growing up in a family home. Other groups of children who are especially at risk include: Roma children, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and undocumented or non-registered children. While data on children and family homelessness are scarce and often not comparable, the figures collected during the preparatory action for a child guarantee indicate that there were at least 90 000 homeless children in the EU-27 in 2018-2020. Homeless children can be divided into three sub-categories: (i) members of a homeless family (in some national contexts this category also includes families experiencing severe housing deprivation); (ii) survivors of domestic violence (who are often accompanied by other family members, usually mothers, and likely to stay in temporary shelter); and (iii) unaccompanied adolescents (this group includes runaway or throwaway youths, migrant children and children leaving in institutions). For victims of domestic violence, the main challenge is the sometimes alarmingly long periods that children spend in temporary shelters and accommodation. Such unstable living situations increase psychological stress and can lead children to dropping out of school, which negatively impacts their development and chances to succeed later in life. Falling out of the education system is an additional risk run by street children, runaway children and throwaway youth. Access to healthcare is also a challenge, due to missing documents, and a lack of awareness of the availability of healthcare. This lack of awareness is present among most of the homeless adolescents who migrated to the EU from non-EU countries. Unaccompanied homeless children are also at high risk of becoming victims of crime, such as trafficking in human beings. Vulnerable children and unaccompanied minors continue to be at higher risk of trafficking and exploitation along migration routes towards and within the EU. 2.3. Children with disabilities Children with disabilities face specific challenges in fighting social exclusion, and often struggle to have the same opportunities as their peers without disability. In most Member States, around 1% of children (aged 0-15) have a disability. The share of children experiencing less severe limitations varies across Member States. It ranges from less than 2% in Cyprus, Greece and Italy to more than 8% in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, and Finland, and 11.4% in Latvia. Access to inclusive, quality, accessible and mainstream education remains problematic for many children with disabilities. Evidence shows significant gaps between the educational outcomes of learners with disabilities and those without disabilities. Many learners with disabilities leave education and training early (19.9%), as compared to 9% for pupils without disabilities (figures for 2018). Statistics on inclusive education published by the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (EASNIE) indicate that the placement of children with an official decision of SEN (special educational need) in inclusive settings is far from being a generalised practice across Europe. In addition, mainstream schooling settings often lack an adequate degree of accessibility in relation to physical environment and information and communication technologies, which includes teaching and non-teaching material and online systems used for education. There is a general lack of teachers specialized in the provision of education for learners with disabilities and an overall low awareness among mainstream teachers of the diversified needs of children with disabilities and of the necessity to tackle them as much as possible within inclusive settings. Whole-school approaches implementing inclusive practices and creating a diversity-friendly school culture need to be encouraged across the EU, including through raising awareness of school leaders, whose crucial role was highlighted by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Children with disabilities placed in institutional care experience particularly difficult situations and they can find obstacles in accessing quality education and healthcare. Often these children are not included in statistics. In some countries, children with disabilities are cared for in boarding schools, creating a sort of “hidden” institutionalisation of children, as they do not appear in the official statistics of children in residential care. In addition, there is an over-representation of children with disabilities in alternative care. Stakeholders who participated in the targeted consultation assessed all the services to be covered by the child guarantee. They highlighted two of these services as the most difficult to access by children with disabilities: quality education and extracurricular activities. Moreover, exactly half of the interviewed experts assessed access to healthcare as being very difficult or rather difficult for children with disabilities. This is a high share, given that especially those with rare diseases are likely to need special health assistance. These children also need to receive adequate services in relation to rehabilitation and habilitation, which must be well coordinated with schooling. 2.4.Children with a migrant background Being a migrant or having a migrant background is by itself correlated with a lower income and thus a higher risk of poverty or social exclusion. It also poses additional challenges for children, among which stigmatisation, racism and lack of support networks are the most prominent. Overall, in the EU-27, more than 16 million children have parents who are non-EU nationals or parents who are EU citizens with migrant background. This number is the largest in Germany and France (more than 3 million each), followed by Italy and Spain (more than 1 million each), and then by the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and Austria. Altogether, the remaining 19 Member States host only 10% of EU-27 children with a migrant background. Language barriers are a major obstacle to quality participation of children with a migrant background in education. Schools also face a challenge in determining the educational level of newly arrived children who often do not have any school certificates. Being placed in classes either above or below one’s abilities can result in low self-esteem, frustration, and hamper social integration and good education outcomes. In addition, in most Member States, despite introduction of relevant policy responses, provision of healthcare to migrant children remains a challenge. According to the 2018 Programme in International Student Assessment (PISA) survey, in most surveyed countries, immigrant pupils tend to achieve below-average results in reading. In OECD countries where at least 5% of pupils had an immigrant background in 2018, the largest differences in reading performance between immigrant and non-immigrant pupils were observed in the EU Member States: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Sweden. In all of those countries, there was a reading gap of more than 60 PISA score points in favour of non-immigrant pupils. By contrast, in nine non-EU countries surveyed in 2018 PISA, immigrant pupils scored higher in reading than or at least at the same level as their native-born peers. According to PISA, in Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Portugal, and Malta, immigrant children were likely to attend schools with other immigrant children, what negatively impacted on their integration in the receiving society. Regardless of this concentration of immigrant pupils in some schools, in all EU Member States immigrant pupils are less satisfied with their lives and more likely to feel like outsiders in their school than non-immigrant children. Pupils born outside of the country where they reside are significantly more likely to leave school early than their native-born peers. Comparisons of the PISA reading scores of 15-year-old immigrant pupils with similar socio-economic backgrounds show that those who attended early childhood education and care (ECEC) consistently achieve higher scores. Across the EU, the educational advantage conferred by participation in ECEC is 6 months for the immigrant child and 18 months for the non-immigrant child. However, in only one Member State – Finland – are immigrant children more likely to attend ECEC than the non-immigrant children. Across the EU, the ECEC attendance rate of immigrant children is 4 pps lower than among natives (77% of all children in immigrant households vs 81% among children in native households). In Slovenia and France, children of immigrants are at least 10 pps less likely to attend ECEC than children of non-immigrants. On access to the various services, children with a migrant background are considered to face similar levels of difficulty as children at risk of poverty or social exclusion, even though they face specific obstacles, including a very high risk of stigmatisation and racism, and a lack of support networks and access to information. Decent housing and quality education are the most difficult to access, followed by ECEC. 2.5.Children with a minority racial or ethnic background Discrimination and prejudices against minorities still have a direct bearing on children with a minority racial or ethnic background in the EU. According to the reports of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, one in five survey respondents of African descent (21%) felt racially discriminated against in access to housing in the five years before the survey. The respondents reported highest incidence of housing discrimination in Italy and Austria (reported by 39% of survey respondents in each country), followed by Luxembourg (36%) and Germany (33%). The EU-MIDIS II survey explored also discriminatory practices in contact with school authorities, such as: (i) being prevented from enrolling a child in a school; (ii) being asked to take a child into another school; or (iii) the child being assigned to a class or track below their ability. Each of these situations were experienced by around 2% of the parents or guardians, with around 4% of all parents/guardians from ethnic/racial minorities reporting at least one of the three situations. The survey asked parents or guardians if their children experienced any racist treatment in school in the 12 months before the survey, including harassment, bullying, exclusion or violence. Overall, out of 1745 respondents of African descent (parents or guardians of a child, or children themselves), 18% indicated that they or their children experienced one or more of seven different types of racist harassment or violence. Parents in Finland (45%), Austria (42%) and Germany (41%) were most likely to report racist harassment and racial discrimination of their children at school.

The situation of Roma, who are the largest ethnic minority group in Europe , calls for special attention. Some Member States, specifically Romania and Bulgaria (but also Slovakia, Hungary, Czechia, and Croatia), face serious challenges of discrimination and exclusion of larger groups of Roma. In most Member States with sizeable Roma population, Roma children are at least twice as likely to experience income poverty as their non-Roma peers. Around 60% of Roma children live in severe material deprivation and 85% are at risk of poverty. As many as 78% of the Roma surveyed in nine Member States in 2016 and 48% of Roma and Travellers surveyed in other six Member States in 2019 lived in overcrowded households. The shares of people living in household without tap water inside the dwelling were respectively 30% (in the group of nine Member States) and 9% (in the group of six Member States). In areas with large Roma populations, it remains a challenge to ensure effective equal access to inclusive, desegregated, mainstream education and training as well as early childhood education and care for marginalised Roma children. In these areas, it is also a challenge to ensure additional targeted support in integrated diverse classrooms. Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, many Roma children from remote and marginalised communities have been at disadvantage due to their lack of internet access and IT equipment necessary to participate in distance learning. This has increased the risk of Roma children dropping out of school or falling behind in their education. The educational segregation of Roma children remains a challenge, with an increasing share of Roma children (44%) attending schools where ‘most or all schoolmates are Roma’. Among Roma children of compulsory schooling age across the EU, as many as 10% were not attending education in 2016. This share was as high as 31% in Greece and 23% in Romania. In the nine surveyed Member States, the share of early leavers from education and training was extremely high, ranging between 57% and 92% . 2.6.Children in alternative care Alternative care may take the form of: (i) informal care in a family environment by relatives other than parents; (ii) foster care; or (iii) institutional care. The data on the number of children in alternative care is incomplete and difficult to compare between Member States. The estimated numbers of children in institutional care across the EU differ substantially and range from at least 350 000 to approximately 1 000 000 children. The reasons why children are placed in alternative care arrangements are complex and multi-dimensional. These reasons can involve: (i) neglect and abuse; (ii) inadequate housing; (iii) single parenthood; (iv) lack of access to welfare; (v) lack of access to day-care and specialized services for children with disabilities; (vi) children's health condition; (vii) stigma and discrimination. Factors related to the parents, like their health status, economic situation or substance abuse can also play an important role. These factors can be exacerbated by economic precariousness, which can take a serious toll on parents' availability (e.g. due to extended working hours, multiple jobs) and their own emotional well-being. Out of all children in alternative care, those placed in residential institutions are most in need of measures supporting their social inclusion. Placing of children in institutional care should be used as last recourse only. The measures supporting social inclusion of children in alternative care should focus on enabling them to attend a mainstream school that would best suit their talents and interests. Equally important is support for the transition from institutional to quality family- or community- based alternative care or to independent living. This involves timely programmes (i.e. starting early before scheduled moment of leaving the institution), as well as effective access to social housing. Without such support, young people leaving institutions find themselves at risk of homelessness. In all Member States for which disaggregated data are available, some groups of children are over-represented in the alternative care system, and especially in institutional care. For example, having some form of disability or having a migrant or ethnic minority background increased the likelihood of being placed in institutional care. In Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania, where the share of Roma in total population is app. 10%, as many as 60% of children in institutions are of Roma origin. In Germany, almost half of the children in institutional care have at least one foreign-born parent. The increasing number of unaccompanied foreign minors arriving in the EU in recent years has led to a visible increase of the number of children in alternative care. The stakeholders consulted on a European Child Guarantee pointed to decent housing, quality education, and extracurricular activities as the services that were most difficult to access for children in institutional care or exiting it. On healthcare and early childhood education and care, children living in institutions are considered to have an easier access than other categories of children in need. This reflects the fact that both healthcare and early childhood education and care are often integrated within the institutional care setting. 2.7.Children in precarious family situations Social exclusion may also result from a precarious family situation. This refers to: (i) living in a single parent household; (ii) living with a parent with a disability; (iii) living in a household where there are mental health problems or long-term illness; (iv) living in a household where there is substance abuse, or domestic violence. In addition, (v) children whose parents have moved to another Member State and who themselves remained in their Member State of origin; (vi) children having a teenage mother or being a teenage mother; and (vii) children having an imprisoned parent are also considered to be in a precarious family situation. Living in a single-parent household increases the risk of suffering from child-specific deprivation or income poverty, but it is also a factor that influences other domains of life. Single-parent households are more vulnerable because they have less possibility to pool economic risks and sharing care responsibilities. They also face fixed costs (such as for housing, childcare, and healthcare) which generally represent a higher share of their resources than is the case for households with more than one adult. Single-parent households also face more difficulties in reconciling work and family life and are therefore more likely to opt for part-time employment or inactivity. Single-parent households also face more organisational (including time constraints) and emotional challenges than two-adult households. Women head majority of single-parent households in the EU, and tend to be disproportionately affected by poverty or social exclusion. According to a report of the European Association Working for Carers (Eurocarers), young people with a sick family member tend to have more mental health problems and more adverse outcomes in behavioural, psychosocial, and academic adjustment than their counterparts without a chronically ill family member. Those effects mainly manifest themselves in lower life satisfaction and internalised problem behaviour such as feeling depressed, being withdrawn, and anxiety. The adverse educational impacts concern mainly punctuality and attendance, as well as problems with home- and course- work. Difficulties with joining in extracurricular activities, low attainment, anxiety and fatigue were also reported. While no precise data exists on the number of young carers in Europe, Eurocarers research suggests that as many as 8 % of all children have caring responsibilities. In 2019, some 0.74% of all births across the EU-27 were given by mothers aged under 18 years. This share was significantly higher than the average in Bulgaria (4.75%), Romania (4.23%), Slovakia (2.27%), Hungary (1.96%) and Greece (1.18%). Teenage pregnancies have been habitually associated with perpetuation of precarious socio-economic status: teenagers who bear a child are less likely than their peers to complete secondary and tertiary education. This impacts on their lifetime earnings, as well as on the educational achievement of their children. Early child-bearing often leads to single parenthood and is thus associated with a higher degree of social instability, contributing to self-esteem issues and emotional problems for both mothers and children. The prevalence of domestic violence has been acknowledged and documented in recent decades. Violence against children in the family may take place in the context of discipline and in the form of physical, cruel or humiliating punishment. Physical violence is often accompanied by psychological violence. Children are considered as victims of domestic violence, even if it does not target them directly. Experiencing or witnessing domestic violence may generate in children attitudes that justify their own use of violence, and the perception that violence is acceptable, which may affect their behaviour in other interpersonal relationships. The drivers of domestic violence are many and include mental health problems and substance abuse, but also economic stress, such as experience of unemployment. Increase in domestic and intra-family violence is one of the side effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, observed throughout the world. Children who stayed in their country of origin as their parent(s) moved to work in another Member State also often find themselves in a precarious situation. Although findings confirm that the increase in income of households of the EU-mobile workers has a positive impact on children’s perceived health and nutritional status, the absence of parental care has a major bearing on their well-being, and can have an impact in the wider context through family disintegration, including child abandonment. According to estimates, as many as 25% of Bulgarian children had at least one parent working abroad . The data from the Romanian National Agency for the Protection of Children’s Rights and Adoptions (ANPDCA) indicate that in 2018 around 95 000 Romanian children (ca. 2.8%) had a parent working abroad. The children with imprisoned parents experience economic fragility, lower educational outcomes, worse health status and low self-esteem, stigma. Parental imprisonment is recognized as risk factor for child antisocial behaviour, offending, mental health problems, drug abuse, school failure, and future unemployment. 3.ACCESS TO KEY SERVICES BY CHILDREN IN NEED While social exclusion is multi-dimensional, it strongly correlates with the lack of access to key services, such as early childhood education and care, education, nutrition, and housing. While these services are in place, the evidence shows that access in particular for children in need is uneven across Member States. The drivers of unequal access to services are manifold and include: (i) lack of financial resources to cover for the costs of the services by parents or guardians; (ii) limited availability, particularly in rural, remote or disadvantaged areas; (iii) lack of adaptation of services, or personnel, to children with particular needs; (iv) lack of information on the available services; (v) administrative barriers; and (vi) risk of social stigma. Equal access to affordable and inclusive early childhood education and care and quality inclusive education is central to securing equal opportunities and ending the intergenerational transmission of social exclusion. However, education outcomes from both primary and secondary school are highly influenced by a child’s family background. Analysis of the correlation between the educational achievements of parents and those of children suggest that people from disadvantaged families still face considerable obstacles in realising their full potential at school and achieving better living standards.

Social exclusion of children often means that children from low-income families or experiencing other disadvantages cannot afford to take part in many of school-based activities that better-off children enjoy. This may include school trips, cultural or sports events, and similar activities taking place in the school environment. In addition to affordability constraints, children living in rural and remote areas, children with disabilities and children with a migrant background might have fewer opportunities to participate in these activities. This could be due to lack of proper infrastructure, poor accessibility, language barriers, or excessive costs. There still remain inequalities across Europe in children’s health outcomes and access to healthcare. Children living in poverty or experiencing other disadvantages have fewer opportunities and resources to benefit from disease prevention and health promotion programmes. There is also evidence that the socio-economic status of a child is a good predictor of their health as an adult: growing up in a disadvantaged environment can cause a long-lasting damage to health, which is not undone by upward social mobility. Lack of access to regular healthy nutrition can also heavily impair children’s health and the overall well-being. Even short-term deprivations can have permanent consequences for a child. A poor diet during early development in the first three years of life can lead to learning and memory deficits, lower school achievement, and behavioural problems in childhood and adolescence. Inadequate housing is yet another form of disadvantage. Both house-specific conditions (such as a lack of light, a lack of space to play, insufficient heating, or a leaking roof) and inadequate conditions in the broader environment (pollution, grime, insecurity, and a lack of access to green areas) can lead to ill-health, accidents, low educational outcomes, and a lack of general well-being. Living in inadequate housing increases the risk of perpetuating the intergenerational social exclusion cycle, with profound and long‐term effects on children’s life perspectives. The following chapter analyses in a greater detail the main challenges in ensuring children in need can access basic services. 3.1.Early childhood education and care (ECEC) Early childhood education and care (ECEC) refers to any regulated arrangement that provides education and care for children from birth to compulsory primary school age, regardless of its setting, funding, opening hours or programme content. It includes: (i) centre and family day-care; (ii) privately and publicly funded provision; (iii) pre-school and pre-primary provision. 3.1.1.Availability of ECEC In 2002, the Council met in Barcelona to set targets for participation in early childhood education and care. The targets were that Member States should by 2010 provide childcare to at least 90% of children aged between 3 and the mandatory school age, and for at least 33% of children under 3. Although the overall targets at EU level have been largely met, there are still significant differences among the Member States in enrolment overall, and particularly in the participation of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion. Subsequently, the Commission communication on the Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025 announced a proposal for the revision of the Barcelona objectives to foster upward convergence. This commitment is reiterated in the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan and the Commission will propose the new targets in 2022. Furthermore, the 2021 Council Resolution on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training towards the European Education Area and beyond (2021-2030) agreed an EU target for the ECEC participation rate of at least 96% among children between 3 and the starting age for compulsory primary education. Providing ECEC is especially problematic for the younger group (aged 0 to 3) in Slovakia, Czechia, Poland, Romania and Croatia. In the Netherlands, Ireland, and Austria most children attend these facilities for less than 30 hours per week. Such ‘part-time’ attendance raises concerns about the labour market participation of parents, especially mothers, and might hinder the education and socialisation of children. Evidence shows considerably lower attendance rates in ECEC for children from a lower socio-economic backgrounds or socially disadvantaged groups. Over time, the use of formal childcare has increased among all income groups, but inequality in its use has not declined. A literature review concluded that children with a disadvantaged background tended to be underrepresented in childcare services. Younger children (0-3 years) from a disadvantaged background were especially underrepresented. The factors that are more frequently associated with low participation include: (i) the low socio-economic status of parents; (ii) non-working mothers; (iii) ethnic minority background; and (iv) living in a poor neighbourhood, rural area or marginalised settlement. The attendance of Roma children is particularly low. Such inequalities so early in life are reflected later on in the child’s life in the form of: (i) lower educational outcomes; (ii) lower educational attainment and completion; and (iii) worse employment prospects as an adult. 3.1.2.Affordability of ECEC Early childhood education and care is paid for in different ways across the Member States. This reflects the share of public spending dedicated to it, which ranges from 0.4% of GDP in Ireland to 1.6% of GDP in Sweden. The measures to make the services affordable for all children vary. In some Member States, low-income families receive targeted allowances to cover the costs of childcare (up to full reimbursement of fees), but they can also benefit from priority access to services. Despite the multiple types of support, ‘out-of-pocket’ (or ‘net’) costs of ECEC are high in many Member States. Calculations using comparable data on childcare prices show that net costs rise to more than a third of female median earnings in Ireland and Slovakia. Throughout the EU, high fees are the main barrier preventing households with dependent children from placing them in early childhood education and care. The impact of social disadvantage on participation is significant. For example, living in a family at risk of poverty or social exclusion – or merely in the bottom income tertile – significantly reduces odds of enrolment for children under 3, and also, to a smaller extent, for those aged between 3 and minimum mandatory primary school age. The educational level of parents also makes a difference – children of mothers with a higher educational level are more likely to attend early childhood education and care. 3.2. Education and school-based activities Education is the gateway to breaking the cycle of disadvantage and to giving children better life chances. This is because education supports the development of the personal and social skills essential for future employability, lifelong learning and interpersonal activities. High-quality and inclusive education is proven to improve tolerance, respect for diversity, social integration, cohesion and inclusion. It is also proven to reduce crime, and lead to a cleaner environment and better quality of life. However, data show that family disadvantages and inequalities influence educational outcomes in primary and secondary school. Education systems offer opportunities to reduce social inequalities and exclusion, but they may also widen differences if fairness and quality requirements are not met. It is evident that children in need require additional support to perform well at schools. School drop-out rates are significantly higher for children with a Roma or a migrant background. They are also significantly higher for children with disabilities or special needs. The share of these vulnerable children is higher among early leavers from education and training who only complete primary education. In addition, significantly fewer vulnerable children finish secondary or especially tertiary education than the population average. The growing number of children with a migrant background in education systems calls for the prevention of segregated school settings and the adaptation of teaching methods. The structure of education differs greatly among Member States. Tuition-free primary and secondary schools are available everywhere in the EU. However, indirect school-related costs (textbooks, school meals, school trips, uniforms, equipment including digital tools, etc.) remain a significant expense for many families. For instance, in Greece and Croatia more than 80% of income-poor families report facing difficulties in affording the costs of formally free education. Segregation and discrimination also remain a challenge, as does the exclusion of some vulnerable children by placing them in ‘special’ schools . It is necessary to combine more universal actions with targeted measures addressing vulnerable groups of children and young people. In order to slow down the spread of the COVID-19 virus, Member States shifted in March 2020 to distance learning, which affected around 58 million primary and secondary school children. During physical school closures, home resources and parental involvement in school work have proven to be essential for learning. However, these are not available equally to all children. Across the 21 Member States surveyed by the Commission’s Joint Research Centre, more than one fifth of fourth grade pupils lack at least two of the four resources needed for successful distance learning (i.e. their own room, reading opportunities, internet access, parental involvement). For children with lower-educated parents the figure is 28%, compared with 10% for those with more highly educated parents. Eurostat data from 2019 indicate that access to broadband internet varies significantly across the EU, ranging from 74% of households for the lowest-income quartile to 97% in the highest-income quartile.

On average, children who lack resources and support were already lower performers before the crisis, and these children are likely to have lost further ground during the COVID-19 school closures. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has also lead to a decrease in the supply of apprenticeship placements. The apprenticeship placements that are still available face new challenges as regards the compensation for the lack of practical work experience by other forms of remote and digital learning. The learning disruptions caused by the COVID-19 crisis are likely to magnify existing educational inequalities and create new challenges, bearing among others on the emotional well-being of pupils. This situation calls for a greater effort to: (i) reduce the number of young people who leave education prematurely and without at least an upper secondary degree; (ii) reduce the number and share of low-achievers; and (iii) ensuring well-being and a positive learning climate at school. Education is not simply about what happens in the classroom. Play, recreation, sport and cultural activities are also part of education, and these all play a crucial role in building social skills. Many of these activities are organised by schools (either during or outside regular school hours). Unlike classroom-based education, those activities are not always free of charge. Such activities, undertaken together by pupils who attend the same school or in different groups, are an important complement to education and have proved to be especially beneficial for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. In Greece and Croatia, four out of five income-poor families consider indirect school-related costs difficult to afford. The share of children who could not participate in school trips and school events that cost money varied in 2014 from 0.7% in Germany and 0.8% in Finland and Sweden to 22.1% in Greece, 40.3% in Romania and 43.0% in Bulgaria, with the EU-28 average being 7.6%. Although the collected data are not completely comparable, estimated numbers demonstrate that households with dependent children on average spend 1.7% of their budget on education. This share is likely higher in low-income households, indicating the regressive impact of school costs. The record low levels of private expenditure on education in Finland and Sweden result from universal free of charge education systems operating in those Member States, offering also a wide variety of health and social services, free meals and recreational activities. This allows to prevent poverty traps and stigmatisation of children coming from low-income families or in vulnerable situations. 3.3.Healthcare Various studies point to the existence and persistence of social inequalities in children's health outcomes. Early intervention and prevention are essential. Better outcomes can be achieved by: (i) better access to maternal healthcare; and (ii) better public-health activities (including vaccination promotion, parenting support and child nutrition programmes). Nearly all Member States ensure, in principle, free access to healthcare for all children, while some offer a free core service with some charges (such as prescription charge in Estonia, or co-payments in France and Slovakia). In only eight of the Member States with a universal free service all children, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, could effectively access it. Overall in the EU, 3% of children at risk of poverty suffered from unmet medical needs – more than twice as much as among children living in more affluent families. In Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Portugal and Romania the main reason for unmet medical needs for children was affordability. In addition, children in need more often experience longer waiting times to see a doctor than other children. On access to medical services, two areas seem to be of particular relevance for children in need: orthodontics and ophthalmology (including braces and spectacles/corrective lenses respectively). Member States differ in: (i) the range of services that are covered by basic health insurance; (ii) the timeliness and availability of such services; and (iii) reimbursement limits for these services. Sometimes, there are even differences between regions in the same Member State in these three areas. In general, orthodontics and ophthalmology is better covered for children than for older age groups, but gaps in access for children in need persist due to co-payments or restricted coverage of orthodontic or ophthalmology care from reimbursement schemes. Access to facilities for proper hygiene (for example adequate toilet facilities and menstrual products for girls) is also necessary to prevent negative health consequences and ensure participation of all children in education and all social activities. A report ‘Implementation of the right to health care under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child’ highlighted that certain groups of children are left with insufficient healthcare coverage or without coverage at all. Children living in a country where they had no regular residence status were identified as the most vulnerable group. Access to affordable childhood vaccination programmes for all children is vital. Vaccination is the main tool for primary prevention of disease. However, several EU countries are facing outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases, in particular measles, due to insufficient vaccination coverage rates. There are significant gaps across the EU in access to mental-health services. The companion report to the 2019 State of Health in the EU identifies mental healthcare as one of the health services in shortest supply, resulting in long waiting lists . Access by patients from disadvantaged backgrounds, including children, is further limited by constraints in the reimbursements of psychotherapy from public health budgets. Around 10-20% of children and adolescents experience mental disorders such as anxiety and depression. Those disorders may severely influence their development, educational attainment and potential to live fulfilling lives. Practices addressing mental health at schools include the fight against stigma, the prevention of depression and suicide, and counselling for LBGT+ young people . 3.4.Healthy nutrition According to European Food Safety Authority, the balanced consumption of protein, carbohydrate, fat, vitamins, minerals and water is key for the physical and mental development of children. According to the World Health Organisation, a child’s nutrition is considered adequate if at least one meal per day includes red meat, poultry, fish or plant-based protein source. The consumption of calories needs to: (i) be distributed during the day; (ii) include moderate amounts of fat, sugar and salt; and (iii) include at least 400 g, or five portions, of fruit and vegetables per day . This reduces the risk of non-communicable diseases and plays a critical role in children’s healthy development. Across 25 Member States , on average around 22% of children reported that they did not eat breakfast before going to school. This ranged from around 7% in Portugal to around 36% in Austria. Children who reported that they had eaten breakfast before school scored more highly in science than those who had skipped breakfast (10 percentage points higher for boys; 6 for girls). Children who did not eat breakfast were significantly more likely to come from families with a lower socio-economic background. The EU-SILC ad hoc module on child deprivation collected in 2014 provides some information on children’s (1-15 years) enforced lack of fruits, vegetables and proteins. The proportion of children living in households lacking these sources of food varied between less than 1% and 40% with an EU average of 4%. Income poverty significantly increases the risk of forced lack of nutrients in most Member States, except Austria, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg and Sweden, where the occurrence of these problems is low for all children. Most Member States offer targeted food support to pupils entitled to social benefits on grounds of low income or other disadvantage, either in-kind (meals or snacks at schools provided for free or at a lower price), or in the form of financial assistance to their parents (e.g. Germany, France). In order to ensure truly healthy food environments where children grow up, socialise, play, and are educated, aggressive (online) marketing and advertising of alcohol and foods high in fat, salt and sugar need to be substantially reduced. The Commission is planning to prepare an implementation report in 2022 on the Audiovisual Media Service Directive, including those on commercial communications on unhealthy food and drinks. The Commission also supports Member States and stakeholders in their effort on food reformulation, marketing reduction and public procurement of foods through a Joint Action on Implementation of Validated Best Practices in Nutrition. The importance of contribution of school food to child health and development is widely acknowledged; Member States have put in place specific school food policies, which provide either voluntary guidelines or mandatory regulations about what foods and drinks may or should be served in the school setting. In 2014, such policies were mandatory in 14 Member States and voluntary in the remaining 13 . The food or nutrient-based standards used for school food provision vary throughout the EU and address i.a. the provision of fresh water or fruits and vegetables, as well as restrictions on soft drinks, deep-fried and processed food products, salt, crisps and savoury snacks and sweet treats. At the nutrient level, most policies highlight appropriate quantities of fat and calories of school meals in relation to the age of children. Overall, the overconsumption of calories, especially due to excess fat and sugar, is of widespread concern. An overview of free school meals provision across the EU is presented in Annex B. The EU scheme for school fruit, vegetables and milk helps children develop healthy eating habits. It also supports the distribution of food to schoolchildren, from nursery to secondary schools. The scheme also supports educational measures, such as farm visits; school gardens; tasting and cooking workshops; theme days; and games. The total EU budget for the scheme in the period 2017-2023, is EUR 250 million per school year. The experience during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the importance of school meal schemes for the children at risk of poverty, who suddenly were left with no access to school meals during the lockdown. A survey by Eurochild identified this as a problem in Croatia, Poland, Portugal and Slovenia. This points to weaknesses in reacting to the pandemic, but it also proves the success of meal schemes, which became an important source of food for disadvantaged children as long as schools were open. 3.5.Adequate housing Having a decent home environment is an essential need. Access to affordable and quality housing is one of the main determinants of children’s well-being and social participation. In 2019, 9.3% of the EU-27 population lived in households that spent 40% or more of their disposable income on housing (i.e. were considered as facing housing cost overburden). Among households at risk of poverty, this share was 35% across the EU, with as high as 88.2% in Greece, but just 9.2% in Malta (where it strongly increased recently). The incidence of housing cost overburden – as well as of overcrowding – is higher for tenants than for owners.

In most Member States, the risk of severe housing deprivation is greatly increased if a person: (i) suffers from income poverty; (ii) lives in a single-parent household; or (iii) has a migrant background. More than one in five (21%) EU children from low-income households live in a dwelling with a leaking roof, damp walls, floors or foundation, or rot in window frames or floor. One in thirteen (7.7%) EU children live in dwellings, which are too dark. A survey of child material deprivation (2014) showed that 10.2% of EU-28 children (aged 1-15) lived in homes, which could not be kept adequately warm. The respective share varied from 0.8% in Finland and Sweden and 1.0% in Luxembourg to 25.7% in Cyprus, 31.1% in Greece, and 40.6% in Bulgaria. The ability to keep a household adequately warm is linked to energy poverty and is often associated with low household income, high energy costs and homes with low energy efficiency. Children at risk of poverty are also the most affected by overcrowding. Over 41% of them live in overcrowded accommodation in EU-27, as opposed to around 17% of children in the whole of the population. In rural areas of some Member States, housing deprivation is mainly due to poor quality of privately owned houses. In urban areas, the insufficient supply of social housing and high market rents lead families to settle for housing in problematic technical conditions or housing that is too small for their needs. Moreover, inadequate housing typically occurs in segregated neighbourhoods, which itself increases the risk of social exclusion. On the other hand, in several Member States the housing conditions have improved markedly during last decade: overall in the EU-27, the share of children living in dwellings without a toilet or with no bath nor shower almost halved. Among children at risk of poverty in Bulgaria, Belgium, Romania the incidence of leaking roofs, damp walls, floors or foundations or rot in window frames or floor decreased by respectively 12.9 pps, 11.2 pps and 9.1 pps. In Slovenia and Poland drops of respectively 11.6 pps and 7.9 pps were recorded on the incidence of living in dwellings considered as too dark. In Romania, Latvia and Bulgaria there has been a significant progress as regards sanitary conditions (having a flushing toilet for the sole use of the household and bath or a shower in the dwelling) – up to 19.4 pps in a decade for the overall child population. Housing cost overburden is a significant problem. The price of housing increased faster than incomes in recent years in almost all Member States. In 2019, for approximately 9% of the EU-27 population, housing costs represented more than 40% of disposable household income, which significantly reduces the capacity to cope with all the other needs besides accommodation. Housing cost overburden affects disproportionally children living in income-poor households – for them a risk of housing cost overburden is between three and five times higher that than for the total population of children. The share of children living in households confronted with housing costs overburden was particularly high in Greece, where nearly half (47%) of all children lived in such households, followed by Bulgaria (18%). The share of publicly administered dwellings in the EU’s overall housing stock is generally low, which limits the room for manoeuvre for policy interventions aimed at addressing housing deprivation. The policy tools used to influence the housing market include demand-side supports to individuals and households to: (i) facilitate the purchase of a home; (ii) provide support to households in financial distress, or (iii) access subsidised housing or housing in the private rental market (e.g. through housing allowances). Across the 21 Member States covered by a 2018 OECD survey, government spending on housing allowances relative to GDP was above 0.5% of GDP in only five Member States, with the highest figure (0.89% of GDP) recorded in Finland. It was equal or below 0.10% of GDP in 10 others. On homelessness, ten Member States have specific regulations or requirements for the quality of emergency temporary accommodation if children are present. However, there are differences in the quality of services for homeless children and families. There are also great differences in the regulation and monitoring of these services. Providing children with a stable home is a prerequisite to any additional social or health support which can prevent their situation from deteriorating. Temporary accommodation can be useful to meet immediate housing needs as long as it does not become a long-term solution. 3.6.The territorial dimension Child exclusion and poverty as well as equality of opportunities have a territorial aspect that must be taken into account when designing and implementing measures to ensure access to key services for children in need. In most large cities surveyed in a recent report by Eurocities, the incidence of child poverty is higher than the national average for a given country. Children living in the most deprived urban areas often accumulate multiple risk factors, such as poor housing, risk of discrimination, violence, and unequal access to services. Several Member States have already designed indicators to identify segregated areas (where there is a high concentration of poverty and exclusion) and provide for targeted measures. These include, for instance, areas in Slovakia with a high density of Roma population. In Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, and Greece, living in a predominantly rural region is linked to a significantly higher risk of poverty or social exclusion than living in cities. The remoteness of some rural communities limits the size of schools and classes. This impacts infrastructure and the educational offer. PISA 2018 shows that the difference in reading performance between pupils attending schools in cities with more than 100 000 inhabitants and pupils attending schools in localities with fewer than 3 000 inhabitants exceeds 100 PISA points in some Member States. This corresponds to a difference of at least 3 years of schooling. The rural gap is even more visible in students’ transition to higher levels of education and in the educational expectations that precede their decisions to continue education. The average tertiary education gap between rural areas and cities (i.e. the gap between the percentage of inhabitants with a tertiary education and those without) is more than 20 pps. This gap has been growing in recent years because tertiary educational attainment levels in most Member States are increasing faster in cities than in the rural areas. 4.LEGAL BASIS FOR UNION’S ACTION Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) states that it is the Union’s aim to: (i) combat social exclusion and discrimination; (ii) promote intergenerational solidarity; and (iii) protect the rights of the child. According to Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Union shall take into account, in defining and implementing its policies and activities: (i) the promotion of a high level of employment; (ii) the guarantee of social protection; (iii) the fight against social exclusion; and (iv) a high level of education, training and protection of human health. Under Article 151 TFEU, the Union and the Member States have as their objectives inter alia the promotion of: (i) improved living conditions; (ii) proper social protection; and (iii) the development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment and the combating of exclusion. Improving equality of opportunities for all children living in the EU helps to reach those objectives, in particular the last one. Under Article 153 (1)(j) TFEU, the Union supports and complements the activities of the Member States in the field of combatting social exclusion, with a view to achieving the objectives of Article 151. The Union was also attributed competences in the field of fighting discrimination and as regards complementing national policies in the field of education, training and protection of human health (Articles 19, 165, 166 and 168 TFEU). Further, the Union is also called onto to contribute to social cohesion (Article 174 TFEU). Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU recognises that children are independent and autonomous holders of rights, that children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being, and makes the child's best interests a primary consideration for public authorities and private institutions. The Charter recognises also the right to education (Article 14), the right to protection of family and professional life (Article 33), right to social security and social assistance (Article 34), right to health care (Article 35), among others. The EU is committed to the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals. Goal 1 relates to poverty reduction; Goal 2 aims to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition; Goal 3 sets to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all ages; Goal 4 encompasses inclusive and equitable quality education; Goal 5 fosters gender equality; Goals 6 and 11 cover housing, calling respectively for ensuring access to sanitation and hygiene, and to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable; Goal 10 aims at reducing inequalities; Goal 16 has a specific target to end abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children. All EU Member States have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), on which Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is based. The UNCRC states (in Article 3) that in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. The UNCRC also recognises that children have the right to: state assistance (Article 18), adequate standard of living (Article 27), education (Article 28), the highest attainable standard of health (Article 24), rest and leisure and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts (Article 31). The provisions of UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), to which both the EU and the Member States are parties, guides policy on children with disabilities. 5.KEY ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL This chapter provides more details on the origin and context of the Commission proposal for a Council recommendation establishing a European Child Guarantee. It also describes: (i) the objective and scope of the proposal; and (ii) an enabling policy framework that Member States need to put in place to successfully implement the recommendation. Finally, the chapter discusses how this proposal relates to other initiatives relevant for combating social exclusion and ensuring the well-being of children. 5.1.The origin and the context of the European Child Guarantee

The proposal is the result of extensive preparatory work. It is based on a preparatory action requested by the European Parliament and implemented by the Commission to decide on the main aspects of the future initiative. It also takes into account findings of the Commission assessment of the implementation of the ‘Investing in Children’ recommendation. The proposal reflects the views of stakeholders, including children, expressed during targeted consultations in 2020. It also delivers on the calls from other institutions, including the Council and the European Court of Auditors. 5.1.1.Assessment of the implementation of the ‘Investing in Children’ Recommendation The Commission ‘Investing in Children’ recommendation was adopted in February 2013. It provides an overall framework for the Commission and EU Member States to develop policies and programmes to promote the social inclusion and well-being of children, especially those in vulnerable situations. It calls on Member States to step up their investment in children, according to a three-pillar approach, which includes: (i) ensuring access to adequate resources, (ii) ensuring access to affordable quality services and (iii) upholding children’s rights to participate in play, recreation, sport and cultural activities, as well as in decision-making that affects their lives. In 2017, the Commission assessed the four years of the implementation the ‘Investing in Children’ recommendation and published a staff working document. This assessment concluded that the full implementation of the Recommendation was still a work in progress. It said that although the Recommendation received strong support both at national and EU level, including from the European Parliament and civil society, it was still neither well-known nor properly used within the Member States at local level. The assessment also underlined that most Member States agreed that only a comprehensive integrated approach would be an effective strategy capable of breaking the cycle of disadvantage for vulnerable children. In addition, the assessment highlighted that most Member States agreed that it was socially fair and economically sound to invest more in children during the early years and that early childhood education and care was the best way to achieve this. The assessment concluded that much more needs to be done to ensure the effective implementation of the Recommendation. As an additional monitoring measure, the European Semester economic and employment coordination process, supported by the Social Scoreboard, has highlighted the challenge of child poverty or social exclusion, with a number of Member States receiving related country specific recommendations. The Employment Guidelines underline the importance of ensuring the access of everyone, including children, to certain services, such as early childhood education and care, education and healthcare; with such access serving as a necessary condition for ensuring equal opportunities. 5.1.2.Preparatory actions initiated by the European Parliament On 24 November 2015, the European Parliament voted for a resolution on reducing inequalities with a special focus on child poverty. The European Parliament called on the Commission and the Member States to introduce a child guarantee so that every child in poverty could access free healthcare, free education, free childcare, decent housing and adequate nutrition. Subsequently, the European Parliament asked the Commission to implement a preparatory action to lay down an implementation framework for such a child guarantee in accordance with the ‘Investing in Children’ recommendation. The European Parliament suggested that the Commission also take into account the European Pillar of Social Rights and the broader United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In response, the Commission explored the potential scope of a child guarantee by examining the feasibility and conditions for implementing such a scheme (the so-called Phase I of the preparatory action). A feasibility study was commissioned, focusing on four specific groups of socially vulnerable children that are known to be particularly exposed to poverty and risks to their well-being: children residing in institutions, children with disabilities, children with a migrant background (including refugee children) and children living in a precarious family situation. The study then analysed the feasibility of guaranteeing these four categories of children access to the following five services: free healthcare, free education, free early childhood education and care, adequate housing and healthy nutrition. The study, published in March 2020, concluded that access by these four categories of children to the five services should indeed be improved. Failure to ensure this access could have short- and long-term consequences for children themselves, but also for society. Furthermore, the study argued that mainstream services also need to be inclusive to ensure that children in need benefit fully and avoid stigma and segregation. Although ensuring access to the services would be an important effort in tackling child poverty, the study said that this effort would need to be placed within a broader and more comprehensive approach, as set out in the ‘Investing in Children’ recommendation. Finally, the study argued that EU funds had considerable potential to play a more effective and strategic role in supporting access to the five services. Phase II of the preparatory action examined a possible policy and financial impact of a child guarantee via a study entitled “The economic implementing framework of a possible EU Child Guarantee scheme including its financial foundation”. It explored the costs and benefits of a guarantee to children at risk of poverty to have access to the five services mentioned above. Main conclusion of that study are presented in Chapter 8 of this Staff Working Document. Phase III of the preparatory action is dedicated to conducting experimental projects in selected EU Member States to test in practise the results of the previous two phases. The Commission, in partnership with UNICEF, tests on the ground through pilot projects in Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, and Italy, and researches on policy frameworks in Germany, Lithuania, and Spain. The outcomes of the phase III will provide a valuable input to the implementation phase of this proposal. On 11 March 2021, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child. The document calls for concrete measures to invest in children in order to eradicate child poverty, including through establishment of a European Child Guarantee with appropriate resources. The Parliament calls on the Member States to invest all possible resources in the implementation of the European Child Guarantee, including EU funds such as the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+), Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of Europe (ReactEU), the Recovery and Resilience Facility, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), InvestEU, Erasmus+ and the Asylum and Migration Fund (AMF). 5.1.3.Calls from other EU institutions In its conclusions of 8 June 2020 ‘Demographic Challenges – the Way Ahead’, the Council invited the Commission to deliver in a timely manner a proposal for the European Child Guarantee. In its Special Report 20/2020 on child poverty of 29 September 2020, the European Court of Auditors highlighted that the Commission needed to better target its support for Member States actions to combat child poverty. It also recommended that the Commission: (i) include child poverty in the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan; and (ii) ensure that the necessary steps have been completed to prepare the European Child Guarantee. Reacting to the Special Report, the Council called on the Commission to: (i) include actions and objectives to tackle child poverty in its future initiatives, among others under the European Semester; and (ii) complete the necessary steps and information gathering to prepare the European Child Guarantee. A Joint Declaration ‘Overcoming poverty and social exclusion – mitigating the impact of COVID-19 on families working together to develop prospects for strong children’ was signed in December 2020 by 24 ministers of the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council. This declaration welcomed the upcoming European Child Guarantee as a crucial opportunity to invest more – and more effectively – in preventing and reducing child poverty in Europe, which is a key driver of social exclusion. The ministers’ declaration states that the European Child Guarantee should be based on the principles and integrated approach of the ‘Investing in Children’ recommendation and of the European Pillar of Social Rights. The declaration flagged the access to the following services as essential for children at risk of poverty or social exclusion: (i) free healthcare; (ii) free education; (iii) affordable early childhood education and care; (iv) decent housing; and (v) adequate nutrition. In May 2020, the Council called for equal opportunities for all young people regardless of obstacles, including geographical challenges, in its conclusions on Raising Opportunities for Young People in Rural and Remote areas. 5.1.4.Consultation process

The consultation process in July to November 2020 made it possible to collect information on the challenges facing: (i) national or local administrations; (ii) providers of services for children; and (iii) civil society. The consulted stakeholders confirmed that there were gaps in the current provision of services at the national level, which could be addressed through actions at the EU level. At the Commission’s request, UNICEF, Eurochild, Save the Children, World Vision and Child Fund Alliance conducted a joint consultation on the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child 2021-2024 and the European Child Guarantee. The five organisations developed together a questionnaire that was answered by approximately 10 000 children in the EU and beyond. The main findings of this consultation dealt with: (i) the discrimination and exclusion faced by children; (ii) children’s unmet expectations at school; (iii) violent episodes in children’s lives; and (iv) the lack of consideration of children’s points of view. The outcome called for the European Child Guarantee to focus on concrete and effective measures to ensure equal treatment of all children, with particular attention to children in vulnerable situations, and equal access to quality and affordable education for all children, from early childhood education and care to secondary education. The results are available in report ‘Our Europe, Our Rights, Our Future’. A detailed overview of the wide consultation process with stakeholders can be found in Annex C. 5.2.The objective and scope of the European Child Guarantee The proposed Recommendation has as its objective to prevent and combat social exclusion by guaranteeing access of children in need to a set of key services. In doing so, the Recommendation will contribute to fostering equal opportunities for children in need and combating child poverty. With a view to achieving this objective, the proposal recommends Member States to: (1)guarantee for children in need effective and free access to early childhood education and care, education and school-based activities, at least one healthy meal each school day and healthcare; (2)guarantee for children in need effective access to healthy nutrition and adequate housing. An ample body of evidence clearly shows that children in need across the EU often lack full access to the services covered by this proposal. The extent to which children experiencing various kinds of disadvantage have access to these services differs widely across the EU. By focusing on children in need the proposal is expected to have greater impact and added value than the existing initiatives and instruments. The specific targeting of the initiative is also consistent with the EU’s commitment to ‘leave no one behind’. The approach set out in the proposal will allow for adjusted and tailor-made solutions according to the specific situations faced by different groups of children in need in each Member State. The precise identification, targeting and actions for children in need would be left to the Member States, based on their national, regional and local specificities. In this context it is important to emphasise that Member States are expected to continue developing their universal policies for all children, in line with the ‘Investing in Children’ recommendation. Ensuring access to the key services on its own is not sufficient, as the services need to be truly inclusive and of high quality to fully benefit all children in vulnerable situations. The evidence shows that although these service may be free, accessing them can sometimes involve additional costs, which can act as barriers to children in need. The proposal therefore stresses the importance of the effectiveness of access. Effectiveness of access should be understood as: (i) service availability, affordability, and quality; (ii) the timeliness of its provision; and (iii) whether the potential users of a service are aware of its existence and of their entitlement to use it. However, even guaranteeing effectiveness of access may not be enough for the most vulnerable. Affordability is a relative concept and for many families living in poverty even moderate fees can be a barrier. Therefore, the proposal recommends making access to certain services effective and free of charge: early childhood education and care; education and school-based activities; a healthy meal at school; and healthcare. The selection of services to be provided free of charge follows on the calls from the European Parliament, and other stakeholders. 5.3.Enabling policy framework From the experience in implementing the ‘Investing in Children’ recommendation, it is clear that the European Child Guarantee on its own will not be sufficient to address social exclusion of children. The specific actions to be taken under the European Child Guarantee will be important on their own. However, to be fully effective these actions must be placed in a broader enabling policy framework addressing the multi-dimensional nature of social exclusion. The evidence shows that the Member States that are most successful in ensuring that children in need have access to key services have a comprehensive range of policies in place. This comprehensive range of policies sits alongside a strategic and a well-coordinated approach encouraging integrated interventions at national, regional and local levels. At the EU level, it is the European Pillar of Social Rights and its action plan that provide for this comprehensive framework. Lack of income and sufficient resources to live in dignity, inadequate access to key services, labour market exclusion and poor quality work are the primary causes of social exclusion. Providing solutions to these problems demands integrated approaches that cut across all relevant policy domains. It also requires better coordination between macro- and microeconomic policies and emphasising the crucial role of policy areas outside the traditional remit of social-inclusion policies. The proposal: (i) recognises the need to fight exclusion across the policy spectrum; (ii) encourages Member States to ensure the consistency of social, education, health, nutrition and housing policies at national, regional at local level; and (iii) encourages Member States to make these policies more relevant for supporting all children, and in particular children in need. As shown in Chapter 3.6, poverty or social exclusion tends to be greater in remote, rural, deprived urban or segregated areas. These areas face a number of specific economic and structural challenges, such as: (i) fewer employment opportunities; (ii) low income levels; (iii) low levels of education; (iv) poor quality infrastructure; and (v) limited access to services. The proposal advises Member States to address the territorial dimension of social exclusion by focusing on the specific needs of children from deprived urban, rural, remote, and segregated areas, based on an integrated and multidisciplinary approach. The challenges faced by children in need and their families are often many and complex. However, the delivery of services to these children and families is often fragmented and there is a lack of coordination and cooperation among service providers. The proposal therefore encourages Member States to put in place effective arrangements in order to ensure the coordinated and integrated delivery of services at all levels of administration. Ensuring that services are developed and delivered in an equal and inclusive manner is essential to avoid stigmatisation and segregation. It is also important that these services make particular efforts to reach out to the children and families who are most in need. The proposal recognises that labour market situation of parents is the most important determinant of the material situation in which children grow up. This confirms a critical role of policies supporting parents’ or guardians’ access to a decent income, either through labour market integration or through income support.

5.4. Relation to other Commission initiatives The proposal stems from the European Pillar of Social Rights and its action plan and forms part of a broader framework for combatting poverty or social exclusion. It will contribute to achieving the target of lifting 15 million people, including 5 million children, out of poverty or social exclusion by 2030 put forward in the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan. The proposal complements the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child, which pools existing and future initiatives of the Commission on children’s rights under one coherent policy framework, both in internal and external action. The strategy will ensure further mainstreaming of children’s rights throughout all Commission portfolios. It will strengthen the Commission’s work in the following fields: (i) child participation in the EU’s political democratic life; (ii) socio-economic inclusion, education and health; (iii) combating violence against children and ensuring child protection; (iv) child friendly justice; (v) digital and information society; and (vi) the global dimension. The section on socio-economic inclusion is directly aligned with the European Child Guarantee. One of the aims of the strategy is to combat any discrimination of children, including on the grounds of their sex or sexual orientation – or that of their parents. The strategyaims to bring together all new and existing EU legislative, policy and funding instruments within one comprehensive framework. The European Child Guarantee is also complementary to the Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030. The strategy aims at fostering social and economic inclusion of persons with disabilities in society and full respect of their rights, encompassing also the needs of children with disabilities. The proposal is consistent with the Council Recommendation on High-Quality Early Childhood Education and Care Systems, adopted on 22 May 2019 . Furthermore, it follows the Commission Communication ‘Achieving a European Education Area by 2025’, which was adopted on 30 September 2020, and informed the Council Resolution of 19 February 2021 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training towards the European Education Area and beyond (2021-2030). The Resolution has improving quality, equity, inclusion and success for all in education and training as one of its strategic priorities and sets the EU targets for: (i) the participation rate in early childhood education and care among children between 3 years old and the starting age for compulsory primary education at 96%; and (ii) the share of early leavers from education and training at under 9%. On 5 March 2020, the Commission adopted a Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025. Among other things, the strategy aims to counter gender stereotypes affecting the wellbeing and opportunities of girls and boys in all their diversity from an early age. It also announces the revision of the Barcelona targets for participation in early childhood education and care. The Strategy also promotes women’s economic empowerment and the equal sharing of unpaid care work, including caring for children, between women and men. As long as women continue to carry a disproportionate responsibility for bringing up children, the objectives of gender equality and children’s social inclusion will continue to be closely interconnected. On 1 July 2020, the Commission issued communication ‘Youth Employment Support: a Bridge to Jobs for the Next Generation’ and a proposal for Council recommendation ‘A Bridge to Jobs – Reinforcing the Youth Guarantee’, which the Council adopted on 30 October 2020. The recommendation seeks to ensure that all young people under the age of 30 receive a good quality offer of employment, continued education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship within four months of becoming unemployed or leaving formal education. On 19 September 2020, the Commission adopted an EU anti-racism action plan 2020 - 2025. The action plan envisages combating racism through policy and funding programmes in the areas of employment, housing and access to healthcare and education. It promotes actions to ensure that: (i) children with a minority racial or ethnic background have equal access to education; and (ii) teachers are trained to work with all children and be sensitive to the needs of pupils from different backgrounds. It also envisages a Commission report on the application of the EU Racial Equality Directive, which prohibits discrimination based on ethnic or racial origin, including discrimination of Roma children, in different areas such as education and social protection. On 30 September 2020, the Commission adopted a Communication entitled ‘Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027: Resetting education and training for the digital age’, which presents an ambitious vision for digital education in a lifelong learning perspective with the inclusion of all learners across all ages at its core. On 7 October 2020, the Commission adopted the EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation . It consists of a Communication and a proposal for a Council Recommendation on Roma equality, inclusion and participation, which was adopted by the Council on 12 March 2021 . The Recommendation calls on Member States to fight multiple and structural discrimination against Roma, in particular against Roma children, and to take stronger measures that support Roma children and their families in the interrelated fields of employment, social services, quality, inclusive mainstream education and early childhood education and care, health, housing and access to essential services, nutrition and access to leisure activities. On 14 October 2020, the Commission adopted a Communication “A Renovation Wave for Europe - greening our buildings, creating jobs, improving lives” , based on a principle of affordability of the renovated housing and its accessibility – thus contributing to the goal of guaranteeing decent housing to children in need especially through the Commission Recommendation on Energy Poverty. On 12 November 2020, the Commission adopted the LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025, which presents measures to promote inclusion and combat discrimination against LGBTIQ persons and their families, including children. On 24 November 2020, the Commission adopted an action plan on integration and inclusion 2021-2027 , which covers migrants and EU citizens with a migrant background. The action plan focuses on the enabling factors essential for a successful integration and inclusion: (i) education and training; (ii) employment and skills; and (iii) health and housing. The action plan also pays particular attention to children of migrants and EU citizens with a migrant background. On 16 December 2020, the European Parliament formally adopted the revised Drinking Water Directive. Its objective is to protect human health from adverse effects of any contamination of water intended for human consumption by ensuring that it is wholesome and clean. In the context of the European Child Guarantee, the directive has relevance to adequate housing and healthy nutrition. On 3 February 2021, the Commission adopted the Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, putting childhood cancer under the spotlight. One of the flagship initiatives of the plan is to launch the ‘Helping Children with Cancer Initiative’ to ensure that children have access to rapid and optimal detection, diagnosis, treatment and care. The Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan will also reinforce and develop new policies and legislation to help create a ‘Tobacco-Free Generation’ where less than 5% of the population uses tobacco by 2040, compared to around 25% today. To increase vaccination coverage rates among children, the Commission will step-up the implementation of the Council Recommendation to strengthen EU cooperation on vaccine-preventable diseases. The Commission will, in addition, support three large research and innovation actions to address low vaccine uptake and concerns about vaccinations among parents and health-care professionals, and ultimately improve vaccination coverage particularly among children and young adults. Fighting early leaving from education and training has been high on the EU political agenda for the last decade. The headline target to reduce the number of early leavers from education and training in Europe to less than 10% was established in 2010 as part of the Europe 2020 Strategy. After the adoption of the Strategy, the Commission developed a set of policy documents, leading to the adoption of the Council Recommendation on policies to reduce early school leaving in 2011, which sets out a framework for coherent, comprehensive, and evidence-based policies. Policy cooperation in the framework of the Open Method of Coordination has promoted exchange of practices and elaboration of policy guidance, investment in research and development and a special focus on early leaving from education and training in the EU programmes, in particular the European Structural and Investment Funds and Erasmus+. An online European Toolkit for Schools has also been developed. In a wider policy context, the EU has also put forward a number of initiatives to address the main driver of child poverty: the employment status of parents. For example, the EU has put forward a number of initiatives including: (i) the Commission Recommendation on the active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market ; (ii) the Council Recommendation on the integration of the long-term unemployed into the labour market ; (iii) the Directive on work-life balance for parents and carers ; (iv) the Council Recommendation on access to social protection ; (v) the new Skills Agenda ; (vi) the European instrument for temporary support to mitigate unemployment risks in an emergency (SURE); and (vii) the Commission proposal for a Directive on adequate minimum wages . 6.THE USE OF EU FUNDS TO COMBAT CHILD POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION EU funding instruments have been supporting a wide range of actions that contribute to tackling and preventing child poverty and social exclusion. These include: (i) investment in early childhood education and care; (ii) community support and active inclusion measures for parents; (iii) housing support for severely disadvantaged communities and children; (iv) educational support; (v) after-school activities; and (vi) the transition from institutional to family- and community based care.

This chapter describes how EU funds contributed to the fight against child poverty or exclusion in the previous programming period. It also examines how those funds can support the future implementation of the European Child Guarantee. 6.1.The 2014-2020 programming period In the 2014-202