EN

Brussels, 30.1.2008

SEC(2008) 91

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion

accompanying document to the

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Proposal for the Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2008

(COM(2008) 42 final)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Scope and Outline of the Report

1. Tackling and preventing child poverty and the social exclusion of children (...)5

1.1. Introduction: A shared sense of urgency (...)5

1.2. Main lessons from the in-depth review of child poverty and its determining factors (...)6

1.3. Member States' policies to prevent and tackle child poverty (...)19

1.4. Summary (...)35

2. Financing of social protection (...)38

2.1. Introduction (...)38

2.2. Recent development of social protection expenditures (...)39

2.3. Recent trends in the financing of social protection (...)42

2.4. Recent reforms and their impacts on employment and redistribution (...)48

2.5. Conclusion (...)50

3. Promoting longer working lives (...)51

3.1. Labour market developments for those aged 55-64 (...)51

3.2. Flexibility of retirement age and statutory pensions (...)55

3.3. Key elements in reforms of early exits (...)60

4. Ensuring adequate and sustainable private pensions (...)64

4.1. Public regulation: financing and information provision (...)64

4.2. Public regulation: ensuring adequacy (...)66

5. Addressing health inequalities and promoting access to health care (...)69

5.1. Introduction (...)69

5.2. Background and stylised facts (...)69

5.3. Causes of health inequalities (...)73

5.4. Importance of health inequalities (...)78

5.5. Policies to reduce heath inequalities (...)79

5.6. Conclusions (...)81

6. Addressing long-term care (...)83

6.1. Introduction (...)83

6.2. Background and stylised facts (...)84

6.3. National policy developments (...)88

6.4. Long-term sustainability (...)91

6.5. Conclusions (...)95

7. Contribution of the structural funds to the OMC objectives in 2007-2013 (...)96

7.1. Introduction (...)96

7.2. Structural Funds resources set aside for social inclusion and social protection policies (...)97

7.3. Promoting active inclusion (...)98

7.4. Supporting equality between women and men and anti-discriminatory measures in relation to the labour market (...)100

7.5. Strengthening the governance of social inclusion policies (...)101

7.6. Supporting the reform of social protection systems (...)102

7.7. Working with other Member States and regions: transnational and interregional cooperation (...)103

8. Voluntary update reports from Member States – Summary of main developments (...)104

8.1. Poverty and social inclusion (...)104

8.2. Pensions (...)107

8.3. Health care (...)108

Scope and Outline of the Report

This supporting document complements the 2008 Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion (Commission proposal: COM(2008) xxx) with a more detailed account of the work carried out in the framework of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) on Social Protection and Social Inclusion in 2007. This was the first year of the OMC without full reporting since the three strands social inclusion, pensions and health care/long term care were brought together into one process in 2006 under the common objectives [1]adopted by the European Council. This allowed a more in-depth exploration of some themes already identified in the preparation of the 2007 Joint Report [2] . The thematic focus for inclusion is child poverty (chapter 1), for pensions the focus is on promoting longer working (chapter 3) and privately managed pensions (chapter 4), and for health it is on inequalities in health outcomes (chapter 5) and on long-term care (chapter 6).

The chapters on the thematic work for the year are complemented by an analysis of how Member States finance social protection in general (chapter 2) and by an assessment of how the social dimension has been integrated in the Operational Programmes (OPs) of the Member States for the 2007-2013 Structural Funds (Chapter 7) and how, thereby, the structural funds will contribute to the common social inclusion and social protection objectives.

Some Member States have submitted up-dates of the National Strategic Reports they presented in 2006. [3] Chapter 8 provides a brief summary of the main developments reported.

An overview of statistical data will follow shortly in a Commission Staff Working Document and will include the most recent data on the indicators developed to monitor progress towards the overarching common objectives of the social OMC.

1.

Tackling and preventing child poverty and the social exclusion of children

1.1. Introduction: A shared sense of urgency

The March 2006 European Council invited Member States “to take necessary measures to rapidly and significantly reduce child poverty, giving all children equal opportunities, regardless of their social background”.

A number of stubborn facts have made the need to significantly reduce child poverty and social exclusion even more acute in the last decade:

· In most Member States children are at greater risk of poverty than the overall population. In some, more than one in every four children is at risk.

· The persistence of high and sometimes increasing levels of child poverty and social exclusion in the richest group of countries in the world has been criticised by the UNICEF, among others, notably in its 2005 and 2007 Report Cards [4].

· Children growing up in poverty and social exclusion are less likely than their better-off peers to do well in school, enjoy good health, and stay out of dealings with the criminal justice system.

· Child poverty and social exclusion may also have a damaging effect on the future life opportunities of children, and on their future capacity to contribute to tomorrow's society. Children who grew up in poverty and social exclusion are likely to face greater difficulties integrating within the labour market and finding their place in society.

In their strategic reports for 2006-2008, Member States responded with commitments to breaking the intergenerational transmission of poverty and exclusion. Almost all selected as a priority the need to develop an integrated and long-term approach to preventing and addressing poverty and social exclusion among children. Action on these commitments will foster human development and lead to stronger and more sustainable social cohesion.

The 2007 focus on child poverty has been underpinned by a range of activities. A task force within the Indicators Sub-Group (ISG) of the Social Protection Committee has carried out an in-depth evaluative review of child poverty and the exclusion of children in the EU-27 on the basis of existing commonly agreed indicators and related statistics. The ISG taskforce has also examined existing monitoring mechanisms with a view to proposing a set of concrete recommendations for a common framework for analysing and monitoring child poverty. Further, Member States have responded to a comprehensive questionnaire on their policies to combat child poverty and promote child well-being, including case studies on their policies towards children and families in particularly vulnerable situations. The replies to the questionnaire formed the basis for an in-depth examination of policies to fight child poverty in the Social Protection Committee on 3 October 2007. The network of independent experts on social inclusion has provided assessments of child poverty in each Member State and the overall policy framework in place to address the issue [5]. In addition, several European networks active in the area of fighting poverty and social exclusion have given particular attention to the issue of child poverty over the year. [6] Input from all these activities has informed the preparation of this assessment.

The following section summarises the analysis carried out by the ISG taskforce, whereas section 1.3 draws mainly on Member States' replies to the questionnaire on policies to combat child poverty and on the October 2007 SPC in-depth review.

1.2. Main lessons from the in-depth review of child poverty and its determining factors

This section provides a summary of the in-depth evaluative review of child poverty and exclusion of children in the EU-27 on the basis of existing commonly agreed indicators and related statistics carried out by the task force within the Indicators Sub-Group of the Social Protection Committee.

1.2.1. Some figures on the share of children affected and the severity of their situation

19 million children living under the poverty threshold in the EU-27

In 2005, there were 97.5 million children aged 0-17 in the EU-27. They represent 20% of the EU population, as against 22% in 1995, and this share is projected to decrease further to around 15% in 2050, as a result of the ageing of European societies. This highlights the need to enhance our investments in future human resources, and thus in children.

Yet, in 2005, 19 million children lived under the poverty threshold in the EU-27, meaning that 19% of children were at risk of poverty [7], as against a rate of 16% for the total population (see Figure 1). In most EU countries children are at a greater risk of poverty than the rest of the population, except in the Nordic countries (where 9 to 10% of children live below the poverty threshold), Slovenia (12%), Republic of Cyprus (13%), and Greece (20%) where the child poverty rate is lower or equivalent to that of the overall population. In almost half of the EU countries, the risk of poverty for children is above 20%, reaching 25% in Romania, 27% in Lithuania and 29% in Poland.

Figure 1: At-risk-of poverty rate in the EU (%), total population and children, 2005

(...PICT...)

Source: SILC (2005) - income year 2004 (income year 2005 for IE and the UK); except for BG and RO - estimates based on the 2005 national Household Budget Survey. UK data provisional

The living standards of poor families vary widely within the EU

The standards of living of “poor” children vary greatly across the EU, as illustrated by the thresholds under which a household with 2 adults and 2 children is considered at risk of poverty (Table 1). While in 11 of the 15 “old” Member States these thresholds are higher than €1500, they are less than €500 per month in 9 of the 12 “new” Member States. When corrected for the differences in the cost of living (values in PPS), the variation in national thresholds is approximately one to six between the 3 lowest and the 3 highest values (i.e. the average of the highest is six times that of the lowest).

Table 1: Monthly at-risk-of-poverty threshold (illustrative values) for a household with 2 adults and 2 children, EUR and PPS, 2005

| BE | BG* | CZ | DK | DE | EE | IE | EL | ES | FR | IT | CY | LV | LT |

EUR | 1740 | 153 | 444 | 2323 | 1798 | 313 | 1965 | 989 | 1111 | 1673 | 1506 | 1381 | 231 | 216 |

PPS | 1660 | 356 | 816 | 1677 | 1731 | 502 | 1576 | 1141 | 1231 | 1526 | 1442 | 1538 | 420 | 410 |

| LU | HU | MT | NL | AT | PL | PT | RO* | SI | SK | FI | SE | UK | |

EUR | 2990 | 362 | 831 | 1783 | 1889 | 266 | 755 | 98 | 924 | 297 | 1828 | 1817 | 1956p | |

PPS | 2866 | 591 | 1157 | 1695 | 1848 | 503 | 876 | 226 | 1233 | 546 | 1488 | 1502 | 1864p | |

Source: SILC (2005) - income reference year 2004 (except for UK income year 2005 and IE moving income reference period 2004-2005); except BG national Household Budget Survey (HBS) 2004 (income year 2004) and RO - national HBS 2005 (income year 2005). UK data provisional. EU aggregates: Eurostat estimates are obtained as a population size weighted average of national data.

How severe is the poverty of poor children?

In the EU, the severity of child poverty as measured by the poverty gap [8] for children is the same as for the overall population. However, this hides a much more contrasted picture across EU countries (Figure 2). In one third of countries (MT, IE, BG, IT, ES, EE, LV, PL) the intensity of poverty is 3 to 6 percentage points higher for children than for the overall population, and the poverty gap ranges from 20% to more than 30%. In contrast, the intensity of child poverty is lower than for the overall population in FI, AT, FR, CY, SI, SE, DE, and the UK. It is therefore in the countries with the highest child poverty rates that the intensity of poverty is most severe, except in EL.

Figure 2: Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap of children vs. the overall population (%), 2005

(...PICT...)

Source: SILC (2005) - income year 2004 (income year 2005 for IE and the UK); except for BG and RO - estimates based on the 2005 national Household Budget Survey

1.2.2. Household characteristics: children in lone-parent household or in a large family are most at risk, but great variation remain across EU

Among the factors influencing the income situation of children, the size, composition and characteristics (age, educational level of parents) of the household they live in play an important role. Household structures evolve on the basis of the way individuals choose to organise their lives. This happens in the context of specific cultural, social and demographic trends, where economic conditions play a very important role. The prevalence of different household structures in a country, and especially those that are exposed to the greatest risks of poverty (e.g. lone-parent households) can depend on the availability of affordable housing (which influences the ability to afford living independently), access to the labour market (and thus to earnings from work), the design of tax and benefit systems (e.g. individualised or not), and in particular the level and conditionality of social transfers (in cash or in kind).

Half of poor children live either in a lone parent household or in a large family

In the EU, half of poor children live in the two types of households that are most at risk of poverty: 23% live in lone-parent households and 27% in large families. As illustrated in Figure 3, these two types of families suffer from significantly higher poverty risks than other households with children:

· 13% of children in the EU live in a lone-parent household, their numbers have increased in most countries and their share is around 20% in DK, DE, EE, SE and the UK. On average, as well as in most countries, their risk of poverty is almost twice as high as for children as a whole (34% against 19%) and their parent is more often low-skilled. However, children living in lone-parent households face very different risks of poverty across the EU, from around 20% in the Nordic countries to 50% or more in IE, LT and MT. In 90% of cases, the lone parent is the mother, but the main causes leading to lone parenthood (out-of-wedlock birth, separation) vary across countries. Children in lone-parent households depend, more than others, on state support in the form of financial transfers or enabling services to support the parents' access to the labour market (e.g. care services, reconciliation measures and active labour market policies that improve the parents' employability and career prospects).

· 21% of children live in large families (with 3 children or more) and face a risk of poverty of 25% on average in the EU. The shares of children living in large families are lowest in Southern countries (15% or less in EL, ES, IT, PT) and in CZ, the Baltic States and SI (14 to 18%) where on the other hand they face the highest risks of poverty (30% or more except in CZ, EE and SI). By contrast, the number of children in large families is highest in the Nordic countries (26% to 33%) and in IE and Benelux (31% to 33%) where they face the lowest risks of poverty (9 to 15% in the Nordic Countries and 21-22% in the Benelux) and are more often than elsewhere in households headed by parents with a higher level of education. In SE and DE living in a large family does not increase the poverty risk for a child. While the numbers of large families have dropped in the Southern countries and Ireland over the last 10 years, they have remained stable in the Nordic Countries and Benelux where their living conditions are better, probably because parents benefit from better support and access to the labour market.

Figure 3: At-risk-of-poverty rate for all children and for children living in households most at risk (%), 2005

(...PICT...)

Source: SILC (2005) - income year 2004 (income year 2005 for IE and the UK), PT, UK data provisional

The extent to which lone-parent households and large families experience greater risks of poverty depends both on their characteristics (age, education level of parents, etc.), and on the labour market situation of the parents (joblessness, in-work poverty, etc), which can be influenced by the availability of adequate support in the form of services and policies enabling to reconcile work and family life, such as childcare, flexible working time arrangements and leave schemes, and personalised support by employment services, as well as by conditions and incentives such as in-work income support.

Age and educational level of parents

In the EU, children whose parents are below 30 years of age have a significantly higher risk of poverty than those living with older parents: 27% when the mother is below the age of 30, as against 19% when the mother is between 30 and 39 and 16% when she is between 40 and 49. Across EU countries, the risk of poverty among children of young mothers (less than 30) ranges from 15-16% in CY and SE to 31-35% in IE, IT, PL, and the UK. The age of the parents is indeed one determinant of the financial situation of households with children in that earnings from work in all countries show a strong progression from the early 20’s until the mid 50’s. In addition, the incidence of joblessness is greater among the youngest [9].

The educational level of the parents is another key determinant of children’s current and future situation since it affects both the current labour market and income situation of the parents and the children’s own prospects of doing well at school [10]. In the EU, most children have at least one parent who has completed secondary education. The percentage of children living with low-skilled parents (no parent with secondary education) ranges from less than 10% in nearly half of the countries (including most of the central and eastern European EU-12 Member States) to 30% or more in the southern Member States and IE, reaching 65% in MT and PT. The education profile of the parents of poor children differs significantly from that of the parents of their peers, since for more than 30% of poor children none of their parents has completed a secondary education (as against 16% for all children), and only 16% have a parent with a higher education (as against 32% for all children).

1.2.3. Labour market situation of parents

The labour market situation of parents is a key determinant of the conditions in which children live and develop. Earnings from work are normally the main source of income for parents in their prime age, and joblessness represents the main risk of poverty for households with children. In-work poverty also remains an important cause of low income among families. The capacity of parents to draw an adequate income from work depends on their level of earnings and on how much the adults in the household work (1 or 2 earners working full-time or part-time, and the extent to which they work continuously throughout the year). Finally, the labour market attachment of parents depends on the combined impact of making work pay and active labour market policies supporting parental employment (and especially mothers’ employment), policies promoting the reconciliation of work and family life and the availability and affordability of enabling services (e.g. child care).

Earnings are the primary source of income for families supplemented by social benefits to various degrees

While earnings are the primary source of income for households with children (just like other households, especially those with people of working age), they represent only 60% of the gross income of families at-risk-of-poverty (as against 90% of the gross income of non-poor families). Social transfers other than pensions represent slightly more than 1/3 of the gross income of poor families with children, with family allowances playing the biggest role in supplementing the income of these families. However, when looking specifically at poor households, there are strong cross country variations in the relative contribution of earnings and benefits to the gross income of families. This reflects the very different set-ups in the organisation of social transfers across countries.

Joblessness: a persistent trend that significantly affect children’s living standards

Living in a household where no-one works is likely to significantly affect both the current living conditions of children and their future development. In 2006, almost 10% of EU-27 children lived in jobless households ranging from less than 4% in LU, SI and EL to more than 14% in BG and the UK. In the EU as a whole, the situation has not improved over the last 5 years. In half of EU countries, the general increase in employment rates did not benefit those families that are furthest away from the labour market. Among the countries for which we have consistent trend data, only BG, EE, EL, ES, IT, LT, and to a certain extent LU and the UK have shown signs of a decrease in the number of children living in jobless households.

Figure 4: Adults and children living in jobless households (%), EU-27, 2006

(...PICT...)

Source: Eurostat Labour Force Survey, spring results, data missing for SE

In the EU, joblessness mainly affects households headed by lone parents who face particular difficulties in reconciling work and family life. In 2006, 47.3% of children living in a jobless household lived in a lone-parent household, 40% in a 2-adult household and 12.3% in a household with 3 adults or more. However, this pattern varies significantly across countries. In BE, CZ, DE, EE, LU, the NL and the UK half or more than half of children in a jobless household lived with a lone parent. This rate reaches 60% in LU and 67% in the UK.

In a number of other countries joblessness primarily affects couples with children: in EL, ES, FR, IT, HU, AT, PT and FI half or more of jobless households are 2-adult families. In some new Member States (LV, LT, HU, SI, SK) joblessness also affects complex households.

As illustrated in Figure 5, the impact of joblessness or low work intensity [11] on the poverty risk is in all countries much higher for households with children than for households without children. On average in the EU, more than half of the children in households with no or very weak attachment to the labour market are at risk of poverty. This shows that social transfers alone do not compensate for the lack of work income of families with children and underlines the need to foster the labour market attachment of parents in order to durably protect the children from poverty and social exclusion.

Figure 5: At-risk-of-poverty rate by type of household and work intensity (%), EU-25 average, 2005

(...PICT...)

Source: SILC (2005) - income year 2004 (income year 2005 for IE and UK). UK data provisional

Parental work protects children from poverty to varying degrees in the EU, and in-work poverty remains an issue in the majority of countries

In the EU as a whole, the great majority of children have either one or two parents at work. Half of children live in a household in which all adults are working full-time. This proportion ranges from around 40% or less in ES, IE, IT, MT and PL to more than 60% in DK, HU, SI and SE.

However, not all children whose parents are at work are protected from the risk of poverty. 13% of children living in households at work (work intensity greater than 0.5) are living under the poverty threshold (Figure 6). This rate ranges from 7% or less in the Nordic countries to more than 20% in ES, PT and PL. In-work poverty results from various combinations of low wages and low work intensity. Low work intensity may be the result of labour market shortcomings such as recurrent unemployment or unstable jobs and involuntary part-time work, or from particular household structures (too few adults working in the household in relation to the number of dependants). These can in particular be influenced by disincentives embedded in tax-benefit systems and the lack of reconciliation measures.

Figure 6: At-risk-of-poverty rates of children living in households at work, EU-25, 2005

(...PICT...)

Source: SILC (2005) - income year 2004 (income year 2005 for IE and the UK).

Among children living with both parents, the two-bread-winner model is the norm while the impact of part-time work varies across countries

In the EU, the two-bread winner model is the norm for nearly two thirds of children living with both parents. This rate reaches 75% or more in HU, SI, SK and the Nordic countries and is lowest (though just above 50%) in DE, ES, IE, IT, LU, AT and PL. As illustrated in Figure 6, among couples with children the poverty risk for children living with both parents working full-time is 7% on average in the EU, ranging from 6% or less (in approx. 2/3 of countries) to 11% or more in, HU, NL, PL, PT, and SK. In contrast, 25% of children with only one out of two parents at work (working full-time) are at risk of poverty. This rate ranges from around 10-13% in DK, DE and SE to 30% or more in ES, HU, IT, LT, LV, PL, PT, SI and SK.

Having both parents in work seems to protect children from the risk of poverty in most countries, whether the parents both work full-time or not. At EU level, the risk of poverty among children with one parent working full-time and the other working part-time is 7%, i.e. the same as for children with both parents working full time. In a number of countries, the risk of poverty among children with one parent working full-time and the other working part time is equally low (BE, CZ, DK, IE, FR, IT, CY, AT, SE, FI, UK) or even lower (DE, NL) than for children whose parents both work full-time. In these countries, part-time work may be seen as an element of work/life balance for two-earner families.

In other countries, on the other hand, both parents need to work full time to ward off the risk of poverty for their children. In EE, EL, LT, LV, PL, PT and SK, the risk of poverty among children with one of their parents working only part-time ranges from 19 to 32% and is 2 to 4 times higher than the risk of poverty among children with both parents working full time. The impact of part-time work on household income depends on the level of skills, the number of hours worked and the availability and affordability of childcare and other support services available to families.

Figure 7: At-risk-of-poverty rates of children living in two parents households by activity status of the parents, and percentages of children concerned, EU-25, 2005

(...PICT...)

Source: SILC (2005) - income year 2004 (income year 2005 for IE and the UK).

52% of children living in large families have both their parents at work. They face a poverty risk of 13% if both parents work full-time and 10% if one of them works part-time. In contrast, a single earner is not sufficient to keep children of large families out of poverty since 33% of them live under the poverty threshold. Again, the impact of part-time work varies across the EU; in half of the countries, part-time work can be regarded as an element of reconciling work and family life for large families, while in the other half (EE, EL, ES, HU, LT, LV, LU, PL, PT, SK, and to a lesser degree the UK) the part-time work of one parent significantly increases the risk of poverty.

Children living in lone parent households are at much lower risk if their parent works full-time

If their parent works full-time, the children of lone parents face a relatively low risk of poverty of 15% (as against 19% for all children). This risk falls to between 4 and 14% in BE, DE, DK, IE, FR, NL, FI, SE and the UK, although it is only in the Nordic countries, the UK and FR that the majority of children living with a lone-parent have their parent working full time. In contrast, children whose lone parent works part-time face a much higher risk of poverty, 30% on average in the EU. While country estimates for this population lack statistical reliability (due to the small sample size), the poverty rates of lone parents working part-time reach 30% or more in two thirds of EU countries. Considering that low-skilled women are overrepresented among lone parents, and that they are often in involuntary part-time employment (industrial cleaning services, distributive trade, personal services jobs), children living with these mothers appear to be especially at risk and require specific support. This illustrates that the higher risks of poverty faced by the children of lone parents are closely linked to the ability of lone parents to fully integrate the labour market.

1.2.4. Government intervention

Assessing the impact of government intervention on child poverty is a complex task since a broad range of government policies influences the actual living standards of households with children. [12]. Tax and benefit systems can redistribute income towards families by different means, such as providing a minimum income for those without paid employment (unemployment benefits, social assistance, disability allowances) or supplementing the income of all households with children whether they are in employment or not. The income of families can also be influenced by minimum-wages policies. Child poverty is also influenced by policy choices in education (free schooling at an early age, length of the school day), health (access to free services for children), housing, and child care services, etc.

Levels of social expenditures and at-risk-of-poverty rates among children: those that spend most have the lowest poverty rates

A simple correlation between risk of poverty rates and levels of social transfers shows that the countries with the lowest child poverty rates are those which spend most on social benefits (excluding pensions [13]), with the notable exception of the Republic of Cyprus and – to a lesser extent - Slovenia. This partly reflects the wealth effect observed among EU countries whereby the richest countries are those which can afford the highest levels of social protection and redistribution. However, differences in the starting positions of households before receipt of benefits, as well as in the design and overall effectiveness of the tax and benefit systems, mean that countries with similar levels of wealth and social spending as a percentage of GDP experience widely differing levels of child poverty.

In the EU-25, social transfers alleviate the risk of poverty for children to varying degrees

On average in the EU social transfers other than pensions reduce the risk of poverty for children by 44% (see Figure 8), which is more than for the overall population (38%). The impact of social transfers is higher on child poverty than on overall poverty in most EU countries, except in PL, SK, BE, NL and CZ, where it is slightly smaller. In DK, FI and SE, social transfers (other than pensions) reduce the risk-of-poverty for children by more than 60%, as against 44% on average in the EU. Only FR and AT approach this level. In BG, EL and ES, this reduction is less than 20% (also for the overall population).

Figure 8: Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) on the poverty risk for children and for the overall population (in % of the poverty risk including all social transfers), 2005

(...PICT...)

Source: SILC (2005) - income year 2004 (income year 2005 for IE and the UK); except for BG and RO estimates based on 2005 national household budget survey; UK data provisional

Benefits specifically targeting children have the strongest impact on child poverty

Countries where social transfers have the greatest impact on child poverty are also those where family benefits reduce child poverty the most (see Table 2). In HU, AT, SI, FI and SE family benefits reduce the risk of poverty among children by 36% or more (up to 49% in AT), and by 26% to 32% in CZ, DE, EE, FR, HU, and LU. In these countries, the differences in final child poverty outcomes are partly due to the very different levels of pre-transfers risk-of-poverty, which depend inter alia on the incidence of joblessness and in-work poverty. Among the countries with the greatest impact of social transfers, HU and the UK have the most difficult initial conditions, combining high levels of joblessness and in-work poverty. DK, the NL and SI, where the incidence of both joblessness and in-work poverty is low, enjoy the best pre-transfers conditions.

Table 2: At-risk-of poverty rates for children before and after transfers (excluding pensions), and after family benefits, %, EU-25, 2005

Country | CY | EL | DK | NL | SI | ES | SK | MT | DE | LV | FI | EE | IT |

At-risk-of-poverty rate before transfers (excl. pensions) | 21 | 23 | 25 | 28 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 30 | 31 | 31 | 32 | 32 | 31 |

At-risk-of-poverty rate after family benefits | 16 | 22 | 21 | 23 | 17 | 28 | 23 | 24 | 21 | 25 | 19 | 23 | 27 |

At-risk-of-poverty rate | 13 | 20 | 10 | 15 | 12 | 24 | 19 | 22 | 14 | 22 | 10 | 21 | 24 |

Impact of all transfers (%) | 36 | 9 | 60 | 42 | 57 | 14 | 37 | 27 | 53 | 29 | 66 | 32 | 23 |

of which, impact of family transfers (%) | 24 | 2 | 18 | 19 | 39 | 2 | 24 | 19 | 31 | 19 | 40 | 28 | 14 |

Country | PT | BE | CZ | LT | FR | LU | SE | AT | PL | IE | UK | HU |

At-risk-of-poverty rate before transfers (excl. pensions) | 31 | 34 | 34 | 35 | 34 | 36 | 35 | 37 | 39 | 40 | 42 | 45 |

At-risk-of-poverty rate after family benefits | 27 | 26 | 24 | 30 | 25 | 24 | 21 | 19 | 35 | 31 | 34 | 29 |

At-risk-of-poverty rate | 24 | 18 | 18 | 27 | 14 | 19 | 9 | 15 | 29 | 23 | 21 | 20 |

Impact of all transfers (%) | 23 | 45 | 49 | 21 | 57 | 42 | 73 | 57 | 25 | 43 | 49 | 53 |

of which impact of family transfers (%) | 12 | 22 | 30 | 13 | 26 | 32 | 39 | 49 | 10 | 23 | 18 | 36 |

Source: SILC (2005) - income year 2004 (income year 2005 for IE and the UK)

1.2.5. Key findings on child poverty

Table 3 summarises the main findings of the analysis of the main determinants of the risk of child poverty presented above. In the first column, countries are assessed according to their relative performance in child poverty outcomes, by 6 levels from +++ (countries with the highest performance) to --- (countries with the lowest performance). Child poverty outcomes are assessed by a score [14] summarising the relative situation of children in a country with regard to: a) the poverty risk for the overall population in that country, b) the average child poverty risk for the EU as a whole, and c) the average intensity of the poverty risk for children (poverty gap) at EU level.

In the next three columns, countries are assessed according to their relative performance (also using a 6-level scale) with regard to three main factors influencing the child poverty risk [15], namely: children living in jobless households, children living in households at risk of in-work poverty and the impact of social transfers on the risk of child poverty.

The analysis allows to gather countries into 4 main groups (in line), according to which combination of the 3 key factors predominantly affects their risk of poverty.

Table 3: Relative outcomes of countries related to child poverty risk and main determinants of child poverty risk

| | Child poverty outcomes | Joblessness: children living in jobless households | Children living in households confronted with in-work poverty | Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) on child poverty |

GROUP A | AT | ++ | + | + | ++ |

| CY | +++ | + | ++ | - |

| DK | +++ | + | +++ | ++ |

| FI | +++ | ++ | +++ | +++ |

| NL | + | + | + | + |

| SE | +++ | (++) | +++ | +++ |

| SI | ++ | +++ | ++ | + |

GROUP B | BE | + | -- | ++ | - |

| CZ | - | -- | + | - |

| DE | ++ | -- | +++ | + |

| FR | ++ | - | ++ | ++ |

| EE | -- | -- | + | -- |

| IE | - | --- | + | - |

GROUP C | HU | - | --- | -- | + |

| MT | - | -- | -- | -- |

| SK | - | --- | -- | -- |

| UK | + | --- | -- | - |

GROUP D | EL | + | +++ | -- | --- |

| ES | -- | + | --- | --- |

| IT | -- | ++ | -- | --- |

| LT | --- | + | --- | --- |

| LU | + | +++ | -- | - |

| LV | -- | - | -- | -- |

| PL | --- | - | --- | --- |

| PT | -- | + | --- | --- |

| BG | -- | --- | : | : |

| RO | -- | -- | : | : |

Source: Figures 1 & 2, Figure 4, Figure 6, Figure 8 and detailed calculations in ISG report. BG and RO cannot be included in the full assessment since data is missing for the in-work poverty and the impact of social transfers.

The detailed analysis of table 3 confirms that child poverty outcomes result from complex interactions between these main factors and that the countries achieving the best outcomes are those that perform well on all fronts, notably by combining strategies facilitating access to employment with enabling services (child care, etc.) and income support.

A detailed description of the four groups is given below:

· Group A comprises the three Nordic countries (DK, FI, SE) as well as AT, CY, NL, and SI. These countries achieve relatively good child poverty outcomes by performing well on all three fronts. They combine a relatively good labour market performance of parents (low levels of joblessness and of in-work poverty among households with children) with relatively high and effective social transfers. It is worth noting that the Nordic countries achieve these goals despite high shares of children living in lone parent households. They seem to succeed in doing so in particular by supporting adequate labour market participation of parents in such families through appropriate activation policies, childcare provision and a wide range of measures to reconcile work and family life. While the impact of social transfers on child poverty is relatively low in the Republic of Cyprus, children in this country seem to have so far been protected against the risk of poverty by strong family structures dominated by 2-adult families and complex households in which all adults are at work. In the Netherlands, while children partly benefit from the low levels of inequality in the country and from the relatively good integration of their parents in the labour market, child poverty outcomes may be further improved by addressing the intensity of poverty (as measured by the poverty gap, see p.9) and improving the impact of social transfers (which is lower than for other countries in this group).

· Group B comprises BE, CZ, DE, EE, FR and IE which achieve relatively good to below average poverty outcomes. The main concern in these countries is the high number of children living in jobless households. While 10% or more of children live in families affected by joblessness, families at work experience lower levels of poverty than in other EU countries. In most of these countries, nearly half of the children in jobless households live with a lone parent. In France, the high number of jobless couples with children is also a matter of concern. Among these six countries, DE and FR seem to be more successful at limiting the risks of poverty for children through relatively high and effective social transfers. The interaction between the design of these benefits, the availability and affordability of child care and the labour market participation of parents could be explored further [16]. In particular, activation policies aimed at promoting the labour market integration of those parents furthest away from the labour market may contribute to reducing child poverty in these countries.

· Group C comprises HU, MT, SK, and the UK who have average or just below average child poverty outcomes, despite a combination of high levels of joblessness and in-work poverty among parents. In the UK, joblessness mainly affects lone parents, while in HU, MT and SK it affects mainly couples with children. The main factors behind in-work-poverty are low work intensity in MT (very few 2-earners families) and the UK (incidence of part-time work) and low pay in HU and SK where the poverty rates of 2-earner families are among the highest in Europe. In this group of countries, the UK and HU partly alleviate the very high risks of pre-transfers poverty among children through relatively effective social benefits. In MT and SK, despite the relatively poor integration of their parents in the labour market, children have a low pre-transfers risk of poverty, probably as a result of protective family structures; in Slovakia, the rather narrow income distribution may also play a role. In these 4 countries, different policy mixes may be needed to improve the chances of parents living in jobless households to find a suitable job, to enhance the labour market participation of second earners and to adequately support the incomes of parents at work.

· Group D comprises EL, ES, IT, LT, LU [17], LV, PL, and PT. These countries have average (EL, LU) or relatively high levels of child poverty. While they have low shares of children living in jobless households, they are characterised by very high levels of in-work poverty among families. The main factors behind in-work poverty in these countries are the low work intensity (the number of 2-earner families being among the lowest in ES, EL, IT, LU, PL) combined (or not) with low in-work incomes (the poverty rates among 2-bread-winner- households being among the highest in ES, EL, LT, PT and PL). In these countries (apart from LU), the level and efficiency of social spending are among the lowest in the EU. The analysis indicates that family structures and intergenerational solidarity in these countries continue to play a role in alleviating the risk of poverty for the most vulnerable children. Living in multi-generational households and/or relying on inter-households transfers in cash and in kind [18] may be a way to compensate for the lack of government support for parents in the most vulnerable situations. These countries may need to adopt comprehensive strategies to provide better support for family incomes and to facilitate labour market integration, especially for second earners.

1.3. Member States' policies to prevent and tackle child poverty

1.3.1. Ensuring sufficient resources for families including through active inclusion [19] strategies

In their aim to ensure sufficient resources for families, most countries have adopted an integrated approach to poverty that combines income support for families (to all but in particular lone parents and large families) and policies enhancing labour market integration of parents, often through a comprehensive active inclusion approach (see box at the end of section 1.3).

Supporting households' income

All countries support to some extent the income of households with children. Tax and benefit systems redistribute income towards families by different means, such as facilities that take the family composition into account (tax allowances, income splitting, etc.), cash benefits (family allowances, unemployment benefits, social assistance, disability allowances, housing allowances) and benefits in kind (access to free services in the areas of health, education, child care, housing, etc.). The income of families can also be influenced by minimum wages policies.

In most countries, family benefits play an important role in supporting the income of families with children (on average in the EU they represent approximately half of cash social transfers to these households). They include benefits to support income during maternity leave (flat-rate or earnings-related payments), birth/adoption grants, parental leave benefits, family or child allowances to partly offset the costs of raising a child and other cash benefits for families with specific needs (handicapped children, lone parents, foster families, etc). Family benefits may vary depending on the age and number of children.

Most countries combine universal and targeted benefits to various degrees.

Universal benefits are distributed to all families with children (in the form of tax allowances, cash benefits, etc), and often depend on the size of the family. Their main purpose is to compensate (at least partly) for the cost of raising children. The main advantages of these schemes are that they help create a favourable environment for families with children, do not contribute to traps, and are not discriminatory and therefore not affected by take-up issues.

Targeted benefits are meant to support the most vulnerable families (low-income, lone parents, large families, families with disabled children, etc.) by redistributing social transfers towards those who are most in need. However, they can create disincentives to take up work or work more for low-income families. A number of countries have specific measures to address these trap effects for parents (in-work income supplement mechanisms, access to childcare regardless of the labour market situation of parents, etc.).

Other social benefits also support family incomes, with levels depending in some cases on the number of children in the household: unemployment benefits, social housing, basic guaranteed income, minimum wages, etc.

Provision of in-kind benefits

Many Member States support families by providing services free of charge or at reduced fees, which may be either universal or targeted at the families most in need (low-income, families with special needs). These services target children in the field of child care (see below), health care (preventive health care at school or at community level), education (school meals, school books, transport, etc.), and participation in sports and recreational activities (including subsidised holidays), or target the family, notably in the area of housing (social housing). Integrated services are likely to respond more effectively to user needs.

Integrated services for improved access

In France, the Plan périnatalité 2005-2008 contains multi-dimensional actions to support underprivileged pregnant women. They cover food, housing (guaranteeing a decent and stable housing during pregnancy), addictions, facilitated access to health insurance, medical follow-up, etc.

In Malta, the family resource centre ACCESS is a an innovative service platform bringing together a number of different social welfare service providers in the fields of social security, employment and training, housing, family and child care, and education. This platform serves as an entry point for access to services, providing better results than centralised or segmented service provision.

Enhancing the labour market participation of parents:

Most countries promote the active inclusion of parents in the labour market by supplementing family income support with activation measures and incentives for parents to take up work, remain in work or work more. These measures include income supplement mechanisms (such as tax reductions or in-work cash benefits for those on low incomes) and free or subsidised access to childcare for parents both in and out of work (in particular to facilitate parents' access to paid work, training or job search). Effective active labour market policies, such as better access to training and special qualification and re-qualification schemes also support parents wishing to enter the labour market, or re-enter it after a career break. These measures may target specific categories of parents, such as lone parents, the unemployed, parents in jobless households, or second earners.

Eliminating the barriers to work for parents

In Hungary, a series of measures are aimed at supporting the parents of young children in their efforts to re-enter the labour market, by increasing the supply of institutional care (+800 places in 2007) and by eliminating disincentives to take up work. These measures include flexible childcare allowances (paid to parents of children <3) that may be transferred from one parent who wants to take-up work to the other, or to a grand-parent, where both parents want to work; the continuation of childcare allowance after taking up work; and priority for persons on parental leave wishing to attend university and vocational training programmes.

Belgium supports parents' wishing to return to work by combining measures to eliminate disincentives to take up work with enabling services. The Flemish government has introduced a fixed reduction in personal taxes mainly in order to raise the financial incentives to work for low-income workers, while jobseekers receive free childcare and subsidies to attend training. It is also planning to increase flexible on-demand childcare offered to jobseekers attending training and job interviews.

In Ireland, the Family Income Supplement is a weekly tax-free payment for families at work on low pay. This preserves the incentive to remain in employment in circumstances where work does not pay enough in comparison with out-of-work benefits.

In the United Kingdom, the Whaddon Sure Start Children's Centre in Cheltenham houses both a childcare facility and a vocational training centre, so that parents who may find it difficult to leave the house to learn new skills are able to study with their children cared for nearby.

Countries also highlight the importance of measures to reconcile work and family life for parents.

Enhancing the supply of childcare both quantitatively and qualitatively can help both to reconcile work and family life and to ensure equal opportunities for all children. Some countries highlight the need to develop adequate childcare both for children below school age and during after-school hours. The measures described by member states include an increase in the supply of institutional day care, strategies to address staff shortages and the professional qualifications of personnel, the promotion of quality standards both in institutional care and for personal services, the promotion of partnerships and of work in network, the implementation of a child right to day care (DK, DE, FI), a tax subsidy to employ a child minder at home (FR), etc. Giving more choice to parents by supporting a wide range of care arrangements is an interesting feature of a few systems. Some countries also support flexible on-demand childcare (e.g. 24/7 child care) to address the issue of atypical working hours and the specific needs of jobseekers. These countries also have measures to promote family-friendly working arrangements and limit atypical working hours for parents.

Enhancing the supply and quality of childcare

In France, the supply and quality of childcare are being enhanced by a quantitative increase in supply and greater variety of childcare solutions: an increase in the number of places in institutional day care, professional qualifications for child-minders working at home (35000 new certificates per year), financial incentives for parents to employ a child-minder at home, and very early schooling (from age 2). In order to allow access to care for parents working atypical hours and for jobseekers with occasional needs, flexible types of institutional care are being developed such as 24/7 child care and 'haltes garderies'. In total, €12.2 billion was invested in 2006.

In Finland, every child has an individual right to municipal day care below school age (~7), regardless of their parents' income and labour market situation. While charges depend on parental income, care is free for low income families. 24-hour day care is offered to parents who need it, although measures are in place to reduce atypical working hours among parents.

In Hungary, the National Strategy 'Let it be better for children' and the Government Action Plan 2007-2010 support the creation of integrated institutions (nursery and kindergarten groups in the same institution) in small villages where nurseries are not affordable and kindergartens are not viable due to the decline in the number of children.

Flexible working time and leave arrangements are another set of key tools to reconcile work and family life. Across countries, the effectiveness of parental leave schemes depends on whether or not the leave is paid, and on the right balance between the size and duration of the allowance, since the length of the career break can have a negative impact on the parent's prospects of re-entering the labour market and on the conditions under which he/she can find a new job. Another key feature of such leave arrangements is whether the rights are individual (for mothers and fathers separately) or can be shared between the two parents. Introducing individual rights mainly has a positive effect on the take-up rates of fathers, and ultimately on the sharing of care responsibilities within the household.

A number of countries have measures to involve employers (in cooperation with trade unions) in the provision of company-based/subsidised childcare and flexible working time arrangements.

Involving employers in promoting the reconciliation between work and family life

Germany has recently launched the 'alliance for families', a strategy for better reconciling work and family life, involving the government, employers and trade unions. The strategy includes: 'career and family' audit schemes; networks of local agencies to enhance dialogue with municipalities; awareness-raising campaigns; and mutual learning schemes among employers on issues such as flexible working time, company-based childcare provision and the return of parents to work after leave. This is in addition to Germany's commitment to dramatically increase the supply of childcare by creating 230 000 new day-care places by 2010.

In France, the government supports the development of company based child care provision through tax credits and by applying the same VAT as to the non-profit sector while social partners have the obligation to address the issue of reconciliation in their negotiations.

The availability and affordability of public transportation – including outside city centres – also plays a role in enabling parents to enter or remain in the labour market.

The active inclusion approach aims to promote the social and labour market integration of the most disadvantaged by combining income support at a level sufficient for people to live in dignity with links to the labour market through job opportunities or vocational training and with better access to enabling social services. In 2006, the Commission launched a public consultation, including a consultation under article 138 of the EC Treaty, on the need for action at EU level to promote the active inclusion of people furthest from the labour market.The responses to the 2006 consultation highlighted that the 1992 Council Recommendation on 'Common criteria concerning sufficient resources and social assistance in social protection systems' was still considered a reference instrument for EU policy in relation to poverty and social exclusion. For most, however, the adequacy of minimum income schemes had to be assessed in the broader context of access to employment so the comprehensive approach taken by the Commission was welcomed. While prescriptive rules were not considered appropriate in the light of the diversity of situations across Europe, most respondents expressed support for a renewed effort at EU level.Active inclusion was also one of the key priorities in most of the 2006-2008 National Reports on strategies for social protection and social inclusion, and its three-pillar approach was examined in an in-depth review by the Social Protection Committee (April 19-20) and the sixth meeting of People experiencing Poverty (4-5 May). A stakeholders' conference in Brussels (15 June 2007) pointed out the need for strong and coordinated interaction between the pillars while the Sixth Round Table on poverty and social exclusion (16-17 October 2007) underlined how active inclusion can provide a broad general framework for action at European and national level since it combines the principles of empowerment and protection. The involvement of the social partners through their bilateral dialogue was deemed to be of paramount importance.Based on the results of the 2006 consultation and the initiatives that followed, the Commission has proposed, in a new broad consultation launched on 17 October 2007, to deepen the Open Method of Coordination in this area through the adoption of common principles and their subsequent monitoring and evaluation, respecting fully the principle of subsidiarity as well as the autonomy and different situations and needs of the Member States. The common principles on each of the three strands of active inclusion would stress the need for a holistic approach and provide a concrete and integrated framework for their implementation. This structured process is essential in order to identify the best policy responses to the common social challenge of guaranteeing the fundamental right of all EU citizens to social and housing assistance as to ensure a decent existence for all. |

1.3.2. Supporting the development of the child

The importance of early intervention is very strongly emphasised by the Member States, in particular the role of pre-schooling. There is a clear recognition that it can play a vital role in compensating for socio-economic disadvantage and effectively paving the way for a child's future successful development. Some make reference to the rich evidence that the return to society on investing in pre-school education is particularly high. The prevention of early school leaving is also seen as vital in this context. Furthermore, many Member States attach strong weight to ensuring access to health care at an early stage as indicated below. Some recognise that housing conditions have a major impact on children's development opportunities and require full attention in any social inclusion policy.

As highlighted in chapter 1.3.1, many Member States are focusing on expanding child care provision to facilitate the labour market participation of parents. At the same time in recognition of the potential levelling impact of access to quality child care and pre-schooling for disadvantaged children, an equal opportunities perspective is gaining ground. Thus beside the need in most Member States to increase overall provision, increased consideration is being given to the need to improve access in education, in particular pre-schooling, and to support parents. In addition, special attention is being given to children in deprived areas and to children from disadvantaged families.

Pre-schooling and access to education

A number of Member States are increasing the national budget devoted to pre-school education (IE, UK, IT) in order to increase the supply of education services in deprived areas. As mentioned in chapter 8 some are making use of EU structural funding for projects that provide the infrastructure for pre-school education (HU: increasing the places available in kindergartens and for the renovation of buildings; PL: a programme called 'Small kindergarten in every village' with the aim of establishing 65 small kindergartens in four regions).

Some Member States have adopted specific policies and set quantitative targets to increase the number of places available and the number of teachers in pre-school education (IE, IT, PL, ES). Some have policies to improve access to pre-school education with a focus on urban disadvantaged areas (IE, FR) and rural disadvantage areas (PL). Increasing the number of places and early intervention are a means to ensure equal opportunities for the rest of a child's future school career. In AT and DE, where children of an immigrant background make up a substantial proportion of young people leaving school without a qualification, language teaching is already made available already in kindergarten, where teachers are also trained as language teachers as well (DE).

Some Member States that have introduced systems of universal pre-schooling and further stages of education are adapting them to children at risk, with some using pre-schooling to screen for children at risk and may need extra help and support in learning (CY, DE, LU). Comprehensive support and learning is offered to pupils with a disability, illness, delayed development or some other disadvantage in order to promote equal opportunities for these children (FI).

Another way Member States are ensuring equal opportunities for all children is by focussing resources on the most deprived schools where pupils are failing (UK, SE). Standardised indicators are also being adopted in a growing number of Member States (IE, BE) in order to identify the schools in need of support, which are often in impoverished neighbourhoods or deprived areas. Integrated school systems encompassing kindergarten, primary and junior secondary schools are also being created to provide additional support for children with special needs and to guarantee access to immigrant children and prevent early school leaving, also with the involvement of the local community (CY).

Some Member States go further and have individual learning plans for children (DK, LU). Keeping children at school longer and investing in their education contributes to improved educational outcomes and therefore better performance in the labour market. The evidence is to be found mainly in national Government statistics, which highlight correlations between unemployment and qualification levels (IE, SI, EE, HU, LT, ES, SE, LU). Other evidence mentioned includes surveys (IE) and academic research (SI, BE).

While some form of educational support for foreign-born children or children with a migrant background, in particular for learning the language of the host country, is frequently reported, it seems that refugee or asylum seeking children, unaccompanied minors and undocumented children are not receiving the required attention. Again, most Member States with a significant share of Roma population, as well as PT and ES, report measures to improve the situation of Romani children, with the focus on educational support.

Preventing early school-leaving

Early drop out from school is a widespread social problem encountered not only among children and young people living in disadvantaged situations but also among children from wealthy backgrounds (EL and (Northern) IT). The low level of well-being at school experienced by pupils when transferring to secondary education is highlighted as a factor in this context (FI). The inability of families to care properly for their children is also mentioned among the causes leading children and young people to drop out of school (LT).

In order to retain pupils at school, two elements are important: the quality of educational services offered and their responsiveness to the challenges of modern society, in particular as regards employment and household needs (EL). Tackling this problem requires an integrated approach individually tailored to different needs and also providing adequate support for all those needing to acquire appropriate language skills (NL) in particular children with a mother tongue other than the majority language. Specific measures focus on low skilled school-leavers seeking jobs (BE, Flanders). Targeted action is also envisaged to respond to more specific needs, e.g. schools are being set up within hospitals to allow children who are unable to attend school for health reasons to pursue their education (IT).

Close interaction is required among the different parties involved in preventing and addressing early drop-out from school. Such interaction could support academic performance, for example by providing teaching support to weak students (EL, DK), or by setting up structures outside school or a combined "school and job" system (NL). Some Member States require all schools to report high levels of absence to the local council (DK), the municipality (SE) or the competent social service (MT). Work with the family (IE), cooperation between families, social workers, psychologists, pedagogues and medical specialists (FI, LT, LV) or an integrated cross-community and cross-sectoral approach based on the development of local strategies to ensure maximum participation levels in the education process (IE) are some of the solutions adopted. Changes to the curriculum in order to adapt them to pupils skills (ES), providing courses fostering self-confidence and promoting intercultural respect (EL) or the intervention of 'cultural mediators' (IT) can enhance the sense of 'belonging' and may encourage young people to stay at school. Financial support is also available for improving teachers' skills in handling potential drop-outs (LV, MT). The scheme 'Every Child Matters'(UK) helps schools to spot where problems outside the classroom are affecting a child’s development, and bring in the relevant support agencies to deal with them.

Several Member States follow up measures to reducing the number of early drop-outs by setting specific targets (PT) or introducing monitoring and evaluation based not only on statistics but also on evidence-based experiments (NL) and specific indicators (EL).

It could be recalled that in 2003, in the framework of the Education and Training 2010 work programme, Member States committed themselves to reducing the EU early school leaving average to a maximum of 10% by 2010. Even if some progress has been registered since, substantial efforts are still required in order to meet such a target. Currently, the EU average for early school leaving is around 15 % - in some countries (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Malta) the average is above 20%.

Counselling to parents

Many countries underline that in order to create a positive environment for children there is a growing need to provide counselling to families to support them in their parental role. Finland gives advice to parents through its perinatal scheme. Estonia sees counselling to support parenting skills as one of its priorities. France has developed its Réseaux d'écoute, d'appui et d'accompagnement des parents (REAAP) to support parents. These strategies have a positive effect in fostering a secure environment for growing up and preventing crises, thereby minimising the need to move the child from the family.

Health care

Children born into low-income families are much more likely to experience social exclusion, unhealthy lifestyles, and poorer access to health services. A number of Member States have launched innovative initiatives to increase access to health services for young children and their families. They include preventive care such as prenatal and health care for young children, antenatal services for vulnerable pregnant mothers, regular check-ups of children and free maternity and child clinics. Several Member States have health consultants in schools that offer vaccinations, provide dental care, give advice on mental health, provide information on substance misuse, contribute to sexual education and health and promote healthy eating habits. However, for these initiatives to be successful barriers such as the imbalance in professional expertise between regions and additional costs of access need to be overcome to ensure fair access to health services.

In Belgium, antenatal services have been available to vulnerable pregnant mothers since 2006. The Office for birth and childhood (Office de la naissance et de l’enfance, O.N.E.) offers a free service comprising free vaccinations for a number of illnesses and advice on healthy nutrition. The Promotion of Health at School initiative (Promotion de la Santé à l’Ecole) complements the services provided by O.N.E. by ensuring regular check-ups of children, thus improving the accessibility of health care services for low-income families with children.In Bulgaria, mobile medical teams geared at intercultural communication have been established to reach Roma families.In France at Orléans hospital, mediators with an intercultural background working with administrative and medical teams to facilitate access to social and health care for migrant pregnant women. |

The universal coverage of health insurance has a strong influence on access to health care. Many countries, including those with a well developed service, are focussing on how to tackle those not covered by health insurance such as recipients of social assistance and migrants (AT, PL, BE). There are also non-financial barriers to health services, for instance a lack of information on the services available or the inability of staff to work in a multi-cultural environment. Even where services are universal, strategies to promote effective access are required, since vulnerable people often do not use the available services if left to their own devices.

In general, health care services for children are provided and funded at local level, but the financial resources available differs depending, for example, on the size of the municipality. The lack of competent professionals is also a major cause of geographical inequalities in the level and quality of health care provision.

Housing

Most Member States acknowledge that housing is one of the fields where a growing number of families have been facing increasing difficulties in recent years, with negative consequences for the health, well-being and development of the most vulnerable children in particular. Many children are still living in inadequate, provisional accommodation or even in unsound dwellings. Further, the social and occupational integration of young people in particular may be hampered by the non-availability of housing at affordable prices.

There is a strong need for comprehensive and consistent strategies to address the shortage of dwellings, the qualitative mismatch between supply and demand, and the rise in prices for both renters and buyers. Eradicating slum areas, subsidising more social housing and promoting a more efficient use of land are key priorities for several Member States in this regard.

Several Member States have strategies to prevent children from being evicted from their homes (SE) or to reduce the number of households in temporary accommodation (UK). Hungary provides temporary shelters where families who have lost their homes can stay up to six months so that children are not taken away from the family (on the grounds of the absence of a decent home).

Nonetheless, there is generally scope to make policy strategies more comprehensive to ensure quantitative adequacy and qualitative consistency with existing needs. Stated goals include: guaranteeing unconditional shelter for street children or families with children, developing social housing where availability falls short of demand, promoting social diversity in order to avoid creating areas of exclusion and facilitating a fluid rental market. The local authorities' have major responsibilities in these fields but act within national policy frameworks.

In Sweden, four objectives have been set for 2007-2009: 1. Everyone is to be guaranteed a roof over their head and continued coordinated help on the basis of individual need; 2. Greater number of women and men admitted to or registered with correctional facilities, treatment units, supported housing or care homes to have housing arranged for them when they are discharged; 3. Entry into the regular housing market is to be made easier for women and men who are in training apartments or other types of housing supplied by the social welfare services or others; 4. The number of evictions is to fall and no children are to be evicted.

1.3.3. Targeted interventions to reach the most vulnerable children and families

Children in foster care (linked to ongoing de-institutionalisation) and disabled children

In the majority of Member States more and more children are being placed in foster care as opposed to institutional care, as foster care is seen as a more nurturing, stable and family-like environment (FI, SL, EE, CY, HU, IT, PO, SE and IT). Issues warranting more attention, however, are whether and how foster carers are to be assessed; how Member States can recruit more foster carers to cope with the increase in the number of foster care placements; appropriate training for foster carers and the issue of adequate financial resources for carers and children.

A stable placement is mentioned by many Member States as important for children in care. It avoids the damaging impact on children of frequent moves that hamper access to education and health care. In Sweden for example, in case of long-term placements in foster care (> three years) the social welfare committee is obliged to consider whether custody could be transferred to the foster parents. In addition to ensuring stability, care planning is also seen as crucial for some Member States. In Denmark, action plans setting out what an institution is to do for each child are reviewed regularly, firstly, three months after the placement of the child outside the home, and then once a year.

Clear through-care and aftercare policies are in place in several Member States. It is well documented that many young people lack the skills for independent living when they leave care. The aim is to help children and young people leaving care to identify and consider their career choices, and to prepare them emotionally and practically so that they can take up work or a place in further education. Denmark has a scheme for supporting and training 18-22 year-olds to live independently, including the appointment of a permanent contact person and a phasing-out plan in the care facility where the young person is currently accommodated.” Another possibility is to extend the placement or provide a personal adviser. In Ireland there is legislation allowing the Health Service Executive to provide aftercare to a young person on leaving care and a standard for aftercare has been defined. In Luxembourg young people leaving institutions are cared for in open accommodation facilities ('Structures de logement en milieu ouvert'), which are private associations funded by the government. They provide accommodation and are supported by an educational team. Centres for social and professional integration offer specific professional courses and trainings for children and adolescents in homes in order to develop their social integration and professional autonomy.

Some Member States are taking significant steps to improve the educational attainment of children in care. The United Kingdom is introducing a legal duty for local authorities to take on this responsibility coupled with legislation to enable local authorities to direct a school admissions authority to give a child in care a place in a school (Denmark also has this).

The training of social workers and carers is an important factor in preventing the social exclusion of children in care as relationships with skilled adults can help children and young people in care develop successfully. In Estonia the compulsory training of welfare workers is being extended to foster carers as from 2007.

Some Member States highlight the importance for this target group of developing and strengthening social services through better standards, improving local coordination and increasing early intervention. In Denmark the emphasis is on early action, involvement of the family networking and relevant documentation. Ireland has increased investment in early intervention services in the form of Family Resource Centres and subjects care services to inspections to ascertain compliance with existing standards.

For disabled children most Member States report additional financial assistance and have specific strategies and programmes in place, for example initiatives to increase the number of individual plans for children with disabilities in Sweden or early diagnosis and intervention programmes in Poland. Several Member States provide specific services to disabled children, such as rehabilitation. Italy, for example, offers therapy, rehabilitation and assistance in daytime social rehabilitation and education centres. Some draw attention to services provided to children and youngsters with mental health problems (SE, DK, UK, EE, MT). But there is also an emphasis on the need to ensure access to mainstream care facilities whenever possible, notably by ensuring that every child care facility is open to children with specific care needs (BE).

Children and families living in deprived areas

Children at risk of poverty often live in impoverished neighbourhoods in large cities and in depopulated rural areas. The combination of disadvantages results in particularly difficult situations to tackle. Education and urban regeneration are two powerful tools to ensure equal opportunities but long-term efforts are required.

For instance, almost one child in four in London lives in households at risk of poverty. High housing costs and fewer opportunities to combine work and family responsibilities are the main causes. A National scheme, the UK New Deal for lone parents has been adopted to tackle this problem. Building on this scheme in London, additional support is provided for lone parents who take up work through in-work credits and an in-work emergency fund that supports lone parents through crises that could otherwise mean their losing their jobs. Slovakia is focussing on community development. The network of social services in areas most in need is being expanded and upgraded Poland.

Urban policies can also be combined with broader policies to address the needs of youth. Sport activities are recognised as contributing positively to self-control and the development of social competencies. Cultural activities can help to foster intercultural dialogue and values of respect, understanding and tolerance between various ethnic communities, as with some projects in Bulgaria. In France, the promotion of access to culture and sport in impoverished neighbourhoods is a priority. In Belgium (Flanders) more of the budget for municipal youth work is being allocated to municipalities with a high degree of social deprivation (as measured by eight youth deprivation indicators). The 'Kind en Gezin' agency targets large cities and deprived neighbourhoods with specific, reinforced services (antenatal support units and low threshold [20] educational support units). In Germany an 'expertise agency' helps young people from disadvantaged areas to seek employment.

Denmark has developed a strategy to tackle 'ghettoisation' (2004). There are 15 projects in areas characterised by poor physical conditions, social problems, and uneven resident composition. A special urban development fund provides financing for social and preventive measures, renting rules are imposed, and social housing is being sold off.

Families with a migrant or ethnic minority background

Several Member States stress the fact that families with a migrant or ethnic minority background are entitled to the same measures as other families (IT, SK, HU). Nonetheless a more targeted approach is sometimes needed to ensure social inclusion: e.g. the Roma in Slovakia, Turkish and Roma children in Bulgaria and travellers in Ireland.

In Bulgaria a new, more targeted policy approach to the social inclusion of ethnic minorities has recently been adopted. Mediators from minorities have been appointed within service provider organisations. Part of their work is to counsel the parents of children from particularly vulnerable groups. There is special emphasis on the educational integration of Roma children.

Hungary has a specific policy to ensure the social inclusion of the Roma population through specific measures (fighting discrimination). In addition, the situation of the Roma is also addressed by more universal policies to tackle problem situations where the Roma are overrepresented. In fact, as mentioned under 1.3.2, most Member States with a significant Roma population, report measures to improve the situation of Romani children, with the focus on educational support. However, the multi-dimensional disadvantages faced by Romani children are rarely captured, for instance the number of Romani children in special or segregated schools. The recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Roma Segregation Case shows that those shortcomings are likely to become even more evident. Among the Member States that have experienced a recent influx of Roma from Eastern Europe, only IT reports some measures to support immigrant Gypsy children.

Ireland has a specific policy for the social inclusion of travellers. A traveller accommodation programme (2005-2008) provides funding for local authorities to reduce the number of traveller families on unauthorised sites.

Denmark has developed a project to strengthen networks of ethnic minority women who have just arrived in the country. The project focuses on language training, help with housework, introducing the women to local community and recreational organisations.

Member States highlight the importance of the immediate and ongoing needs of unaccompanied minors or separated children seeking asylum (CZ). In Ireland one government body (HSE) has responsibility for accommodation, medical and social needs, as well as application for refugee status (under the Refugee Act (1996) and the Child Care Act (1991)). Measures to ensure participation in education are also important (LU's School integration programmes).

Activities at EU and national level in the course of 2008, which has been designated as the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, are expected to go some way in furthering social inclusion of migrants and people from ethnic minorities, as intercultural dialogue reinforces active citizenship and promotes respect for cultural diversity.

Other children and families in especially vulnerable situations

Families declared or at risk of being declared incapable of caring for their children: Many Member States (SK, LV, IT, BG, HU, SE, LU, CZ, DK, IE, BE, RO) emphasise the importance of preventive measures to support families at risk and thus prevent the abandoning of children or decisions to remove them from the family. Various services have been put in place at local level: prenatal consultancy services, preschool and out of school facilities, parental support centres, teen parents support centres, abandonment prevention services, relief centres and community centres. In a first stage efforts are made to persuade parents to cooperate voluntarily if the situation warrants intervention. Social support services can intervene when children are still present in the home.

In cases where children are removed from the family (e.g. placed in foster care) several countries have taken measures to ensure that this situation is reversible (temporary), e.g.: by obliging the caring institution to keep the original family informed of the child's development (LV, HU); by providing supporting services to help resolve the original problem (IT, LV) and to sustain contacts between parents and children (LU); or by granting a specific family benefit to the original family in order to support continuing contacts between parents and children (BE). It is clear that many Member States face significant challenges in providing all these services in sufficient quantity and quality (standards).

Street children: Member States address this group through various strategies such as the UK's strategy on young runaways, the Youth Homelessness Strategy (IE), the centre for combating child begging (IT), and social services for street children, street social work and district social work (HU and BG). The United Kingdom reports that a lot of children live in families that are financially excluded. One in twelve households have no access to a bank account and 30% of people living in such households are children. A strategy has been developed to provide access to banking services, affordable credit and free face to face money advice.

Children who are (potential) victims of abuse and violence: Measures reported by Member States include special programmes, centres and phone and internet lines (PL, EE, HU). In Czech Republic, a phone line and internet helpline have been established for abused and neglected children under the Safer Internet Plus project. Estonia is drawing up a plan for preventing violence in intimate relationships and trafficking. Italy highlights information and awareness campaigns, with a national centre for the fight against child pornography on the web and an observatory for the fight against paedophilia and child pornography.

Children who have contact with the criminal justice system: Many Member States have national prevention strategies or programmes to tackle crime prevention. Other measures include community-based initiatives to help divert young people away from crime and towards positive and socially responsible behaviour by offering opportunities for education, employment, training, sport, art, music and other activities while providing a structured environment. In Sweden specific procedures are in place to ensure that the social services are present when a young person is interviewed by the police to enable an assessment of his/her support needs. The United Kingdom is supporting families of offenders by addressing poverty and skills needs, among other things to try to prevent the intergenerational transmission of problem behaviour and social exclusion.

Children at risk of substance abuse: Several Member States have specific national strategies or programmes to combat this problem by targeting the children directly. In Sweden a three-year trial (2006-2008) is being conducted to develop and test strengthened links between juvenile care and social services.

1.3.4. Strengthened governance for a greater impact on child well-being

In the 2007 Joint Report, Member States and the Commission concluded that the OMC was helping to strengthen the governance of EU and national social policies, notably by promoting increased involvement of stakeholders including the people directly affected in preparing social reforms. But it was noted that the quality of the involvement could be improved among other things by extending more systematically the role of stakeholders to include implementation and follow-up. Interaction also needed to be reinforced between national and EU policy levels and regional and local levels where implementation largely takes place.

Most of the points highlighted in last years report [21] with respect to social inclusion policies are equally valid for policies specifically addressing the social inclusion of children. Furthermore, several key governance elements are examined in the analysis provided in chapter 1.2 above. This section therefore looks mainly at the articulation between the national strategies for social inclusion and children's rights policies, and, on the basis of the report prepared by the SPC ISG, at the existing arrangements in Member States for monitoring and evaluation of child poverty and the social exclusion of children.

Some Member States (CY, EE, IE, IT, HU, UK) have elaborate arrangements for mainstreaming child well-being considerations in national policy-making, while others are taking steps in this direction.

In Hungary a special commissioner has been designated in the Ministry of Welfare and Labour to foster mainstreaming; he acts as secretary of the Social Policy Commission, which operates alongside the cabinet. The ministries involved each have a senior official charged with managing children’s issues and a 'Chances for Children' group has been set up within the Office of the Prime Minister.

As illustrated in chapter 1.2 there are Member States where child-related issues are integrated and mainstreamed within a universal welfare policy. Clearly defined policy objectives, embedded in long-term strategies and underpinned by appropriate quantitative targets and strong political commitment seem to be a successful formula for ensuring actual implementation.

An integrated and coordinated approach to the implementation of social inclusion policies in general is important to ensure that policies reflect the multi-dimensional nature of poverty and exclusion and to ensure the effective delivery of policies and services on the ground. Some Member States take specific action here, recognising that efficient coordination and interagency co-operation might be vital in order to improve the situation of children most at risk of poverty and exclusion.

In Ireland the Office of the Minister for Children (part of the Department of Health and Children) has been set up to harmonise policy issues that affect children in areas such as early childhood care and education, youth justice, child welfare and protection, children and young peoples participation, research on children and young people, and cross-cutting initiatives for children. The Minister for Children attends all government Cabinet meetings and his Office is charged with implementing the National Children's Strategy, the National Childcare Investment Programme 2006–2010 and the Children Act and with developing policy and legislation on child welfare and child protection.

Unexploited synergies between social inclusion policies and the children's rights agenda

There is growing awareness of the importance of children’s rights. This is largely driven by the impact of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Several Member States now protect children's rights through laws or administrative decisions. But there are unexploited synergies in almost all Member States between anti-poverty strategies and children's rights policies.

Where such legal or administrative provisions have been introduced there is still in most cases a need to move beyond those formal commitments and to focus on their active implementation. Rights to services and to minimum quality standards still remain to be developed in several Member States. This is also true for appropriate accompanying institutional arrangements.

In a few countries policies for children have a long tradition of being strongly informed by a children’s rights perspective (SE). Among the Member States that have ratified the UN convention on children's rights several have launched National Action Plans to follow up (AT, EE, ES). Several Member States have appointed an Ombudsman for Children (EL, FI, IE, HU, PL), an Ombuds-Committee for children's rights (LU) or a National commission for children's right (BE, PT). HU has appointed a children's rights advocate, as the legal representative of children in care with a view to helping children to know and enforce their rights. In Denmark the local social authorities are obliged to ensure policy consistency between general and preventive measures and targeted efforts towards children in need of special support. However, access to social rights, as distinct from political or civil rights, for children continues to be a challenge in many Member States. Moreover, given that attention to the views of children themselves is an important element in a children’s rights approach a key challenge for several countries will be to move beyond a formal acknowledgment of and commitment to children’s rights to a focus on their active implementation.

The level and coverage of minimum standards differ across the Member States. But several report that children and their families have rights to some services in terms of access and minimum quality standards (SE, FI, PT, CY). In Italy the state establishes the minimum levels for services on the basis of which the regions fix the quality standards. The United Kingdom uses a mix of rights, needs and welfare-based approaches to secure concrete benefits for children and young people.

Since 2005 Finland has had an Ombudsman for Children, linked to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, with a view to implementing and monitoring the rights of the child. In cooperation with other authorities and actors concerned, his task is to promote f the interests and rights of children, including by ensuring that they are taken into account in legislation and that societal decision-making includes assessing the impact on the well-being of children. He is charged with monitoring the living conditions of children and adolescents and with conveying information concerning children to children, to those working with children, to authorities and to other sections of the population.

In several new Member States a shift in policy approach can be noticed from the previous focus on children in difficulty to a focus on promoting and respecting the rights of all children. The implementation of rights to access to (quality) services is in several cases hampered by lack of resources.

Monitoring and evaluation

Part II of the ISG report on child poverty and well-being focused on the monitoring arrangements in place in the Member States. The responses to the technical questionnaires providing the input for a broad review of the data sources and indicators used in the monitoring of policies to fight the poverty and social exclusion among children and to promote their well-being. An in-depth review [22] focusing on eight countries helped to identify the key features of the monitoring systems.

The monitoring systems are often part of an integrated policy coordination process with the improvement of the situation of children as an overarching objective. A key challenge is the coordination of a large number of policy actions that traditionally fall under scattered responsibilities, involving different areas and levels of government. Policy objectives are set through a complex awareness raising process involving a range of stakeholders (NGOs, researchers and representatives of the different levels of government), international reporting and benchmarking, and the use of existing indicators and research findings. DE, IE, and PT involve stakeholders in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the national strategies. DK, IE and the UK highlight the role of international benchmarking. Member States stress the need to embed monitoring and assessment in the strategy (as in IE, FI, and the UK).

Knowledge building also plays an important role. The monitoring systems reviewed have benefited from politically supported long-term investments in knowledge building in the area of child well-being. This includes statistical capacity building (by making better use of existing statistical and administrative data sources and filling data gaps); long-term research programmes that provide an in-depth understanding of the nature, determinants and dynamics of child well-being; and tools to support policy analysis (e.g. micro-simulation tools in DE, IE, FI, UK).

Member States also highlight the need to forge a link between the scientific community, data and policy analysts and policy makers. DK, FI and the UK describe the way key policy recommendations can emerge from research programs that have been implemented in a specific policy context. Regular reporting supported by efficient dissemination (by government, through advocacy groups, or as part of the EU policy process) play an important role in raising the awareness of the process and thus creating political commitment and accountability.

Establishing the link between policies and outcomes remains a considerable challenge. Member States set quantified objectives and use indicators to monitor progress towards those objectives. Overall outcome targets create political commitment and accountability. They should therefore be based on a diagnosis of the causes of poverty, and should be supplemented by objectives relating to the key factors identified by this diagnosis. The monitoring of these objectives is often based on a hierarchy of indicators headed by key outcome indicators, and followed by more specific output and input indicators. The UK has set up priority objectives and key outcome-based performance targets. For an in-depth understanding of the impact of policies on outcomes, a number of countries use micro-simulation models and other analytical tools as operational tools for policy making.

1.4. Summary

At 19%, the risk of poverty among children in the EU is higher than that of the general population. The rate approaches 30% in the worst affected countries. Joblessness, in-work poverty and insufficient financial support remain the main determinants of low income among households with children. Child poverty outcomes result from a complex interaction between these main factors.

About 10% of all children live in households where nobody works and more than half are at risk of poverty. Despite overall progress in the labour markets, this figure has not changed since 2000. But 13% of children whose parents are at work are also at risk of poverty. In-work poverty is the consequence of low work intensity, low earnings or insufficient in-work support. When both parents work, only 7% of children are at risk of poverty, but the rate reaches 25% when only one parent works, thus illustrating the key role of labour market integration to durably escape poverty and exclusion. Other factors affecting child poverty, when coupled with low work intensity, include living with only one parent or in a large family. On average in the EU, social transfers other than pensions reduce the risk of poverty for children by 44%, which is a higher direct impact than for the overall population (38%). However, the impact of social transfers on child poverty, in particular the impact of family allowances, varies greatly across the EU.

In their aim to make a decisive impact on child poverty and social exclusion and to break the intergenerational transmission of disadvantages, most Member States have adopted long term integrated approaches. While the families in which children are raised remain the main target of intervention (income support, active inclusion of parents), most countries also have measures that directly target the children (e.g. in the field of child care, education or health). Education in particular emerges as a crucial factor if children from a disadvantaged background are to enjoy equal opportunities where life-chances are concerned. The trend is toward intervention at a very early stage: pre-schooling is already a good time to start.

But countries also highlight the need to embed the fight against child poverty within a wider context through approaches aimed at creating a favourable environment for all families and for family formation (e.g. reducing the cost of having a child, promoting a work life balance for men and women who decide to have children), and promoting child well-being. This often translates into national strategies that combine universal schemes with measures targeted at children and families that are most in need, and that integrate interventions in a wide range of policy fields, going from active labour market policies to tax and benefit systems, education and healthcare.

The assessment of Member States' policies seems to indicate that more efforts are needed in order to address the risk of social exclusion facing children suffering from multiple disadvantages, such as Roma children, children with disabilities, children without parental care or at risk of losing it, and children of migrant background who tend to be particularly marginalised. This could entail supporti