COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Recommendation establishing a European Child Guarantee
Date: 2021-03-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: access to education, aid to disadvantaged groups, child, child protection, children's rights, marginalisation, poverty, right to health, right to housing, social integration

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 24.3.2021  SWD(2021) 62 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT   Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Recommendation  establishing a European Child Guarantee     {COM(2021) 137 final}  
 
 
INTRODUCTION  

“It is our collective shame that almost 25 million children under the age of 18 are at risk of 
poverty or social exclusion. Children living in poverty are more likely to become adults living 
in poverty. We need to break this dangerous cycle. We must do better. To support every child 
in need, I will create the European Child Guarantee” – President-elect Ursula von der Leyen 
in her political guidelines for the next European Commission 2019–2024.  

The  Commission  proposal  for  a  Council  recommendation  establishing  a  European 
Child  Guarantee  stems  from  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  and  supports  a 
number of its principles1.  It is an important and concrete deliverable of the European Pillar 
of Social Rights Action Plan2 and will contribute to the ambitious target set herein to lift at 
least  5  million  children  in  the  European  Union  out  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion.  The 
initiative  follows  from  the  2013  Commission  Recommendation  ‘Investing  in  Children: 
breaking the cycle of disadvantage’3 and complements the EU Strategy on the Rights of the 
Child  2021  -  2024,  adopted  alongside  this  proposal4.  Altogether,  these  initiatives  form  a 
strong package to support children and boost investment in future generations.   

Social  exclusion  is  a  complex  and  multidimensional  phenomenon.  Its  key  drivers  are 
insufficient resources and poverty, but also lack of equal access to goods and services due to 
various forms of disadvantage, preventing full participation in the society5. 
Breaking the intergenerational cycles of disadvantage starts with investment to reduce 
the gap in access to key services between children in need and their better-off peers. The 
objective  of  the  proposal  is  to  prevent  and  combat  social  exclusion  of  children  by 
guaranteeing  access  of  children  in  need  to  early  childhood  education  and  care,  education 
(including  school-based  activities),  healthcare,  nutrition,  and  housing.  It  delivers  on  the 
commitment to enhance equal opportunities and leave no child behind. While most children 
in the EU already have access to these services, inclusive and truly universal access is vital 
for ensuring equal opportunities for all children, and in particular those who experience social 
exclusion either due to poverty or other forms of disadvantage.  

The  European  Child  Guarantee  targets  ‘children  in  need’,  which  refers  primarily  to 
children  at  risk  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion.  Alongside  poverty,  other  forms  of 
disadvantage create barriers for inclusion and participation in the society. Thus, the proposal 
caters for the specific needs of: (i) homeless children or children experiencing severe housing 
deprivation;  (ii)  children  with  disabilities;  (iii)  children  with  a  migrant  background;    (iv) 
children  with  a  minority  racial  or  ethnic  background  (particularly  Roma);  (v)  children    in 
alternative  (especially  institutional)  care;  and  (vi)  children  in  precarious  family  situations. 

1 In particular principle 1 ‘Education, training and lifelong learning’, principle 3 ‘Equal opportunities’, principle 11 ‘Childcare and support 
to children’, principle 14 ‘Minimum income’, principle 16 ‘Healthcare’, principle 17 ‘Inclusion of people with disabilities’ and principle 19 
‘Housing and assistance for the homeless’.   
2 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions of 4 March 2021, ‘The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan’, COM(2021) 102 final.  
3 Commission Recommendation of 20 February 2013, ‘Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage’, 2013/112/EU. 
4 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions ‘EU strategy on the rights of the child’, COM(2021)142. 
5 See Communication from the Commission ‘Towards a Europe of Solidarity: Intensifying the Fight Against Social exclusion, Fostering 
Integration’, COM(92)531 and 1989 Council Resolution on ‘Combatting social exclusion. ‘The multi-dimensional analysis of social 
exclusion’. 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The focus on children in need is meant to prevent them from remaining at risk of poverty or 
social exclusion as adults.  

Although  the  risk  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion  for  children  in  the  EU  decreased 
between  2014  and  2019,  nearly  one  in  four  children  are  still  exposed.  The  impact  of 
COVID-19  and  its  economic  consequences  are  likely  to  be  harsher  on  children  from 
disadvantaged backgrounds or living in low-income households.  

Investing  in  children  is  vital  for  a  sustainable,  efficient  and  competitive  knowledge 
economy  and  a  fair  society.  Future  growth  prospects  and  the  sustainability  of  social 
protection  systems  depend  on  today’s  children.  Public  expenditure  incurred  to  correct  the 
consequences  of  childhood  poverty  throughout  a  person's  life  is  significantly  higher  than 
necessary  investments  to  improve  their  life  chances  by  supporting  them  during  childhood. 
Targeting  children  from  disadvantaged  socio-economic  backgrounds  holds  the  promise  of 
breaking  the  intergenerational  cycle  of  disadvantage  by  levelling  the  playing  field  in  child 
development. 

The proposal for a European Child Guarantee is particularly relevant in the context of 
the  socio-economic  consequences  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  This  pandemic  risks 
worsening  inequalities,  and  puts  additional  pressure  on  the  availability  of  services.  For 
children  already  living  in  poverty,  school  closures  often  meant  that,  on  top  of  missing 
education, they no longer had access  to  school  meals.  Home-schooling also  highlighted the 
educational divide and the digital divide, including in rural and remote regions. Children with 
disabilities  faced  additional  risks  of  exclusion  or  discrimination  due  to  a  lack  of  accessible 
content,  platforms  and  specialised  support.  This  proposal  will  help  mitigate  the  negative 
effects of the pandemic: it will work towards closing the gaps in access to quality services, 
foster social inclusion, and promote equality of opportunity.  

This  staff  working  document  accompanies  the  Commission  proposal  for  a  Council 
recommendation establishing a European Child Guarantee. It: (i) presents the challenges 
addressed by the initiative; (ii) proposes the responses to these challenges; and (iii) discusses 
the  likely  impact  of  these  responses.  Stakeholders  were  consulted  over  the  period  July  to 
November 2020 on the preparation of the proposal. The main results from this consultation – 
and  the  positions  expressed  in  it  –  have  been  taken  into  account  throughout  the  process.  A 
summary of the stakeholder consultations is included in Annex C to this document. 

1. THE  SOCIAL  CHALLENGES  UNDERPINNING  THE 

PROPOSAL 

The  EU  has  some  of  the  highest  levels  of  social  inclusion  and  cohesion  in  the  world6. 
However, it  cannot be  complacent about its child poverty  problem.  Children in  the EU 
remain structurally more exposed to poverty – which is a key driver of social exclusion – than 
the rest of the population (Figure 1).   

6 For instance, overall income inequality in 2018, as measured by the S80/S20 ratio, was 8.4 for the US but only 5.05 for the EU-27. Other 
leading economies either lacked recent and reliable data (the China estimate for 2011 was 28.3), or were above the EU level (UK 5.6, Japan 
6.2). Despite a slightly lower overall Human Development Index (0.920 for the US vs 0.894 for the EU-27 in 2019), an average European 
lives 2.4 years longer than an average American (life expectancies being respectively 80.9 and 78.5 years in 2018).  

2 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 1: Share of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE) in the EU, 2005-2019

Note: Being at risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE) denotes living in a household: (a) that has disposable income (i.e. income after 
taxes and social transfers) that adjusted for household size is below 60% of the median equivalised disposable income in given country; or 
(b) that cannot afford at least four of the following nine items: (i) to pay their rent, mortgage or utility bills; (ii) to keep their home 
adequately warm; (iii) to face unexpected expenses; (iv) to eat meat or proteins regularly; (v) to go on holiday; (vi) a television set; (vii) a 
washing machine; (viii) a car; (ix) a telephone; or (c) where the members of working age worked less than 20 % of their total potential 
during the previous 12 months. Much of the drop in child AROPE for EU-27 between 2016 and 2017 was, amongst others, due to rapid 
improvements in three Member States: Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. Overall, in two thirds of Member States risk of poverty among 
children is higher than among the general population.  Source: Eurostat, [ilc_peps01], extracted 28.01.2021 

Furthermore,  the  overall  impact  of  various  social  benefits  (not  only  family-related 
benefits or child-related benefits) on child poverty varies greatly among Member States. 
The strongest poverty-reduction impacts are observed in countries with low or medium levels 
of  child  poverty  (e.g.  Finland,  Hungary,  Denmark,  Ireland,  Poland,  Germany,  Austria  and 
Slovenia, see Figure 2).  

Figure 2: Share of children at risk of income poverty (AROP) and impact of social transfers (other 
than pensions) in reducing child poverty, 2019  

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Share of chldren at risk of poverty (AROP)

Impact of social transfers (other than pensions) on reducing child poverty

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

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
investment 

in  children  holds  the  promise  of  breaking  the  cycle  of 
Greater 
intergenerational  disadvantage7  and  has  a  high  multiplier  effect8.  A  key  role  in  breaking 
this cycle is played by early childhood education and care (ECEC), education and healthcare 
systems.9 Everywhere in the EU, public schools provide tuition-free education at the primary 
and  secondary  level.  Most  Member  States  also  provide  at  least  a  year  of  pre-school  ECEC 
universally and free of charge. Free healthcare for children – both curative and preventive – is 
also widely available, thanks to which only 3% of EU children at risk of poverty report unmet 
medical  needs10.  The  EU  and  its  Member  States  also  make  efforts  to  support  healthy 
lifestyles and adequate nutrition for children. 

However, while social protection expenditure levels on family benefits have on average 
increased  per  capita  since  2008,  the  divergence  between  Member  States  has  also 
increased. Family expenditure per child as a proportion of GDP per capita slightly increased 
between  the  2008  crisis  and  201811.  Nevertheless,  expenditure  levels  since  2011  have 
diverged across Member States.   In 2016,  expenditure per child ranged from around 6% of 
GDP  per  capita  in  Ireland,  the  Netherlands,  Greece  and  Malta  to  above  16%  in  Denmark, 
Luxembourg and Germany. The highest increases were registered in Poland, Italy, Bulgaria, 
Latvia and Croatia (more than 25%), while Ireland and Lithuania registered sharp decreases 
(of above 30%).  

Children  from  disadvantaged  backgrounds  (including  those  living  in  low  income 
households) still have difficulties  in accessing the services they need.  For instance, even 
under  a  tuition-free  education  regime,  schoolbooks,  school  transport,  meals  and  additional 
school  activities  (i.e.  recreation,  sport  and  cultural)  place  a  burden  on  family  budgets.  In 
2016,  in  15  Member  States,  at  least  half  of  all  households  considered  those  expenses  as 
significant12.  Affordability  of  ECEC  is  also  an  issue.  This  is  because  parents  on  moderate 
incomes  find  costs  of  ECEC  for  youngest  children  to  be  very  high  in  around  one  third  of 
Member States13. As for ECEC availability, the enrolment rates in most Member States are 
still  below  the  target  levels  set  in  Barcelona.14  In  several  Member  States15,  only  some 
healthcare-related services for children are fully free of charge. In 2014, 4% of EU children 
lived in households that could not afford daily fruit and vegetables or sources of protein for 
all of their children16. In six Member States17, more than 10% of children experienced severe 

7 See the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and 
the Committee of the Regions of 20 February 2013, ‘Towards Social Investment for Growth and Cohesion – including implementing the 
European Social Fund 2014-2020’, COM(2013) 83 final (a.k.a. Social Investment Package).  
8  Hemerijck1, A., Burgoon, B., di Pietro, A., Vydra, S., Assessing Social Investment Synergies (ASIS), European Commission, Brussels, 
2016. 
9 D'Addio, A., Intergenerational Transmission of Disadvantage: Mobility or Immobility Across Generations?, OECD Publishing, Paris 
2007. 
10 Feasibility study for a child guarantee. Final report, p.58, available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c312c468-
c7e0-11ea-adf7-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. The incidence of unmet dental needs is more than twice as large, see Table B11 in Annex B. 
11 See Figure B2 in Annex B for details. 
12 Feasibility study for a child guarantee. Final report. 
13 ‘Moderate income’ is defined as 67% of average wage. Feasibility study for a child guarantee. Final report, p. 58, see also OECD data for 
2019. 
14 By 2019, 12 Member States have met the target for children under 3 years old (33% of population enrolled in ECEC), and 13 for the older 
age group (between 3 years and the mandatory school age, 90% enrolment). See Figure B1 in Annex B. 
15 Belgium, Estonia, France, Slovakia. Feasibility study for a child guarantee. Final report, p. 59. 
16 Feasibility study for a child guarantee. Final report, p. 67-68. This proportion varied enormously between Member States, from 1% to 
42%. 
17 Romania, Hungary, Latvia, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Poland. 

4 

 
 
                                                           
housing deprivation18. Homelessness has increased in all Member States except Finland, and 
this is also affecting children.19 

The COVID-19 pandemic is likely to have a negative impact on the situation of children 
living in disadvantaged households. Thanks to the bold and swift policy measures adopted 
both  at  Member  State  and  EU  level,  the  immediate  employment  and  social  effects  of  the 
pandemic  have  been  mitigated.20  Nonetheless,  the  pandemic  has  increased  socio-economic 
risks  for  people  who  were  already  vulnerable  in  the  labour  market,  such  as  precarious 
workers,  single  parents,  people  with  disabilities,  people  with  a  migrant  background  and 
people living in areas and households with limited or no digital connectivity, e.g. in rural or 
remote regions. Low-income and middle-income groups are at a higher risk of income loss, 
due to fewer telework possibilities and increasing unemployment21. Before the pandemic, the 
proportion of at-risk of poverty households with children that reported arrears on utility bills 
was approximately three times the average of the total population.  Single-parent households 
were  twice  as  likely  as  total  population  to  have  arrears,  even  if  they  were  not  at  risk  of 
poverty22. 

The direct impact of COVID-19 on the educational achievements of young Europeans, 
and  on  their  living  and  social  environments,  has  also  been  significant.  Although  online 
learning  has  a  lot  of  potential,  it  is  more  effective  when  children,  teachers  and  schools  are 
well prepared and equipped. This was not the case during the spring 2020 lockdown, when 
most teachers (67%) had to teach online for the first time23. Both the financial resources of 
parents  and  their  support  are  key  for  successful  learning  at  home.  For  this  reason,  children 
from disadvantaged backgrounds are likely to experience, as result of the lockdown, a larger 
decline in learning outcomes than their more advantaged peers.  

2. CHILDREN IN NEED  

The effects  of social exclusion on children can last  a lifetime and be carried on into future 
generations.  Without  the  necessary  support,  children  from  disadvantaged  backgrounds  or 
low-income  families  are  likely  to  experience  the  intergenerational  transmission  of 
disadvantage. 

As part of the targeted consultation on a European Child Guarantee, stakeholders were asked 
to  assess how easy or  difficult  it is  for various categories of children in  need to  access  key 
services that could be potentially  covered by the initiative. For children from economically 
precarious  families  (i.e.  households  experiencing  poverty  or  material  deprivation),  decent 

18 Feasibility study for a child guarantee. Final report, Figure. 3.1, p. 51. Severe housing deprivation is defined as experience of 
overcrowding combined with the presence of at least one of the following housing deprivation factors: (i) a leaking roof, damp 
walls/floors/foundation, or rot in window frames or floor; (ii) lack of bath or shower in the dwelling; (iii)lack of indoor flushing toilet for 
sole use of the household; (iv) not enough light. A person is considered as living in an overcrowded household if the household does not 
have at its disposal a minimum number of rooms equal to: (i) one room for the household; (ii) one room per couple in the household; (iii) 
one room for each single person aged 18 or more; (iv) one room per pair of single people of the same gender between 12 and 17 years of 
age; (v) one room for each single person between 12 and 17 years of age and not included in the previous category; (vi) one room per pair of 
children under 12 years of age.  
19 European Commission Annual Review 2019 on Employment and Social Developments in Europe, ‘Sustainable Growth for all: choices 
for the future of social Europe’, available at https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8219, Section 1.5. 
20  Joint Employment Report 2021 adopted by the Council on 15 March 2021.  
21European Commission Annual Review 2020 on Employment and Social Developments in Europe, Leaving no one behind and striving for 
more: fairness and solidarity in the European social market economy, available at , p. 15. 
22 Eurofound (2021), Education, healthcare and housing: How access changed for children and families in 2020. 
23 Di Pietro , G., Biagi, F., Costa, P., Karpiński Z., Mazza, J, The likely impact of COVID-19 on education: Reflections based on the existing 
literature and international datasets, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020. 

5 

 
 
                                                           
housing appears to be the most difficult service to access. The situation is not much better for 
other  services:  responses  ‘very  difficult’  and  ‘rather  difficult’  exceed  70%  across  all  sub-
categories and across all services.24 

This  chapter  examines  the  categories  of  children  that  face  situations  of  disadvantage  that 
would warrant extra support in access to key services.  

2.1. Children at risk of poverty or social exclusion   

Low  incomes  and  joblessness  in  households  with  children  remain  the  key  factors  driving 
social exclusion of children. In order to monitor poverty and social exclusion, the Union has 
used the notion of being at risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE)25, which combines three 
different aspects of disadvantage: income poverty26, severe material deprivation27 and living in 
a  household  with  very  low  work  intensity28  (see  Figure  3  for  details).  Children  at-risk-of-
poverty  or  social  exclusion  (17.9  million  overall  in  EU-27  in  2019)29  are  a  very  diverse 
group.  The  risk  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion  for  children  (22.2%  for  EU-27)  varies  from 
11.7% in Slovenia to 35.8% in Romania.  

The total number of children living in EU-27 at risk of income poverty (AROP) in 2019 was 
estimated  at  14.9  million  (18.5%  of  all  children),  around  930 000  fewer  than  the  year 
before30. The highest shares of children at risk of income poverty were recorded in Romania 
(30.8%),  Bulgaria  (27.5%),  and  Spain  (27.4%),  with  lowest  incidence  reported  in  Finland, 
Denmark, Czechia and Slovenia (all close to 10%).  

In  2019,  more  than  4.5  million  children  (5.7%)  across  the  EU-27  lived  in  households 
experiencing  severe  material  deprivation  (SMD).  There  are  great  differences  between  the 
Member States in SMD rates. For instance in Luxembourg, Sweden and Germany, fewer than 
15%  of  all  children  at  risk  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion  live  in  households  experiencing 
SMD. In most Member States, about half of those experiencing SMD do not have an income 
below the poverty line.  

Very  low  work  intensity  (VLWI)  poses  a  challenge  principally  as  a  driver  of  poverty  and 
deprivation.  This  is  because  VLWI  households  with  dependent  children  are  significantly 
more  likely  to  fall  into  poverty  than  VLWI  households  without  dependent  children 
(respectively  70.2%  and  55.6%  in  the  EU-27  in  2019).  At  the  individual  level,  living  for  a 
long time in a household with very low work intensity can adversely affect child’s aspirations 
of  finding  a  job,  as  their  parents  have  a  very  weak  link  to  employment.  In  2019,  some  1.2 

24 See report on consultation with stakeholders in Annex C. 
25 The AROPE rate denotes the share of the total population, which is at risk of poverty or social exclusion and is a headline indicator to 
monitor the poverty target of EU 2020 Strategy. 
26 Denotes a situation when the disposable income (i.e. after taxes and social transfers) adjusted for household size is below 60% of the 
median equivalised disposable income in given country. While the 60% of median is the EU agreed poverty threshold, information is 
available also for other thresholds (40%, 50% and 70% of median). It is worth noting that the statistical adjustment of income for household 
size is done by attributing a weight to all members of the household: 1.0 to the first adult, 0.5 to the second and each subsequent person aged 14 years 
and over, and 0.3 to each child aged under 14 years. This implies that, maintaining the same income level, a household can drop below the threshold 
of poverty not only due to a new birth, but also when a child’s statistical weight changes on their 14th birthday. 
27 Denotes the enforced inability to pay for at least four of the following nine items: (1) rent, mortgage or utility bills; (2) keeping home 
adequately warm; (3) unexpected expenses; (4) eating meat or proteins regularly; (5) holidays; (6) a television set; (7) a washing machine; 
(8) a car; (9) a telephone. 
28 Understood as a situation when the total working hours of its working-age members amount to less than 20 % of their total potential 
during the previous 12 months. 
29 In terms of distribution between Member States, the largest number of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion live in France (3.0 
million, compared to 3.1 million in 2018), followed by Italy, Spain, Germany, Romania and Poland. See Figure A1 in Annex A for details. 
30 Data from 2019. Eurostat, SILC [ilc_li02], extracted 9.12.2020. 

6 

 
 
 
                                                           
million children lived in households with very low work intensity, but were neither income 
poor, nor severely materially deprived.  

Figure 3: Risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE) in 2019 for children. Intersections between its 
components 
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

5

Slovenia
Czechia
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Netherlands
Poland
Latvia
Austria
Estonia
Croatia
Slovakia
EU - 27
Belgium
Portugal
Hungary
France
Cyprus
Sweden
Ireland
Malta
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Italy
Spain
Greece
Bulgaria
Romania

...at risk of poverty (only)

...with very low work intensity and at risk of poverty

...at risk of poverty and experiencing severe material deprivation

…at risk of poverty, and experiencing severe material deprivation, as well as very low work intensity 

…experiencing severe material deprivation and very low work intensity 

…experiencing severe material deprivation (only) 

…experiencing very low work intensity (only) 

Source: EU SILC [ilc_pees01], extracted 2.12.2020.  

The  depth  and  persistence  of  poverty  seem  to  have  remained  higher  among  children  than 
among the rest of the population over the last decade. The poverty gap31 in 2019 was slightly 
higher  among  children  (25.4%)  than  among  the  rest  of  the  population  (24.3%),  with  the 
difference  slowly  declining  over  recent  years.  Furthermore,  the  persistence  of  poverty32 
remains higher among children (14.1%) than among the rest  of the population  (10.8%) and 
neither  the  levels  nor  the  difference  with  the  rest  of  the  population  have  significantly 
decreased  over  the  last  decade.  This  slow  progress  hampers  equality  of  opportunities. 
Children from lower-income households fare worse throughout their lives, scoring lower on 

31 Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap that helps to quantify how poor the poor are and is calculated as the difference between the median 
equivalised  disposable  income  of  people  below  the  at-risk-of-poverty  threshold  and  the  at-risk-of-poverty  threshold,  expressed  as  a 
percentage of the at-risk-of-poverty threshold. 
32  The  persistent  poverty  rate  is  the  share  of  persons  living  in  a  household  with  an  equivalised  disposable  income  below  the  poverty 
threshold in the current year and in at least two of the preceding 3 years. 

7 

 
 
                                                           
tests of cognitive skills in early childhood, being more likely to drop out of school and less 
likely to attain tertiary education33.  

2.2. Homeless children  

Homelessness  is  an  extreme  manifestation  of  social  exclusion.  Even  a  short  spell  of 
homelessness  can  lead  to  persistent  social  exclusion,  as  well  as  to  rapid  deterioration  in 
physical  and  mental  health,  in  employability  and  in  social  skills.  The  homeless  suffer  from 
limited access to healthcare, social services and other services. They are also not always able 
to exercise their basic human and civil rights. The longer-term consequences of homelessness 
can be irreversible.34 

More  and  more  European  families  with  children  experience  homelessness,  even  if  these 
families  usually  manage  to  stay  in  temporary  or  insecure  accommodation  rather  than  being 
forced  to  sleep  rough.35  The  risk  that  young  people  leaving  institutional  care  will  become 
homeless  is  also  greater  because  they  are  often  forced  to  become  self-sufficient  at  a  much 
younger age than their peers growing up in a family home. Other groups of children who are 
especially  at  risk  include:  Roma  children,  unaccompanied  asylum-seeking  children,  and 
undocumented or non-registered children36.  

While  data  on  children  and  family  homelessness  are  scarce  and  often  not  comparable,  the 
figures collected during the preparatory action for a child guarantee37 indicate that there were 
at  least  90 000  homeless  children  in  the  EU-27  in  2018-202038.  Homeless  children  can  be 
divided  into  three  sub-categories:  (i)  members  of  a  homeless  family  (in  some  national 
contexts  this  category  also  includes  families  experiencing  severe  housing  deprivation);  (ii) 
survivors  of  domestic  violence  (who  are  often  accompanied  by  other  family  members, 
usually mothers, and likely to stay in temporary shelter); and (iii) unaccompanied adolescents 
(this group includes runaway or throwaway youths, migrant children and children leaving in 
institutions).39  

For  victims  of  domestic  violence,  the  main  challenge  is  the  sometimes  alarmingly  long 
periods that children spend in  temporary shelters and accommodation. Such unstable living 
situations  increase  psychological  stress  and  can  lead  children  to  dropping  out  of  school, 
which negatively impacts their development and chances to succeed later in life40. 

Falling  out  of  the  education  system  is  an  additional  risk  run  by  street  children,  runaway 
children  and  throwaway  youth.  Access  to  healthcare  is  also  a  challenge,  due  to  missing 

33  Salovey  P.,  Sluyter,  D.  J.,  (Eds.),  Emotional  development  and  emotional  intelligence:  Educational  implications,  Basic  Books,  1997; 
Duncan,  G.  J.,  et  al.  ‘The  Importance  of  Early  Childhood  Poverty’  Social  Indicators  Research,  August 2012; Thévenon,  O.  et  al.,  Child 
poverty in the OECD: Trends, determinants and policies to tackle it, OECD Publishing, Paris 2018. 
34 See FEANTSA 2019, Homeless in Europe Autumn 2019. 
35 The European Typology of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion (ETHOS) sets a framework for defining homelessness across Europe, 
looking at three aspects of possessing a home – physical, social and legal. The following types of homelessness appear in ETHOS: (i) 
rooflessness i.e. sleeping rough, in the street or in a night shelter, (ii) houselessness, i.e. having a temporary place to sleep, in an institution 
or shelter, (iii) living in insecure housing, either because of illegal tenancies, or due to a risk of eviction, or domestic violence, and (iv) 
living in inadequate housing (e.g. in unfit housing or in extreme overcrowding). 
36 Commission Staff Working Document ‘Confronting homelessness in the European Union’, Social Investment Package, 2013. 
37 See Study on the economic implementing framework of a possible EU Child Guarantee Scheme including its financial foundation. Final 
Report, available at http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=23764&langId=en. 

38 See Table A3 in Annex A. These data were gathered between 2018 and 2020 and only cover certain categories of homelessness in certain 
EU-27 cities and Member States. They are therefore not be considered as comprehensive. 
39 Child homelessness in Europe – an overview of emerging trends, FEANTSA 2007.  
40 FEANTSA 2007, p. 22. 

8 

 
 
 
                                                           
documents, and a lack of awareness of the availability of healthcare. This lack of awareness 
is  present  among  most  of  the  homeless  adolescents  who  migrated  to  the  EU  from  non-EU 
countries41. Unaccompanied homeless  children are also  at  high risk of becoming victims of 
crime, such as trafficking in human beings42. Vulnerable children and unaccompanied minors 
continue  to  be  at  higher  risk  of  trafficking  and  exploitation  along  migration  routes  towards 
and within the EU.  

2.3.  Children with disabilities   

Children  with  disabilities43  face  specific  challenges  in  fighting  social  exclusion,  and  often 
struggle  to  have  the  same  opportunities  as  their  peers  without  disability.  In  most  Member 
States,  around  1%  of  children  (aged  0-15)  have  a  disability.  The  share  of  children 
experiencing less severe limitations varies across Member States. It ranges from less than 2% 
in Cyprus, Greece  and  Italy to  more than 8% in  Estonia,  Lithuania, Denmark, and Finland, 
and 11.4% in Latvia44. 

Access  to  inclusive,  quality,  accessible  and  mainstream  education  remains  problematic  for 
many  children  with  disabilities45.  Evidence  shows  significant  gaps  between  the  educational 
outcomes  of  learners  with  disabilities  and  those  without  disabilities.  Many  learners  with 
disabilities leave education and training early (19.9%), as compared to 9% for pupils without 
disabilities  (figures  for  2018).  Statistics  on  inclusive  education  published  by  the  European 
Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (EASNIE)46 indicate that the placement of 
children with an official decision47 of SEN (special educational need)48 in inclusive settings49 
is  far  from  being  a  generalised  practice  across  Europe50.  In  addition,  mainstream  schooling 
settings often lack an adequate degree of accessibility in relation to physical environment and 
information  and  communication  technologies,  which  includes  teaching  and  non-teaching 
material  and  online  systems  used  for  education.  There  is  a  general  lack  of  teachers 
specialized  in  the  provision  of  education  for  learners  with  disabilities  and  an  overall  low 
awareness  among  mainstream  teachers  of  the  diversified  needs  of  children  with  disabilities 
and  of  the  necessity  to  tackle  them  as  much  as  possible  within  inclusive  settings.  Whole-
school approaches implementing inclusive practices and creating a diversity-friendly school 

41 See Table A3 in Annex A. 
42 The majority of the child victims of trafficking in the EU are EU citizens (75%) and girls (78%). Children are predominantly trafficked for 
sexual exploitation (60%), but also for labour exploitation (6%), forced criminality (pick pocketing, shoplifting) and begging, for drug-
related crimes, such as cannabis cultivation, and for forced, early age and sham marriages. For more information on child trafficking and 
policy measures to address it, see Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and 
combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA (OJ L 101, 1 
15.4.2011). 
43 The EU follows the approach of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, according to which persons with 
disabilities “include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various 
barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others”. For more information on the situation of 
children with disabilities and the EU policy response please see Commission communication ‘Union of Equality: Strategy for the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030, COM(2021) 101 final. 
44 See Figure A4 in Annex A. 
45 As also documented in European Semester country reports and country-specific recommendations.  
46 See European Agency Statistics on Inclusive Education, available at https://www.european-agency.org/data. 
47 An official decision leads to a child/learner being recognised as eligible for additional educational support to meet their learning needs. 
48 A special educational need is defined as the need for additional support and adaptive pedagogical methods in order to participate and meet 
learning objectives in an educational programme. Reasons may include (but are not limited to) disadvantages in physical, behavioural, 
intellectual, emotional and social capacities (see http://uis.unesco.org/en/glossary-term/special-needs-education). Therefore, SEN and 
disability do not coincide, but in the majority of cases children with disabilities are recognised as bearers of special educational needs. 
49 An inclusive setting refers to education where the child/learner with SEN follows education in mainstream classes alongside their 
mainstream peers for the largest part – 80% or more – of the school week. 
50 Datasets from EASNIE include non-EU countries such as Norway, Iceland and the United Kingdom. 

9 

 
 
                                                           
culture need to be encouraged across the EU, including through raising awareness of school 
leaders, whose crucial role was highlighted by the United Nations Committee on the Rights 
of Persons with Disabilities51.  

Children  with  disabilities  placed  in  institutional  care  experience  particularly  difficult 
situations  and  they  can  find  obstacles  in  accessing  quality  education  and  healthcare.  Often 
these children are not included in statistics52. In some countries, children with disabilities are 
cared for in boarding schools, creating a sort of “hidden” institutionalisation of children, as 
they do not appear in the official statistics of children in residential care53.  In addition, there 
is an over-representation of children with disabilities in alternative care.54  
Stakeholders  who  participated  in  the  targeted  consultation55  assessed  all  the  services  to  be 
covered by the child guarantee. They highlighted two of these services as the most difficult to 
access  by  children  with  disabilities:  quality  education  and  extracurricular  activities. 
Moreover, exactly half of the interviewed experts assessed access to healthcare as being very 
difficult  or  rather  difficult  for  children  with  disabilities.  This  is  a  high  share,  given  that 
especially those with rare diseases are likely to need special health assistance. These children 
also  need  to  receive  adequate  services  in  relation  to  rehabilitation  and  habilitation,  which 
must be well coordinated with schooling. 

2.4. Children with a migrant background 

Being a migrant or having a migrant background56 is by itself correlated with a lower income 
and thus a higher risk of poverty or social exclusion. It also poses additional challenges for 
children,  among  which  stigmatisation,  racism  and  lack  of  support  networks  are  the  most 
prominent.  

Overall, in the EU-27, more than 16 million children have parents who are non-EU nationals 
or  parents  who  are  EU  citizens  with  migrant  background.  This  number  is  the  largest  in 
Germany and France (more than 3 million each), followed by  Italy and Spain (more than 1 
million  each), and then  by the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and Austria.  Altogether, the 
remaining 19 Member States host only 10% of EU-27 children with a migrant background57.  

Language  barriers  are  a  major  obstacle  to  quality  participation  of  children  with  a  migrant 
background in education. Schools also face a challenge in determining the educational level 
of  newly  arrived  children  who  often  do  not  have  any  school  certificates.  Being  placed  in 
classes  either  above  or  below  one’s  abilities  can  result  in  low  self-esteem,  frustration,  and 
hamper social integration and  good education outcomes. In addition, in most Member States, 

51 General comment No.4 (2016) on the right to inclusive education states that “the committed leadership of educational institutions is 
essential for introducing and embedding the culture, policies and practices needed to achieve inclusive education at all levels and in all 
areas, including in classroom teaching and relationships, board meetings, teacher supervision, counselling services and medical care, school 
trips, budgetary allocations, any interaction with the parents of learners with and without disabilities and, when applicable, the local 
community or wider public”. 
52 For instance, people living in institutions are not included in EU-SILC. 
53 Feasibility Study for a European Child Guarantee Final Report, p. 23. 
54 For example, in Germany, where the share of children with disability in total child population was below 5%, out of 95,582 children in 
residential care at the end of 2014, 13,281 (13.9%) had a disability. In Romania in 2017, 7.6% of the child population, but as much as 30% 
of children in residential care were children with disabilities. 
55 See Report on consultation with stakeholders in Annex C. 
56  ‘Children  with  a  migrant  background’  means  third  country  national  children,  irrespective  of  their  migration  status,  and  children  with 
nationality of a Member State who have a third country migrant background through at least one of their foreign-born parents.  
57 For details please see Table A5 in Annex A. 

10 

 
 
                                                           
despite introduction of relevant policy responses, provision of healthcare to migrant children 
remains a challenge58.  

According  to  the  2018  Programme  in  International  Student  Assessment  (PISA)  survey,  in 
most surveyed countries, immigrant59 pupils tend to achieve below-average results in reading. 
In  OECD countries where at  least  5% of pupils had an immigrant  background in  2018, the 
largest  differences  in  reading  performance  between  immigrant  and  non-immigrant  pupils 
were observed in the EU Member States: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the 
Netherlands, Slovenia and Sweden. In all of those countries, there was a reading gap of more 
than  60  PISA  score  points  in  favour  of  non-immigrant  pupils.  By  contrast,  in  nine  non-EU 
countries surveyed in 2018 PISA, immigrant pupils scored higher in reading than or at least at 
the same level as their native-born peers60.  

According to PISA, in  Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Portugal, and Malta, immigrant  children 
were  likely  to  attend  schools  with  other  immigrant  children,  what  negatively  impacted  on 
their  integration  in  the  receiving  society.61  Regardless  of  this  concentration  of  immigrant 
pupils in some schools, in all EU Member States immigrant pupils are less satisfied with their 
lives  and  more  likely  to  feel  like  outsiders  in  their  school  than  non-immigrant  children.62 
Pupils  born  outside  of  the  country  where  they  reside  are  significantly  more  likely  to  leave 
school early than their native-born peers63. 

Comparisons of the PISA reading scores of 15-year-old immigrant pupils with similar socio-
economic  backgrounds  show  that  those  who  attended  early  childhood  education  and  care 
(ECEC)  consistently  achieve  higher  scores.  Across  the  EU,  the  educational  advantage 
conferred by participation in ECEC is 6 months  for the immigrant child and 18 months for 
the  non-immigrant  child.  However,  in  only  one  Member  State  –  Finland  –  are  immigrant 
children  more  likely  to  attend  ECEC  than  the  non-immigrant  children.  Across  the  EU,  the 
ECEC attendance rate of immigrant children is 4 pps lower than among natives (77% of all 
children in immigrant households vs 81% among children in native households). In Slovenia 
and  France,  children  of  immigrants  are  at  least  10  pps  less  likely  to  attend  ECEC  than 
children of non-immigrants.64 
On  access  to  the  various  services,  children  with  a  migrant  background  are  considered65  to 
face similar levels of difficulty as children at risk of poverty or social exclusion, even though 
they  face  specific  obstacles,  including  a  very  high  risk  of  stigmatisation  and  racism,  and  a 
lack of support networks and access to information. Decent housing and quality education are 
the most difficult to access, followed by ECEC.  

58 For details please see Table A7 in Annex A. 
59 Throughout this section the term “immigrant” follows the PISA definition, denoting those children whose both parents were born in a 
country/economy other than that where they sat the PISA test. Each EU Member State is considered a separate country/economy in OECD 
classification. Consequently, “non-immigrant” denotes a child with at least parent born in the Member State where the PISA test was taken. 
See:  OECD 2019, PISA 2018 Results (Volume II) ‘Where All Students Can Succeed’, p. 179. 
60 Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Jordan, Macao (China), Panama, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates. 
61 PISA 2018 Results (Volume II) ‘Where All Students Can Succeed’, p. 186. 
62 PISA 2018 Results (Volume II) ‘Where All Students Can Succeed’, p. 193. 
63 For details please see Figure A6 in Annex A. 
64 OECD/European Union, Settling In 2018: Indicators of Immigrant Integration, OECD Publishing, Paris/European Union, Brussels, 2018, 
p. 186. 
65 See Report on consultation with stakeholders in Annex C. 

11 

 
 
                                                           
2.5. Children with a minority racial or ethnic background  

Discrimination and prejudices against minorities still have a direct bearing on children with a 
minority racial or ethnic background in the EU. According to the reports of the EU Agency 
for  Fundamental  Rights66,  one  in  five  survey  respondents  of  African  descent  (21%)  felt 
racially discriminated against in access to housing in the five years before the survey67. The 
respondents  reported  highest  incidence  of  housing  discrimination  in  Italy  and  Austria 
(reported  by  39%  of  survey  respondents  in  each  country),  followed  by  Luxembourg  (36%) 
and  Germany  (33%).68  The  EU-MIDIS  II  survey  explored  also  discriminatory  practices  in 
contact  with  school  authorities,  such  as:  (i)  being  prevented  from  enrolling  a  child  in  a 
school; (ii) being asked to take a child into another school; or (iii) the child being assigned to 
a class or track below their ability. Each of these situations were experienced by around 2% 
of  the  parents  or  guardians,  with  around  4%  of  all  parents/guardians  from  ethnic/racial 
minorities reporting at least one of the three situations. The survey asked parents or guardians 
if  their  children  experienced  any  racist  treatment  in  school  in  the  12  months  before  the 
survey,  including  harassment,  bullying,  exclusion  or  violence.  Overall,  out  of  1745 
respondents of African descent (parents or guardians of a child, or children themselves), 18% 
indicated that they or their children experienced one or more of seven different types of racist 
harassment or violence. Parents in Finland (45%), Austria (42%) and Germany (41%) were 
most likely to report racist harassment and racial discrimination of their children at school.69  
The  situation  of  Roma,  who  are  the  largest  ethnic  minority  group  in  Europe70,  calls  for 
special  attention.  Some  Member  States,  specifically  Romania  and  Bulgaria  (but  also 
Slovakia,  Hungary,  Czechia,  and  Croatia),  face  serious  challenges  of  discrimination  and 
exclusion of larger groups of Roma.71 In most Member States with sizeable Roma population, 
Roma children are at  least  twice as likely to  experience income poverty  as their non-Roma 
peers. Around 60% of Roma children live in severe material deprivation and 85% are at risk 
of poverty72. As many as  78% of the Roma surveyed in  nine Member States in  201673 and 
48%  of  Roma  and  Travellers  surveyed  in  other  six  Member  States  in  201974  lived  in 
overcrowded households. The shares of people living in household without tap water inside 
the  dwelling  were  respectively  30%  (in  the  group  of  nine  Member  States)  and  9%  (in  the 
group of six Member States). 

In areas with large Roma populations, it remains a challenge to ensure effective equal access 
to  inclusive,  desegregated,  mainstream  education  and  training  as  well  as  early  childhood 

66 See in particular European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Fundamental Rights Report 2019, available at 
http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2019/fundamental-rights-report-2019 and European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, EU-MIDIS 
II, Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey Being Black in the EU, Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg, 2018, available at https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/being-black-eu  
67 Based on 2016 edition of EU-MIDIS II, Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey Being Black in the EU, 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018., p. 57.  
68 Idem, p. 57 
69 Idem, p. 48. 
70 No official census or statistical data on Roma and Roma children exist in most EU Member States, though. See Table A8 in Annex for a 
CoE estimation of population sizes per country and some references to the methodological difficulties. See 
https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/roma and https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-
discrimination/roma-and-eu_en 
71 This can be the case for poor Roma EU nationals moving between EU Member States as well as non-EU Roma migrants, some of whom 
migrate with their children. 
72 For details please see Figure A9 in Annex A. 
73 Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain.  
74 Belgium, France, Ireland, The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. 

12 

 
 
                                                           
education and care75 for marginalised Roma children. In these areas, it is also a challenge to 
ensure additional targeted support in integrated diverse classrooms. Since the outbreak of the 
COVID-19 pandemic, many Roma children from remote and marginalised communities have 
been  at  disadvantage  due  to  their  lack  of  internet  access  and  IT  equipment  necessary  to 
participate in distance learning. This has increased the risk of Roma children dropping out of 
school  or falling behind  in  their education76. The educational  segregation of Roma children 
remains  a  challenge,  with  an  increasing  share  of  Roma  children  (44%)  attending  schools 
where ‘most or all schoolmates are Roma’77. Among Roma children of compulsory schooling 
age across the EU, as many as 10% were not attending education in 2016. This share was as 
high as 31% in Greece and 23% in Romania. In the nine surveyed Member States, the share 
of early leavers from education and training was extremely high, ranging between 57% and 
92%78. 

2.6. Children in alternative care 

Alternative care may take the form of: (i) informal care in a family environment by relatives 
other  than  parents;  (ii)  foster  care;  or  (iii)  institutional  care79.  The  data  on  the  number  of 
children  in  alternative  care  is  incomplete  and  difficult  to  compare  between  Member  States. 
The estimated numbers of children in institutional care across the EU differ substantially and 
range from at least 350 00080 to approximately 1 000 000 children81.  

The reasons why children are placed in alternative care arrangements are complex and multi-
dimensional82. These reasons can involve: (i) neglect and abuse; (ii) inadequate housing; (iii) 
single  parenthood;  (iv)  lack  of  access  to  welfare;  (v)  lack  of  access  to  day-care  and 
specialized services for children with disabilities; (vi) children's health condition; (vii) stigma 
and discrimination. Factors related to the parents, like their health status, economic situation 
or  substance  abuse  can  also  play  an  important  role.  These  factors  can  be  exacerbated  by 
economic  precariousness,  which  can  take  a  serious  toll  on  parents'  availability  (e.g.  due  to 
extended working hours, multiple jobs) and their own emotional well-being.83  
Out  of  all  children  in  alternative  care,  those  placed  in  residential  institutions84  are  most  in 
need  of  measures  supporting  their  social  inclusion.  Placing  of  children  in  institutional  care 
should be used as last recourse only. The measures supporting social inclusion of children in 
alternative care should focus on enabling them to attend a mainstream school that would best 
suit  their  talents  and  interests.  Equally  important  is  support  for  the  transition  from 

75 This is at least partly due to parents’ preferences to care for their children themselves, or to entrust them to informal carers from familiar 
social milieu. Some socially vulnerable families reject ECEC services due to formal – e.g. requirement for regular attendance, and informal 
reasons. EACEA, Early Childhood Education and Care in Europe: Tackling Social and Cultural Inequalities, Brussels, 2009 p. 135. 
76 Fundamental Rights Agency, 2020, Coronavirus pandemic in the EU – fundamental rights implications: focus on social rights.    
77 Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the 
Council ‘A Union of Equality: EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation and its accompanying proposal for a 
revised Council recommendation on national Roma strategic frameworks for equality, inclusion and participation’, SWD(2020) 530 final, 
Annex 2: Baseline for EU headline indicators. 
78 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘Midterm review of the EU framework for national 
Roma integration strategies’, COM (2017) 458 final.  
79 In the case of foster care, children are formally placed by a competent authority in the domestic environment of a family other than their 
own. Residential care refers to any care provided in non-family-based group setting, such as places of safety for emergency care, transit 
centres in emergency situations, and all other short- and long-term residential care institutions, including group homes. 
80 Feasibility Study for a European Child Guarantee Final Report, see Table A10 in Annex A for details of those estimations. 
81 National surveys on children in alternative care carried out by Eurochild in 2009. 
82 For instance, the preparatory action pointed to vested interests as a factor that leads to children still being placed in residential care 
institutions. Feasibility Study for a European Child Guarantee Final Report, p. 121. 
83 SPC advisory report to the European Commission on tackling and preventing child poverty, promoting child well-being, June 2012. 
84 There are various kinds of residential institutions for children, focused on diverse areas, such as care, health, migration, and justice. 

13 

 
 
                                                           
institutional to quality family- or community- based alternative care or to independent living. 
This involves timely programmes (i.e. starting early before scheduled moment of leaving the 
institution),  as  well  as  effective  access  to  social  housing85.  Without  such  support,  young 
people leaving institutions find themselves at risk of homelessness.  

In all Member States for which disaggregated data are available, some groups of children are 
over-represented  in  the  alternative  care  system,  and  especially  in  institutional  care.  For 
example, having some form of disability or having a migrant or ethnic minority background 
increased  the  likelihood  of  being  placed  in  institutional  care.  In  Hungary,  Bulgaria,  and 
Romania,  where  the  share  of  Roma  in  total  population  is  app.  10%,  as  many  as  60%  of 
children  in  institutions  are  of  Roma  origin86.  In  Germany,  almost  half  of  the  children  in 
institutional  care  have  at  least  one  foreign-born  parent.  The  increasing  number  of 
unaccompanied foreign minors arriving in the EU in recent years has led to a visible increase 
of the number of children in alternative care87. 
The  stakeholders  consulted  on  a  European  Child  Guarantee88  pointed  to  decent  housing, 
quality  education,  and  extracurricular  activities  as  the  services  that  were  most  difficult  to 
access  for  children  in  institutional  care  or  exiting  it.    On  healthcare  and  early  childhood 
education and care, children living in institutions are considered to have an easier access than 
other  categories  of  children  in  need.  This  reflects  the  fact  that  both  healthcare  and  early 
childhood education and care are often integrated within the institutional care setting.  

2.7. Children in precarious family situations  

Social exclusion may also result from a precarious family situation. This refers to: (i) living 
in  a  single  parent  household89;  (ii)  living  with  a  parent  with  a  disability90;  (iii)  living  in  a 
household  where  there  are  mental  health  problems  or  long-term  illness;  (iv)  living  in  a 
household  where  there  is  substance  abuse,  or  domestic  violence.  In  addition,  (v)  children 
whose parents have moved to another Member State and who themselves remained in their 
Member State of origin; (vi) children having a teenage mother or being a teenage mother; and 
(vii)  children  having  an  imprisoned  parent  are  also  considered  to  be  in  a  precarious  family 
situation.  

Living  in  a  single-parent  household  increases  the  risk  of  suffering  from  child-specific 
deprivation  or  income  poverty,  but  it  is  also  a  factor  that  influences  other  domains  of  life. 
Single-parent  households  are  more  vulnerable  because  they  have  less  possibility  to  pool 
economic  risks  and  sharing  care  responsibilities.  They  also  face  fixed  costs  (such  as  for 
housing, childcare, and healthcare) which generally represent a higher share of their resources 
than is the case for households with more than one adult. Single-parent households also face 

85 While relevant policy responses in seven Member States (Belgium, Czechia, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Romania and Ireland).  Italy 
also reports that it is phasing in a targeted fund for people leaving care. Nevertheless, overall provision in this area seems generally short of 
the needs. See Study on the economic implementing framework of a possible EU Child Guarantee Scheme including its financial 
foundation. Final Report.  
86  See the European Parliament resolution of 17 September 2020 on the implementation of National Roma Integration Strategies: combating 
negative attitudes towards people with Romani background in Europe (2020/2011(INI)), available at 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0229_EN.html, and the Commission proposal of 7 October 2020 for a Council 
Recommendation on Roma equality, inclusion and participation, SWD(2020) 530, available at 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/commission_proposal_for_a_draft_council_recommendation_for_roma_equality_inclusion_and_par
ticipation_en.pdf . 
87 Feasibility study for a child guarantee. Final report, p. 27. 
88 See Report on consultation with stakeholders in Annex C. 
89 Among all the EU households with children in 2018, more than one in eight (13%) were single-parent household. For details, please see 
Figure A11 in Annex A. 
90 Children of COVID-19 survivors who suffer from its long-term consequences are in similar situation. 

14 

 
 
                                                           
more difficulties in reconciling work and family life and are therefore more likely to opt for 
part-time  employment  or  inactivity.  Single-parent  households  also  face  more  organisational 
(including  time  constraints)  and  emotional  challenges  than  two-adult  households91.  Women 
head  majority  of  single-parent  households  in  the  EU,  and  tend  to  be  disproportionately 
affected by poverty or social exclusion92. 

According to a report of the European Association Working for Carers (Eurocarers),  young 
people  with  a  sick  family  member  tend  to  have  more  mental  health  problems  and  more 
adverse  outcomes  in  behavioural,  psychosocial,  and  academic  adjustment  than  their 
counterparts  without  a  chronically  ill  family  member.  Those  effects  mainly  manifest 
themselves  in  lower  life  satisfaction  and  internalised  problem  behaviour  such  as  feeling 
depressed, being withdrawn, and anxiety.93 The adverse educational impacts concern mainly 
punctuality  and  attendance,  as  well  as  problems  with  home-  and  course-  work.  Difficulties 
with  joining  in  extracurricular  activities,  low  attainment,  anxiety  and  fatigue  were  also 
reported.94 While no precise data exists on the number of young carers in Europe, Eurocarers 
research suggests that as many as 8 % of all children have caring responsibilities95. 

In 2019, some 0.74% of all births across the EU-27 were given by mothers aged under 18 
years.  This  share  was  significantly  higher  than  the  average  in  Bulgaria  (4.75%),  Romania 
(4.23%), Slovakia (2.27%), Hungary (1.96%) and Greece (1.18%). Teenage pregnancies have 
been habitually  associated with  perpetuation of precarious socio-economic status: teenagers 
who bear a child are less likely than their peers to complete secondary and tertiary education. 
This  impacts  on  their  lifetime  earnings,  as  well  as  on  the  educational  achievement  of  their 
children.  Early  child-bearing  often  leads  to  single  parenthood  and  is  thus  associated  with  a 
higher degree of social instability, contributing to self-esteem issues and emotional problems 
for both mothers and children.96 

The  prevalence  of  domestic  violence  has  been  acknowledged  and  documented  in  recent 
decades. Violence against children in the family may take place in the context of discipline 
and  in  the  form  of  physical,  cruel  or  humiliating  punishment.  Physical  violence  is  often 
accompanied  by  psychological  violence.97  Children  are  considered  as  victims  of  domestic 
violence,  even  if  it  does  not  target  them  directly98.  Experiencing  or  witnessing  domestic 
violence  may  generate  in  children  attitudes  that  justify  their  own  use  of  violence,  and  the 
perception that violence is acceptable, which may affect their behaviour in other interpersonal 
relationships99.  The  drivers  of  domestic  violence  are  many  and  include  mental  health 
problems  and  substance  abuse,  but  also  economic  stress,  such  as  experience  of 

91 Feasibility Study for a Child Guarantee. Target Group Discussion Paper on Children living in Precarious Family Situations, p. 16. 
92 European Institute for Gender Equality, 2016, Poverty, gender and lone parents in the EU, available at 
https://eige.europa.eu/publications/poverty-gender-and-lone-parents-eu.  
93 Eurocarers Policy Paper Young Carers, 2017, p. 4, https://eurocarers.org/publications/eurocarers-policy-paper-on-young-carers/ 
94 Idem, p. 5. 
95 See research note ‘Caring for the mental health of young carers’ available at 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/infocentre/article_en.cfm?&artid=49703&caller=other. 
96 Feasibility study for a child guarantee. Target group discussion paper on children living in precarious family situations, p. 16, available at 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/7027c77d-c7e3-11ea-adf7-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. 
97 Report of the independent expert for the United Nations study on violence against children (2006), p. 13, available at 
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRC/Study/Pages/StudyViolenceChildren.aspx. 
98 See the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence.  
99 Malgesini G., Cesarini Sforza L., Babovic M., Gender-based Violence and Poverty in Europe, EAPN, Brussels, 2018, p. 17. 

15 

 
 
                                                           
unemployment. Increase in domestic and intra-family violence is one of the side effects of the 
Covid-19 pandemic, observed throughout the world100. 

Children  who  stayed  in  their  country  of  origin  as  their  parent(s)  moved  to  work  in 
another Member State also often find themselves in a precarious situation. Although findings 
confirm that the increase in income of households of the EU-mobile workers has a positive 
impact on children’s perceived health and nutritional status, the absence of parental care has a 
major  bearing  on  their  well-being,  and  can  have  an  impact  in  the  wider  context  through 
family  disintegration,  including  child  abandonment101.    According  to  estimates,  as  many  as 
25%  of  Bulgarian  children  had  at  least  one  parent  working  abroad102.  The  data  from  the 
Romanian  National  Agency  for  the  Protection  of  Children’s  Rights  and  Adoptions 
(ANPDCA) indicate that in 2018 around 95 000 Romanian children (ca. 2.8%) had a parent 
working abroad.  

The  children  with  imprisoned  parents  experience  economic  fragility,  lower  educational 
outcomes,  worse  health  status  and  low  self-esteem,  stigma103.  Parental  imprisonment  is 
recognized  as  risk  factor  for  child  antisocial  behaviour,  offending,  mental  health  problems, 
drug abuse, school failure, and future unemployment104. 

3. ACCESS TO KEY SERVICES BY CHILDREN IN NEED  
While social exclusion is multi-dimensional, it strongly correlates with the lack of access to 
key services, such as early childhood education and care, education, nutrition, and housing. 
While these services are in place, the evidence shows that access in particular for children in 
need  is  uneven  across  Member  States105.  The  drivers  of  unequal  access  to  services  are 
manifold and include: (i) lack of financial resources to cover for the costs of the services by 
parents  or  guardians;  (ii)  limited  availability,  particularly  in  rural,  remote  or  disadvantaged 
areas; (iii) lack of adaptation of services, or personnel, to children with particular needs; (iv) 
lack  of  information  on  the  available  services;  (v)  administrative  barriers;  and  (vi)  risk  of 
social stigma. 

is  central 

Equal access to affordable and inclusive early childhood education and care and quality 
the 
inclusive  education 
intergenerational  transmission of social exclusion. However, education outcomes from  both 
primary and secondary school are highly influenced by a child’s family background. Analysis 
of  the  correlation  between  the  educational  achievements  of  parents  and  those  of  children 
suggest that people from disadvantaged families still face considerable obstacles in realising 
their full potential at school and achieving better living standards106.  

to  securing  equal  opportunities  and  ending 

100 E.g. in France, the incidence of violence against women is estimated to have increased by 30% during the first round of containment, see 
Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on domestic violence. Press release of the French National Academy of Medicine, available at 
https://www.academie-medecine.fr/impact-of-the-covid-19-pandemic-on-domestic-violence/?lang=en.  
101 Feasibility study for a child guarantee. Final report, p. 44. 
102 2018 survey by the Bulgarian School of Politics, quoted in Feasibility study for a child guarantee. Final report, p. 45. 
103 Feasibility study for a child guarantee. Target group discussion paper on children living in precarious family situations, p. 11. 
104 Murray, J. and Farrington, D.P., ‘The Effects of Parental Imprisonment on Children’, Crime and Justice, 2012. 
105 Flisi, S., Blasko, Z.: A note on early childhood education and care participation by socio-economic background, Publications Office of 
the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019. 
106  OECD, A Broken Social Elevator? How to Promote Social Mobility, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2018. 

16 

 
 
 
                                                           
Social  exclusion  of  children  often  means  that  children  from  low-income  families  or 
experiencing  other  disadvantages  cannot  afford  to  take  part  in  many  of  school-based 
activities  that  better-off  children  enjoy.  This  may  include  school  trips,  cultural  or  sports 
events107,  and  similar  activities  taking  place  in  the  school  environment.  In  addition  to 
affordability constraints, children living in  rural  and remote areas,  children with  disabilities 
and  children  with  a  migrant  background  might  have  fewer  opportunities  to  participate  in 
these  activities.  This  could  be  due  to  lack  of  proper  infrastructure,  poor  accessibility, 
language barriers, or excessive costs.  

There  still  remain  inequalities  across  Europe  in  children’s  health  outcomes  and  access  to 
healthcare.  Children  living  in  poverty  or  experiencing  other  disadvantages  have  fewer 
opportunities  and  resources  to  benefit  from  disease  prevention  and  health  promotion 
programmes.  There  is  also  evidence  that  the  socio-economic  status  of  a  child  is  a  good 
predictor of their health as an adult: growing up in a disadvantaged environment can cause a 
long-lasting damage to health, which is not undone by upward social mobility.108  

Lack of access to regular healthy nutrition can also heavily impair children’s health and the 
overall  well-being.  Even  short-term  deprivations  can  have  permanent  consequences  for  a 
child. A poor diet during early development in the first three years of life can lead to learning 
and memory deficits, lower school achievement, and behavioural problems in childhood and 
adolescence.109  

Inadequate  housing  is  yet  another  form  of  disadvantage.  Both  house-specific  conditions 
(such as a lack of light,  a lack of space to  play,  insufficient  heating, or a leaking roof) and 
inadequate conditions in the broader environment (pollution, grime, insecurity, and a lack of 
access to green areas) can lead to ill-health, accidents, low educational outcomes, and a lack 
of  general  well-being.  Living  in  inadequate  housing  increases  the  risk  of  perpetuating  the 
intergenerational social exclusion cycle, with profound and long‐ term effects on children’s 
life  perspectives.  The  following  chapter  analyses  in  a  greater  detail  the  main  challenges  in 
ensuring children in need can access basic services. 

3.1. Early childhood education and care (ECEC) 

Early childhood education and care (ECEC) refers to any regulated arrangement that provides 
education and care for children from birth to compulsory primary school age, regardless of its 
setting, funding, opening hours or programme content. It includes: (i) centre and family day-
care;  (ii)  privately  and  publicly  funded  provision;  (iii)  pre-school  and  pre-primary 
provision.110 

3.1.1.  Availability of ECEC 

In  2002,  the  Council  met  in  Barcelona  to  set  targets  for  participation  in  early  childhood 
education and care. The targets were that Member States should by 2010 provide childcare to 
at least 90% of children aged between 3 and the mandatory school age, and for at least 33% 
of children under 3. Although the overall targets at EU level have been largely met, there are 
still significant differences among the Member States in enrolment overall, and particularly in 

107 Physical activities are especially important for healthy development of children, see https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-
topics/noncommunicable-diseases/pages/who-european-office-for-the-prevention-and-control-of-noncommunicable-diseases-ncd-
office/news/news/2021/2/who-reviews-effect-of-physical-activity-on-enhancing-academic-achievement-at-school.  
108 OECD, ‘A Broken Social Elevator? How to Promote Social Mobility’, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2018. 
109 Save the Children, ‘Child poverty and social exclusion in Europe – a matter of children’s rights’, 2014. 
110 For more information about the early childhood education and care (ECEC), and EU actions in this policy area see 
https://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/early-childhood-education-and-care_en.  

17 

 
 
                                                           
the  participation  of  children  at  risk  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion111.  Subsequently,  the 
Commission  communication  on  the  Gender  Equality  Strategy  2020-2025  announced  a 
proposal  for  the  revision  of  the  Barcelona  objectives  to  foster  upward  convergence.  This 
commitment  is  reiterated  in  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  Action  Plan  and  the 
Commission will propose the new targets in 2022. Furthermore, the 2021 Council Resolution 
on  a  strategic  framework  for  European  cooperation  in  education  and  training  towards  the 
European  Education  Area  and  beyond  (2021-2030)112  agreed  an  EU  target  for  the  ECEC 
participation  rate  of  at  least  96%  among  children  between  3  and  the  starting  age  for 
compulsory primary education.113 

Providing ECEC is especially problematic for the  younger group (aged 0 to 3) in Slovakia, 
Czechia, Poland, Romania and Croatia. In the Netherlands, Ireland, and Austria most children 
attend  these  facilities  for  less  than  30  hours  per  week.  Such  ‘part-time’  attendance  raises 
concerns  about  the  labour  market  participation  of  parents,  especially  mothers,  and  might 
hinder the education and socialisation of children114. 

Evidence  shows  considerably  lower  attendance  rates  in  ECEC  for  children  from  a  lower 
socio-economic backgrounds or socially disadvantaged groups. Over time, the use of formal 
childcare has increased among all income groups, but inequality in its use has not declined115. 
A literature review116 concluded that children with a disadvantaged background tended to be 
underrepresented  in  childcare  services.  Younger  children  (0-3  years)  from  a  disadvantaged 
background were especially underrepresented. The factors that are more frequently associated 
with low participation include: (i) the low socio-economic status of parents; (ii) non-working 
mothers; (iii) ethnic minority background; and (iv) living in a poor neighbourhood, rural area 
or marginalised settlement. The attendance of Roma children is particularly low. 

Such  inequalities  so  early  in  life  are  reflected  later  on  in  the  child’s  life in  the  form  of:  (i) 
lower  educational  outcomes;  (ii)  lower  educational  attainment  and  completion;  and  (iii) 
worse employment prospects as an adult.   

3.1.2.  Affordability of ECEC 

Early  childhood education and care is  paid  for in different  ways  across the Member States. 
This reflects the share of public spending dedicated to it, which ranges from 0.4% of GDP in 
Ireland  to  1.6%  of  GDP  in  Sweden.  The  measures  to  make  the  services  affordable  for  all 
children vary117. In some Member States, low-income families receive targeted allowances to 
cover the costs of childcare (up to full reimbursement of fees), but they can also benefit from 
priority access to services118.  

111 ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions on the development of childcare facilities for young children with a view to increase female labour participation, 
strike a work-life balance for working parents and bring about sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe (the "Barcelona objectives")’, 
COM(2018) 0273 final. 
112 Council Resolution on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training towards the European Education Area 
and beyond (2021-2030), OJ C 66, 26.2.2021, p. 1-21. 
113 See Figures B4 to B8 and Table B9 in Annex B for further information on ECEC enrolment and accessibility. 
114 See Figure B3 in Annex B for correlation between ECEC enrolment and employment impact of parenthood. 
115 See for instance European Commission 2019, Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2019. Sustainable Growth for all: choices 
for the future of social Europe, Chapter 4. 
116  Lazzari, A., Vandenbroeck, M., Literature Review of the Participation of Disadvantaged Children and families in ECEC Services in 
Europe. In J. Bennett (Ed.), Early childhood education and care (ECEC) for children from disadvantaged backgrounds: Findings from a 
European literature review and two case studies, European Commission, Brussels, 2013. 
117 See Table A2 in Annex A. 
118 Eurydice, Key data on early childhood education and care in Europe - 2019 Edition.  

18 

 
 
                                                           
Despite  the  multiple  types  of  support,  ‘out-of-pocket’  (or  ‘net’)  costs  of  ECEC  are  high  in 
many Member States. Calculations using comparable data on childcare prices show that net 
costs  rise  to  more  than  a  third  of  female  median  earnings  in  Ireland  and  Slovakia119. 
Throughout  the  EU,  high  fees  are  the  main  barrier  preventing  households  with  dependent 
children  from  placing  them  in  early  childhood  education  and  care.  The  impact  of  social 
disadvantage on participation is significant. For example, living in a family at risk of poverty 
or social exclusion – or merely in the bottom income tertile – significantly reduces odds of 
enrolment for children under 3, and also, to  a smaller extent, for those aged between 3 and 
minimum mandatory primary school age.  

The educational level of parents also makes a difference – children of mothers with a higher 
educational level are more likely to attend early childhood education and care120. 

3.2.  Education and school-based activities 

Education is the gateway to breaking the cycle of disadvantage and to giving children better 
life chances. This is because education supports the development of the personal and social 
skills  essential for future employability, lifelong learning and interpersonal  activities. High-
quality  and  inclusive  education  is  proven  to  improve  tolerance,  respect  for  diversity,  social 
integration, cohesion  and inclusion.  It  is  also  proven to  reduce crime, and lead to  a cleaner 
environment  and  better  quality  of  life.  However,  data  show  that  family  disadvantages  and 
inequalities  influence  educational  outcomes  in  primary  and  secondary  school.  Education 
systems  offer  opportunities  to  reduce  social  inequalities  and  exclusion,  but  they  may  also 
widen  differences  if  fairness  and  quality  requirements  are  not  met121.  It  is  evident  that 
children in need require additional support to perform well at schools. 

School  drop-out  rates  are  significantly  higher  for  children  with  a  Roma  or  a  migrant 
background.  They  are  also  significantly  higher  for  children  with  disabilities  or  special 
needs122. The share of these vulnerable children is higher among early leavers from education 
and  training  who  only  complete  primary  education.  In  addition,  significantly  fewer 
vulnerable  children  finish  secondary  or  especially  tertiary  education  than  the  population 
average123. The growing number of children with a migrant background in education systems 
calls for the prevention of segregated school settings and the adaptation of teaching methods.  
The structure of education124 differs greatly among Member States. Tuition-free primary and 
secondary schools are available everywhere in the EU. However, indirect school-related costs 
(textbooks,  school  meals,  school  trips,  uniforms,  equipment  including  digital  tools,  etc.) 
remain a significant expense for many families125. For instance, in Greece and Croatia more 
than 80% of income-poor families report facing difficulties in affording the costs of formally 
free  education126.  Segregation  and  discrimination  also  remain  a  challenge,  as  does  the 

119 OECD, Is Childcare Affordable? Policy brief on employment, labour and social affairs, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2020.  
120 JRC calculations based on 2016 EU-SILC microdata. 
121 SPC advisory report to the European Commission on tackling and preventing child poverty, promoting child well-being, 2012.  
122 See for example the joint Eurydice/Cedefop report ‘Tackling early leaving from education and training in Europe’, 2015. 
123 ‘Progress towards the Common European Objectives in Education and Training. Indicators and benchmarks 2010/2011’ Commission 
Staff Working Document 2011. 
124 For the purpose of this document, the term “education” refers to the system of compulsory schooling (including VET), meant to promote 
cognitive, intellectual, social, physical, and emotional development of children, tuition-free and financed from public resources. The starting 
age of compulsory schooling varies between 3 and 7 years, and transition to secondary school takes place between ages of 11 and 16 years. 
125 See Figure A15 in Annex A for further statistics on indirect school-related costs. 
126 Source: EU-SILC ad hoc module on public services 2016, own calculations. 

19 

 
 
                                                           
exclusion of some vulnerable children by placing them in ‘special’ schools127.   It is necessary 
to  combine  more  universal  actions  with  targeted  measures  addressing  vulnerable  groups  of 
children and young people.  

In order to  slow down the spread of the COVID-19 virus, Member States shifted in  March 
2020  to  distance  learning,  which  affected  around  58  million  primary  and  secondary  school 
children.  During  physical  school  closures,  home  resources  and  parental  involvement  in 
school  work  have  proven  to  be  essential  for  learning.  However,  these  are  not  available 
equally  to  all  children.  Across  the  21  Member  States  surveyed  by  the  Commission’s  Joint 
Research Centre128, more than one fifth of  fourth grade pupils lack at least two of the four 
resources needed for successful distance learning (i.e. their own room, reading opportunities, 
internet access, parental involvement). For children with lower-educated parents the figure is 
28%,  compared  with  10%  for  those  with  more  highly  educated  parents.  Eurostat  data  from 
2019  indicate  that  access  to  broadband  internet  varies  significantly  across  the  EU,  ranging 
from  74%  of  households  for  the  lowest-income  quartile  to  97%  in  the  highest-income 
quartile129.  

On average, children who lack resources and support were already lower performers before 
the  crisis,  and  these  children  are  likely  to  have  lost  further  ground  during  the  COVID-19 
school  closures.  Furthermore,  the  COVID-19  pandemic  has  also  lead  to  a  decrease  in  the 
supply  of  apprenticeship  placements.  The  apprenticeship  placements  that  are  still  available 
face new challenges as regards the compensation for the lack of practical work experience by 
other forms of remote and digital learning. The learning disruptions caused by the COVID-19 
crisis  are  likely  to  magnify  existing  educational  inequalities  and  create  new  challenges, 
bearing among others on the emotional well-being of pupils. This situation calls for a greater 
effort  to:  (i)  reduce  the  number  of  young  people  who  leave  education  prematurely  and 
without  at  least  an  upper  secondary  degree;  (ii)  reduce  the  number  and  share  of  low-
achievers; and (iii) ensuring well-being and a positive learning climate at school. 

Education  is  not  simply  about  what  happens  in  the  classroom.  Play,  recreation,  sport  and 
cultural activities are also part of education, and these all play a crucial role in building social 
skills.  Many  of  these  activities  are  organised  by  schools  (either  during  or  outside  regular 
school  hours).  Unlike  classroom-based  education,  those  activities  are  not  always  free  of 
charge.  Such  activities,  undertaken  together  by  pupils  who  attend  the  same  school  or  in 
different groups, are an important complement to education and have proved to be especially 
beneficial for children from disadvantaged backgrounds130. In Greece and Croatia, four out of 
five income-poor families consider indirect school-related costs difficult to afford. The share 
of children who could not participate in school trips and school events that cost money varied 
in 2014 from 0.7% in Germany and 0.8% in Finland and Sweden to 22.1% in Greece, 40.3% 
in Romania and 43.0% in Bulgaria, with the EU-28 average being 7.6%131.  

127 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and European Union Fundamental Rights Agency. 
128  Blasko,  Z.,  Schnepf,  S.  V.  JRC  policy  brief  ‘Educational  inequalities  in  Europe  and  physical  school  closures  during  Covid-19’, 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020. 
129 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee  of  the  Regions  ‘Digital  Education  Action  Plan  2021-2027.  Resetting  education  and  training  for  the  digital  age’, 
COM(2020) 624 final, 
https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/document-library-docs/deap-communication-
sept2020_en.pdf.  
130 See e.g. Catterall, J., Chapleau, R., Iwanaga, J., ‘Involvement in the Arts and Human Development: General Involvement and Intensive 
Involvement In Music and Theatre Arts’, 2000.   
131 EU-SILC ad-hoc module on child deprivation, age group 1-15 years. 

available 

at 

20 

 
 
                                                           
Although the collected data are not completely comparable, estimated numbers demonstrate 
that  households  with  dependent  children  on  average  spend  1.7%  of  their  budget  on 
education132. This share is likely higher in low-income households, indicating the regressive 
impact of school costs. The record low levels of  private expenditure on education in Finland 
and  Sweden  result  from  universal  free  of  charge  education  systems  operating  in  those 
Member  States,  offering  also  a  wide  variety  of  health  and  social  services,  free  meals  and 
recreational  activities.  This  allows  to  prevent  poverty  traps  and  stigmatisation  of  children 
coming from low-income families or in vulnerable situations. 

3.3. Healthcare 

Various  studies  point  to  the  existence  and  persistence  of  social  inequalities  in  children's 
health outcomes133. Early intervention and prevention are essential.  Better  outcomes can be 
achieved  by:  (i)  better  access  to  maternal  healthcare;  and  (ii)  better  public-health  activities 
(including vaccination promotion, parenting support and child nutrition programmes).  

Nearly all Member States ensure, in principle, free access to healthcare for all children, while 
some offer a free core service with some charges (such as prescription charge in Estonia, or 
co-payments  in  France  and  Slovakia).  In  only  eight  of  the  Member  States  with  a  universal 
free service all children, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, could effectively 
access it.134   

Overall  in  the  EU,  3%  of  children  at  risk  of  poverty  suffered  from  unmet  medical  needs  – 
more than twice as much as among children living in more affluent families135. In Belgium, 
Bulgaria,  Greece,  Italy,  Cyprus,  Portugal  and  Romania  the  main  reason  for  unmet  medical 
needs  for  children  was  affordability.  In  addition,  children  in  need  more  often  experience 
longer waiting times to see a doctor than other children136. 

On  access  to  medical  services,  two  areas  seem  to  be  of  particular  relevance  for  children  in 
need:  orthodontics  and  ophthalmology  (including  braces  and  spectacles/corrective  lenses 
respectively).  Member  States  differ  in:  (i)  the  range  of  services  that  are  covered  by  basic 
health insurance; (ii) the timeliness and availability of such services; and (iii) reimbursement 
limits for these services. Sometimes, there are even differences between regions in the same 
Member  State  in  these  three  areas.  In  general,  orthodontics  and  ophthalmology  is  better 
covered for children than for older age groups, but gaps in access for children in need persist 
due  to  co-payments  or  restricted  coverage  of  orthodontic  or  ophthalmology  care  from 
reimbursement  schemes137.  Access  to  facilities  for  proper  hygiene  (for  example  adequate 
toilet facilities and menstrual products for girls) is also necessary to prevent negative health 
consequences and ensure participation of all children in education and all social activities. 

A report ‘Implementation of the right to health care under the UN Convention on the Rights 
of the Child’138 highlighted that certain groups of children are left with insufficient healthcare 
coverage or without coverage at all. Children living in a country where they had no regular 
residence status were identified as the most vulnerable group. Access to affordable childhood 

132 See Figure B10 in Annex B. 
133 See for instance: “A broken social elevator? How to promote social mobility”, OECD, 2018.  
134 Feasibility study for a child guarantee. Final report. 
135 See Table B13 in Annex B.  
136 ESPN, Inequalities in access to healthcare, 2018.  
137 Respectively in France and Hungary, and in Belgium. 
138  Palm, W., Hernandez-Quevedo, C., Klasa, K., van Ginneken, E., ‘Implementation of the right to health care under the UN Convention 
on the Rights of the Child. Status report for the European Union’, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2017. 

21 

 
 
                                                           
vaccination  programmes  for  all  children  is  vital.  Vaccination  is  the  main  tool  for  primary 
prevention  of  disease.  However,  several  EU  countries  are  facing  outbreaks  of  vaccine-
preventable diseases, in particular measles, due to insufficient vaccination coverage rates.  

There are significant gaps across the EU in access to mental-health services. The companion 
report  to  the  2019  State  of  Health  in  the  EU139  identifies  mental  healthcare  as  one  of  the 
health services in shortest supply, resulting in long waiting lists140. Access by patients from 
disadvantaged  backgrounds,  including  children,  is  further  limited  by  constraints  in  the 
reimbursements  of  psychotherapy  from  public  health  budgets.    Around  10-20%  of  children 
and adolescents experience mental disorders such as anxiety and depression. Those disorders 
may  severely  influence  their  development,  educational  attainment  and  potential  to  live 
fulfilling  lives.  Practices141  addressing  mental  health  at  schools  include  the  fight  against 
stigma,  the  prevention  of  depression  and  suicide,  and  counselling  for  LBGT+  young 
people142.  

3.4. Healthy nutrition 

According  to  European  Food  Safety  Authority,  the  balanced  consumption  of  protein, 
carbohydrate,  fat,  vitamins,  minerals  and  water143  is  key  for  the  physical  and  mental 
development of children. According to the World Health Organisation, a child’s nutrition is 
considered  adequate  if  at  least  one  meal  per  day  includes  red  meat,  poultry,  fish  or  plant-
based protein source. The consumption of calories needs to: (i) be distributed during the day; 
(ii) include moderate amounts of  fat, sugar and salt; and (iii) include at least 400 g, or five 
portions,  of  fruit  and  vegetables  per  day144.  This  reduces  the  risk  of  non-communicable 
diseases and plays a critical role in children’s healthy development. 
Across 25 Member States145, on average  around 22% of children reported that they did  not 
eat breakfast before going to school. This ranged from around 7% in Portugal to around 36% 
in Austria146. Children who reported that they had eaten breakfast before school scored more 
highly in science than those who had skipped breakfast (10 percentage points higher for boys; 
6 for girls). Children who did not eat breakfast were significantly more likely to come from 
families with a lower socio-economic background147. 

The  EU-SILC  ad  hoc  module  on  child  deprivation  collected  in  2014  provides  some 
information  on children’s (1-15  years) enforced lack of fruits, vegetables  and proteins. The 
proportion of children living in households lacking these sources of food varied between less 
than 1% and 40% with  an EU average of 4%.148 Income poverty significantly increases the 

139 Commission Staff Working Document ‘State of Health in the EU: Companion Report 2019’, SWD(2019)377, available at 
https://ec.europa.eu/health/state/companion_report_en. 
140 In Sweden the wait time limit for children is 30 days compared to 90 days for adults. 
141 For an EU repository of good practices in health see: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/dyna/bp-portal/index_search.cfm.  
142 Mental health problems and psychological distress are one important driver of suicide among adolescents. Over 1000 15‐ 19 year‐ olds, 
more than 70% of them boys, died of suicide across EU in 2017. This makes suicide one of the leading causes of death in this age group. 
OECD 2020, Health at a Glance, https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/state/docs/2020_healthatglance_rep_en.pdf, p. 128. 
143 European Food Safety Authority, Dietary reference values, available at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/dietary-reference-
values. 
144 World Health Organization, 2019, Essential nutrition actions: mainstreaming nutrition through the life-course. 
145 Data were not available for Malta and Romania. 
146 The 2015 edition of the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study included questions asking children aged 
15 years old about whether they ate breakfast before school and whether they ate dinner after leaving school. 
147 OECD, 2017, PISA 2015 Results (Volume III), ‘Students’ Well-Being’. Seein particular Tables III.11.11, III.11.12 and III.11.22. 
148 The EU-SILC ad-hoc module on child deprivation collected in 2014 provides some information on children’s (1-15 years) enforced lack 
of fruits, vegetables and proteins. 'enforced lacks': lacks due to insufficient resources and thus problems of affordability, rather than lacks 
resulting from choices or lifestyle preferences. 

22 

 
 
                                                           
risk  of  forced  lack  of  nutrients  in  most  Member  States,  except  Austria,  Denmark,  Finland, 
Luxembourg and Sweden, where the occurrence of these problems is low for all children. 

Most  Member  States  offer  targeted  food  support  to  pupils  entitled  to  social  benefits  on 
grounds  of  low  income  or  other  disadvantage,  either  in-kind  (meals  or  snacks  at  schools 
provided for free or at  a lower price), or in  the form  of financial assistance to  their parents 
(e.g. Germany, France).149 In order to ensure truly healthy food environments where children 
grow up, socialise, play, and are educated, aggressive (online) marketing and advertising of 
alcohol  and  foods  high  in  fat,  salt  and  sugar  need  to  be  substantially  reduced.  The 
Commission  is  planning  to  prepare  an  implementation  report  in  2022  on  the  Audiovisual 
Media  Service  Directive150,  including  those  on  commercial  communications  on  unhealthy 
food  and  drinks.  The  Commission  also  supports  Member  States  and  stakeholders  in  their 
effort on food reformulation, marketing reduction and public procurement of foods through a 
Joint Action on Implementation of Validated Best Practices in Nutrition. 

The  importance  of  contribution  of  school  food  to  child  health  and  development  is  widely 
acknowledged; Member States have put in place specific school food policies, which provide 
either  voluntary  guidelines  or  mandatory  regulations  about  what  foods  and  drinks  may  or 
should  be  served  in  the  school  setting151.  In  2014,  such  policies  were  mandatory  in  14 
Member  States  and  voluntary  in  the  remaining  13152.  The  food  or  nutrient-based  standards 
used for school food provision vary throughout the EU and address i.a. the provision of fresh 
water or fruits and vegetables, as well as restrictions on soft drinks, deep-fried and processed 
food  products,  salt,  crisps  and  savoury  snacks  and  sweet  treats.  At  the  nutrient  level,  most 
policies highlight appropriate quantities of fat and calories of school meals in relation to the 
age  of  children.  Overall,  the  overconsumption  of  calories,  especially  due  to  excess  fat  and 
sugar, is of widespread concern.153 An overview of free school meals provision across the EU 
is presented in Annex B. 

The EU scheme  for school  fruit, vegetables and milk  helps  children develop  healthy  eating 
habits. It also supports the distribution of food to schoolchildren, from nursery to secondary 
schools. The scheme also supports educational measures, such as farm visits; school gardens; 
tasting and cooking workshops; theme days; and games. The total EU budget for the scheme 
in the period 2017-2023, is EUR 250 million per school year154.  

The  experience  during  the  early  months  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  demonstrated  the 
importance  of  school  meal  schemes  for  the  children  at  risk  of  poverty,  who  suddenly  were 
left with no access to school meals during the lockdown. A survey by Eurochild155 identified 
this  as  a  problem  in  Croatia,  Poland,  Portugal  and  Slovenia.  This  points  to  weaknesses  in 
reacting to the pandemic, but it also proves the success of meal schemes, which became an 
important source of food for disadvantaged children as long as schools were open.    

149 Eurydice, 2016, School meals in Europe. Report by the Polish Euridyce Unit. See Table B15 in Annex B.  
150 Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the 
coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of 
audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities, (EU) 2018/1808. 
151 European Commission/JRC, 2014, ‘School Food and Nutrition in Europe: policies, interventions and their impact’, available at 
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC91433/school%20food%20policy%20workshop%20report%20(online).pdf.  
152 Member States with mandatory policies: Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, France, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, 
Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden. European Commission/JRC, 2014, ‘Mapping of National School Food Policies across the EU28 
plus Norway and Switzerland’, available at https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC90452/lbna26651enn.pdf. 
153  Idem. 
154 For allocations in school year 2020/2021 see Figure B12 in Annex B. 
155 Eurochild, ‘Growing up in lockdown: Europe’s children in the age of COVID-19’, Brussels, 2020. 

23 

 
 
                                                           
3.5. Adequate housing 

Having  a  decent  home  environment  is  an  essential  need.  Access  to  affordable  and  quality 
housing is one of the main determinants of children’s well-being and social participation. In 
2019,  9.3%  of  the  EU-27  population  lived  in  households  that  spent  40%  or  more  of  their 
disposable  income  on  housing  (i.e.  were  considered  as  facing  housing  cost  overburden).156 
Among  households  at  risk  of  poverty,  this  share  was  35%  across  the  EU,  with  as  high  as 
88.2% in Greece, but just 9.2% in Malta (where it strongly increased recently). The incidence 
of  housing  cost  overburden  –  as  well  as  of  overcrowding  –  is  higher  for  tenants  than  for 
owners.  

In  most  Member  States,  the  risk  of  severe  housing  deprivation  is  greatly  increased  if  a 
person: (i) suffers from income poverty; (ii) lives in a single-parent household; or (iii) has a 
migrant  background157.  More  than  one  in  five  (21%)  EU  children  from  low-income 
households live in a dwelling with a leaking roof, damp walls, floors or foundation, or rot in 
window frames or floor. One in thirteen (7.7%) EU children live in dwellings, which are too 
dark. 
A survey of child material deprivation (2014)158 showed that 10.2% of EU-28 children (aged 
1-15)  lived  in  homes,  which  could  not  be  kept  adequately  warm159.  The  respective  share 
varied  from  0.8%  in  Finland  and  Sweden  and  1.0%  in  Luxembourg  to  25.7%  in  Cyprus, 
31.1% in Greece, and 40.6% in Bulgaria. The ability to keep a household adequately warm is 
linked  to  energy  poverty  and  is  often  associated  with  low  household  income,  high  energy 
costs and homes with low energy efficiency.   
Children at risk of poverty are also the most affected by overcrowding160. Over 41% of them 
live in overcrowded accommodation in EU-27, as opposed to around 17% of children in the 
whole of the population. In rural areas of some Member States, housing deprivation is mainly 
due  to  poor  quality  of  privately  owned  houses.  In  urban  areas,  the  insufficient  supply  of 
social  housing  and  high  market  rents  lead  families  to  settle  for  housing  in  problematic 
technical  conditions  or  housing  that  is  too  small  for  their  needs.  Moreover,  inadequate 
housing  typically  occurs  in  segregated  neighbourhoods,  which  itself  increases  the  risk  of 
social  exclusion.  On  the  other  hand,  in  several  Member  States  the  housing  conditions  have 
improved markedly during last decade: overall in the EU-27, the share of children living in 
dwellings without a toilet or with no bath nor shower almost halved. Among children at risk 
of poverty in Bulgaria, Belgium, Romania the incidence of leaking roofs, damp walls, floors 
or foundations or rot in window frames or floor decreased by respectively 12.9 pps, 11.2 pps 
and 9.1 pps. In Slovenia and Poland drops of respectively 11.6 pps and 7.9 pps were recorded 
on  the  incidence  of  living  in  dwellings  considered  as  too  dark.  In  Romania,  Latvia  and 
Bulgaria  there  has  been  a  significant  progress  as  regards  sanitary  conditions  (having  a 
flushing toilet for the sole use of the household and bath or a shower in the dwelling) – up to 
19.4 pps in a decade for the overall child population161.  

156 Eurostat [ilc_lvho07a], 7.07.2020. 
157 Feasibility study for a child guarantee. Final report, p. 54. 
158 See Figure A2 in Annex A. 
159 The EU-SILC ad-hoc module on child deprivation, see also Commission Recommendation of 14 October 2020 on Energy Poverty, 
(EU)2020/1563. 
160 The highest incidence of overcrowding among AROP children was recorded in in Romania (79.7%) and in Bulgaria (79.1%). See also 
Figure B16 in Annex B.  
161 See Figure B18 in Annex B for details.  

24 

 
 
                                                           
Housing  cost  overburden  is  a  significant  problem.  The  price  of  housing  increased  faster 
than incomes in recent years in almost all Member States162. In 2019, for approximately 9% 
of the EU-27 population, housing costs represented more than 40% of disposable household 
income,  which  significantly  reduces  the  capacity  to  cope  with  all  the  other  needs  besides 
accommodation.  Housing  cost  overburden  affects  disproportionally  children  living  in 
income-poor households – for them a risk of housing cost overburden is between three and 
five times higher that than for the total population of children. The share of children living in 
households confronted with housing costs overburden was particularly high in Greece, where 
nearly half (47%) of all children lived in such households, followed by Bulgaria (18%)163.  

The share of publicly administered dwellings in the EU’s overall housing stock is generally 
low164,  which  limits  the  room  for  manoeuvre  for  policy  interventions  aimed  at  addressing 
housing deprivation. The policy tools used to influence the housing market include demand-
side  supports  to  individuals  and  households  to:  (i)  facilitate  the  purchase  of  a  home;  (ii) 
provide  support  to  households  in  financial  distress,  or  (iii)  access  subsidised  housing  or 
housing  in  the  private  rental  market  (e.g.  through  housing  allowances)165.  Across  the  21 
Member  States  covered  by  a  2018  OECD  survey,  government  spending  on  housing 
allowances  relative  to  GDP  was  above  0.5%  of  GDP  in  only  five  Member  States,  with  the 
highest figure (0.89% of GDP) recorded in Finland. It was equal or below 0.10% of GDP in 
10 others. 

On  homelessness,  ten  Member  States  have  specific  regulations  or  requirements  for  the 
quality of emergency temporary accommodation if children are present. However, there are 
differences in the quality of services for homeless children and families. There are also great 
differences  in  the  regulation  and  monitoring  of  these  services.  Providing  children  with  a 
stable  home  is  a  prerequisite  to  any  additional  social  or  health  support  which  can  prevent 
their  situation  from  deteriorating.  Temporary  accommodation  can  be  useful  to  meet 
immediate housing needs as long as it does not become a long-term solution. 

3.6. The territorial dimension  

Child exclusion and poverty as well as equality of opportunities have a territorial aspect that 
must be taken into account when designing and implementing measures to ensure access to 
key services for children in need.  
In most large cities surveyed in a recent report by Eurocities166, the incidence of child poverty 
is higher than the national average for a given country. Children living in the most deprived 
urban  areas  often  accumulate  multiple  risk  factors,  such  as  poor  housing,  risk  of 
discrimination,  violence,  and  unequal  access  to  services.  Several  Member  States167  have 
already designed indicators to identify segregated areas (where there is a high concentration 
of  poverty  and  exclusion)  and  provide  for  targeted  measures.  These  include,  for  instance, 
areas in Slovakia with a high density of Roma population.  

162 For further information see Second overview of housing exclusion in Europe, FEANTSA 2017, available at 
https://www.feantsa.org/download/gb_housing-exclusion-report_complete_20178613899107250251219.pdf. 
163 Feasibility study for a child guarantee. Final report, p. 54.  
164 See Figure B19 in Annex B. 
165 See OECD Affordable Housing Database; information in this indicator summarises existing policy measures as reported by countries 
responding to the 2019 and 2016 OECD Questionnaire on Affordable and Social Housing. 
166 Eurocities, 2020, Fighting child poverty in European cities. Lessons from cities for the EU Child Guarantee. 
167 E.g. France, Hungary and Slovakia. 

25 

 
 
                                                           
In  Romania,  Bulgaria,  Lithuania,  Latvia,  and  Greece,  living  in  a  predominantly  rural 
region168 is linked to a significantly higher risk of poverty or social exclusion than living in 
cities. The remoteness of some rural communities limits the size of schools and classes. This 
impacts  infrastructure  and  the  educational  offer.169  PISA  2018  shows  that  the  difference  in 
reading  performance  between  pupils  attending  schools  in  cities  with  more  than  100 000 
inhabitants  and  pupils  attending  schools  in  localities  with  fewer  than  3 000  inhabitants170 
exceeds 100 PISA points in some Member States. This corresponds to a difference of at least 
3 years of schooling. The rural gap is even more visible in students’ transition to higher levels 
of  education  and  in  the  educational  expectations  that  precede  their  decisions  to  continue 
education.  The  average  tertiary  education  gap  between  rural  areas  and  cities  (i.e.  the  gap 
between  the  percentage  of  inhabitants  with  a  tertiary  education  and  those  without)  is  more 
than  20  pps.  This  gap  has  been  growing  in  recent  years  because  tertiary  educational 
attainment  levels  in  most  Member  States  are  increasing  faster  in  cities  than  in  the  rural 
areas.171   

4. LEGAL BASIS FOR UNION’S ACTION  

Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) states that  it is the Union’s aim to: (i) 
combat social exclusion and discrimination; (ii) promote intergenerational solidarity; and (iii) 
protect the rights of the child. According to Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union (TFEU), the Union shall take into account, in defining and implementing its 
policies and activities: (i) the promotion of a high level of employment; (ii) the guarantee of 
social  protection;  (iii)  the  fight  against  social  exclusion;  and  (iv)  a  high  level  of  education, 
training and protection of human health.  

Under Article 151 TFEU, the Union and the Member States have as their objectives inter alia 
the  promotion  of:  (i)  improved  living  conditions;  (ii)  proper  social  protection;  and  (iii)  the 
development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment and the combating 
of  exclusion.  Improving  equality  of  opportunities  for  all  children  living  in  the  EU  helps  to 
reach those objectives, in particular the last one. Under Article 153 (1)(j) TFEU, the Union 
supports  and  complements  the  activities  of  the  Member  States  in  the  field  of  combatting 
social exclusion, with a view to achieving the objectives of Article 151. 

The  Union  was  also  attributed  competences  in  the  field  of  fighting  discrimination  and  as 
regards complementing national policies in the field of education, training and protection of 
human health (Articles 19, 165, 166 and 168 TFEU). Further, the Union is also called onto to 
contribute to social cohesion (Article 174 TFEU).  

Article  24  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  EU  recognises  that  children  are 
independent  and  autonomous  holders  of  rights,  that  children  shall  have  the  right  to  such 
protection and care as is necessary for their well-being, and makes the child's best interests a 
primary  consideration for public authorities and private institutions. The Charter recognises 
also the right to education (Article 14), the right to protection of family and professional life 

168 The term “predominantly rural region” forms part of the urban-rural typology. It is defined as NUTS level 3 region, where at least 50 % 
of the population live in rural grid cells (i.e. those with population density of less than 300 inhabitants per square kilometre, and not a part of 
an urban cluster). 
169 Echazarra, A., Radinger, T.,  Learning In Rural Schools: Insights From PISA, TALIS and the Literature, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2019. 
170 Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Portugal. 
171 European Commission, Education and Training Monitor 2020, p. 45. 

26 

 
 
                                                           
(Article  33),  right  to  social  security  and  social  assistance  (Article  34),  right  to  health  care 
(Article 35), among others172.  

The EU is committed to the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and 
the Sustainable Development Goals. Goal 1 relates to poverty reduction; Goal 2 aims to end 
hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition; Goal 3 sets to ensure healthy lives and 
promote  well-being  for  all  ages;  Goal  4  encompasses  inclusive  and  equitable  quality 
education; Goal 5 fosters gender equality; Goals 6 and 11 cover housing, calling respectively 
for  ensuring  access  to  sanitation  and  hygiene,  and  to  make  cities  and  human  settlements 
inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable; Goal 10 aims at reducing inequalities; Goal 16 has a 
specific  target  to  end  abuse,  exploitation,  trafficking  and  all  forms  of  violence  against  and 
torture of children. 

All  EU  Member  States  have  ratified  the  UN  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  the  Child 
(UNCRC),  on  which  Article  24  of  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  is  based.  The 
UNCRC states (in Article 3) that in  all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by 
public  or  private  social  welfare  institutions,  courts  of  law,  administrative  authorities  or 
legislative  bodies,  the  best  interests  of  the  child  shall  be  a  primary  consideration.173  The 
UNCRC also recognises that children have the right to: state assistance (Article 18), adequate 
standard  of  living  (Article  27),  education  (Article  28),  the  highest  attainable  standard  of 
health  (Article  24),  rest  and  leisure  and  to  participate  freely  in  cultural  life  and  the  arts 
(Article  31).  The  provisions  of  UN  Convention  on  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities 
(UNCRPD),  to  which  both  the  EU  and  the  Member  States  are  parties,  guides  policy  on 
children with disabilities. 

5. KEY ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL   

This chapter provides more details on the origin and context of the Commission proposal for 
a Council recommendation establishing a European Child Guarantee. It also describes: (i) the 
objective  and  scope  of  the  proposal;  and  (ii)  an  enabling  policy  framework  that  Member 
States  need  to  put  in  place  to  successfully  implement  the  recommendation.  Finally,  the 
chapter discusses how this proposal relates to other initiatives relevant for combating social 
exclusion and ensuring the well-being of children. 

5.1. The origin and the context of the European Child Guarantee   

The proposal is the result of extensive preparatory work. It is based on a preparatory action 
requested by the European Parliament and implemented by the Commission to decide on the 
main  aspects  of  the  future  initiative.  It  also  takes  into  account  findings  of  the  Commission 
assessment  of  the  implementation  of  the  ‘Investing  in  Children’  recommendation.  The 
proposal  reflects  the  views  of  stakeholders,  including  children,  expressed  during  targeted 
consultations  in  2020.  It  also  delivers  on  the  calls  from  other  institutions,  including  the 
Council and the European Court of Auditors. 

172 According to its Article 51(1), the Charter applies to Member States only when they are implementing European Union law. 
173 In line with the UNCRC, all persons under 18 years of age are considered children. Therefore, unless otherwise indicated, all data 
referring to children in this document refer to the 0-17 age group. This approach was followed also in the ‘Investing in Children’ 
recommendation. 

27 

 
 
                                                           
5.1.1.  Assessment  of 
Recommendation 

the 

implementation  of 

the 

‘Investing 

in  Children’ 

The Commission ‘Investing in Children’ recommendation was adopted in February 2013. It 
provides  an  overall  framework  for  the  Commission  and  EU  Member  States  to  develop 
policies  and  programmes  to  promote  the  social  inclusion  and  well-being  of  children, 
especially those in vulnerable situations. It calls on Member States to step up their investment 
in  children,  according  to  a  three-pillar  approach,  which  includes:  (i)  ensuring  access  to 
adequate  resources,  (ii)  ensuring  access  to  affordable  quality  services  and  (iii)  upholding 
children’s  rights to participate in play, recreation, sport and cultural  activities, as well as in 
decision-making that affects their lives. 

In  2017,  the  Commission  assessed  the  four  years  of  the  implementation  the  ‘Investing  in 
Children’  recommendation  and  published  a  staff  working  document.174  This  assessment 
concluded that the full implementation of the Recommendation was still a work in progress. 
It  said  that  although  the  Recommendation  received  strong  support  both  at  national  and  EU 
level,  including  from  the  European  Parliament  and  civil  society,  it  was  still  neither  well-
known  nor  properly  used  within  the  Member  States  at  local  level.  The  assessment  also 
underlined  that  most  Member  States  agreed  that  only  a  comprehensive  integrated  approach 
would be an effective strategy capable of breaking the cycle of disadvantage for vulnerable 
children. In addition, the assessment highlighted that most Member States agreed that it was 
socially  fair  and  economically  sound  to  invest  more  in  children  during  the  early  years  and 
that  early  childhood  education  and  care  was  the  best  way  to  achieve  this.  The  assessment 
concluded  that  much  more  needs  to  be  done  to  ensure  the  effective  implementation  of  the 
Recommendation.  

As  an  additional  monitoring  measure,  the  European  Semester  economic  and  employment 
coordination  process,  supported  by  the  Social  Scoreboard,  has  highlighted  the  challenge  of 
child poverty or social exclusion, with a number of Member States receiving related country 
specific recommendations. The Employment Guidelines underline the importance of ensuring 
the  access  of  everyone,  including  children,  to  certain  services,  such  as  early  childhood 
education  and  care,  education  and  healthcare;  with  such  access  serving  as  a  necessary 
condition for ensuring equal opportunities. 

5.1.2.  Preparatory actions initiated by the European Parliament 

On  24  November  2015,  the  European  Parliament  voted  for  a  resolution  on  reducing 
inequalities with a special focus on child poverty175. The European Parliament called on the 
Commission  and  the  Member  States  to  introduce  a  child  guarantee  so  that  every  child  in 
poverty  could  access  free  healthcare,  free  education,  free  childcare,  decent  housing  and 
adequate nutrition.  

Subsequently,  the  European  Parliament  asked  the  Commission  to  implement  a  preparatory 
action  to  lay  down  an  implementation  framework  for  such  a  child  guarantee  in  accordance 
with  the  ‘Investing  in  Children’  recommendation.  The  European  Parliament  suggested  that 
the Commission also take into account the European Pillar of Social Rights and the broader 
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. 

174 Commission Staff Working Document ‘Taking stock of the 2013 Recommendation on "Investing in children: breaking the cycle of 
disadvantage"’, SWD(2017) 258 final. 
175 European Parliament resolution of 24 November 2015 on reducing inequalities with a special focus on child poverty, 2014/2237(INI). 

28 

 
 
                                                           
In response, the Commission explored the potential scope of a child guarantee by examining 
the feasibility and  conditions  for implementing such a scheme (the so-called Phase  I of the 
preparatory  action).  A  feasibility  study  was  commissioned176,  focusing  on  four  specific 
groups of socially vulnerable children that are known to  be particularly  exposed to  poverty 
and  risks  to  their  well-being:  children  residing  in  institutions,  children  with  disabilities, 
children  with  a  migrant  background  (including  refugee  children)  and  children  living  in  a 
precarious family situation. The study then analysed the feasibility of guaranteeing these four 
categories  of  children  access  to  the  following  five  services:  free  healthcare,  free  education, 
free early childhood education and care, adequate housing and healthy nutrition.   

The  study,  published  in  March  2020,  concluded  that  access  by  these  four  categories  of 
children to the five services should indeed be improved. Failure to ensure this access  could 
have  short-  and  long-term  consequences  for  children  themselves,  but  also  for  society. 
Furthermore,  the  study  argued  that  mainstream  services  also  need  to  be  inclusive  to  ensure 
that  children  in  need  benefit  fully  and  avoid  stigma  and  segregation.  Although  ensuring 
access to the services would be an important effort in tackling child poverty, the study said 
that this effort would need to be placed within a broader and more comprehensive approach, 
as set out in the ‘Investing in Children’ recommendation. Finally, the study argued that EU 
funds  had  considerable  potential  to  play  a  more  effective  and  strategic  role  in  supporting 
access to the five services. 

Phase II of the preparatory action examined a possible policy and financial impact of a child 
guarantee  via  a  study  entitled  “The  economic  implementing  framework  of  a  possible  EU 
Child  Guarantee  scheme  including  its  financial  foundation”177.  It  explored  the  costs  and 
benefits  of  a  guarantee  to  children  at  risk  of  poverty  to  have  access  to  the  five  services 
mentioned  above.  Main  conclusion  of  that  study  are  presented  in    Chapter  8  of  this  Staff 
Working Document.  

Phase  III  of  the  preparatory  action  is  dedicated  to  conducting  experimental  projects  in 
selected  EU  Member  States  to  test  in  practise  the  results  of  the  previous  two  phases.  The 
Commission,  in  partnership  with  UNICEF,  tests  on  the  ground  through  pilot  projects  in 
Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Greece,  and  Italy,  and  researches  on  policy  frameworks  in  Germany, 
Lithuania,  and  Spain.  The  outcomes  of  the  phase  III  will  provide  a  valuable  input  to  the 
implementation phase of this proposal. 

On 11 March 2021, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the EU Strategy on the 
Rights of the Child178. The document calls for concrete measures to invest in children in order 
to  eradicate  child  poverty,  including  through  establishment  of  a  European  Child  Guarantee 
with appropriate resources. The Parliament calls on the Member States to invest all possible 
resources in the implementation of the European Child Guarantee, including EU funds such 
as  the  European  Social  Fund  Plus  (ESF+),  Recovery  Assistance  for  Cohesion  and  the 
Territories  of  Europe  (ReactEU),  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility,  the  European 
Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF),  InvestEU,  Erasmus+  and  the  Asylum  and  Migration 
Fund (AMF). 

176 Feasibility study for a child guarantee. Final report. 
177 Study on the economic implementing framework of a possible EU Child Guarantee Scheme including its financial foundation. Final 
Report. 
178 European Parliament resolution of 11 March 2021 on children’s rights in view of the EU Strategy on the rights of the child, 
2021/2523(RSP). 

29 

 
 
                                                           
5.1.3.  Calls from other EU institutions  

In its conclusions of 8 June 2020 ‘Demographic Challenges – the Way Ahead’179, the Council 
invited  the  Commission  to  deliver  in  a  timely  manner  a  proposal  for  the  European  Child 
Guarantee.  
In its Special Report 20/2020 on child poverty of 29 September 2020180, the European Court 
of Auditors highlighted that the Commission needed to better target its support for Member 
States actions to combat child poverty. It also recommended that the Commission: (i) include 
child  poverty  in  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  Action  Plan;  and  (ii)  ensure  that  the 
necessary steps have been completed to prepare the European Child Guarantee.  

Reacting to the Special Report, the Council called on the Commission to: (i) include actions 
and  objectives  to  tackle  child  poverty  in  its  future  initiatives,  among  others  under  the 
European  Semester;  and  (ii)  complete  the  necessary  steps  and  information  gathering  to 
prepare the European Child Guarantee. 

A  Joint  Declaration  ‘Overcoming  poverty  and  social  exclusion  –  mitigating  the  impact  of 
COVID-19 on families working together to develop prospects for strong children’ was signed 
in December 2020 by 24 ministers of the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer 
Affairs  Council.  This  declaration  welcomed  the  upcoming  European  Child  Guarantee  as  a 
crucial opportunity to invest more – and more effectively – in preventing and reducing child 
poverty in Europe, which is a key driver of social exclusion. The ministers’ declaration states 
that the European Child Guarantee should be based on the principles and integrated approach 
of the ‘Investing in Children’ recommendation and of the European Pillar of Social Rights. 
The declaration flagged the access to the following services as essential for children at risk of 
poverty  or  social  exclusion:  (i)  free  healthcare;  (ii)  free  education;  (iii)  affordable  early 
childhood education and care; (iv) decent housing; and (v) adequate nutrition. 

In  May  2020,  the  Council  called  for  equal  opportunities  for  all  young  people  regardless  of 
obstacles, including geographical challenges, in its conclusions on Raising Opportunities for 
Young People in Rural and Remote areas181.  

5.1.4.  Consultation process 

The consultation process in July to November 2020 made it possible to collect information on 
the  challenges  facing:  (i)  national  or  local  administrations;  (ii)  providers  of  services  for 
children; and (iii) civil society. The consulted stakeholders confirmed that there were gaps in 
the  current  provision  of  services  at  the  national  level,  which  could  be  addressed  through 
actions at the EU level.  

At  the  Commission’s  request,  UNICEF,  Eurochild,  Save  the  Children,  World  Vision  and 
Child Fund Alliance conducted a joint consultation on the EU Strategy on the Rights of the 
Child  2021-2024  and  the  European  Child  Guarantee.  The  five  organisations  developed 
together a questionnaire that was answered by approximately 10 000 children in the EU and 
beyond.  The  main  findings  of  this  consultation  dealt  with:  (i)  the  discrimination  and 
exclusion faced by children; (ii) children’s unmet expectations at school; (iii) violent episodes 
in  children’s  lives;  and  (iv)  the  lack  of  consideration  of  children’s  points  of  view.  The 
outcome  called  for  the  European  Child  Guarantee  to  focus  on  concrete  and  effective 

179 Council Conclusions on Demographic Challenges – the Way Ahead, 8668/20. 
180 European Court of Auditors Special Report 20/2020 Combating child poverty – Better targeting of Commission support required.  
181 Conclusions of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council on Raising 
Opportunities for Young People in Rural and Remote areas, 8265/20. 

30 

 
 
                                                           
measures  to  ensure  equal  treatment  of  all  children,  with  particular  attention  to  children  in 
vulnerable  situations,  and  equal  access  to  quality  and  affordable  education  for  all  children, 
from early childhood education and care to secondary education. The results are available in 
report ‘Our Europe, Our Rights, Our Future’182.  

A  detailed  overview  of  the  wide  consultation  process  with  stakeholders  can  be  found  in 
Annex C. 

5.2. The objective and scope of the European Child Guarantee   

The proposed Recommendation has as its objective to  prevent  and  combat social  exclusion 
by  guaranteeing  access  of  children  in  need  to  a  set  of  key  services.  In  doing  so,  the 
Recommendation  will  contribute  to  fostering  equal  opportunities  for  children  in  need  and 
combating child poverty.  

With a view to achieving this objective, the proposal recommends Member States to:   

(1) guarantee for children in need effective and free access to early childhood  education 
and care, education and school-based activities,  at least one healthy meal each school 
day and healthcare; 

(2) guarantee  for  children  in  need  effective  access  to  healthy  nutrition  and  adequate 

housing. 

An ample body of evidence clearly shows that children in need across the EU often lack 
full  access  to  the  services  covered  by  this  proposal.  The  extent  to  which  children 
experiencing  various  kinds  of  disadvantage  have  access  to  these  services  differs  widely 
across the EU.  

By  focusing  on  children  in  need  the  proposal  is  expected  to  have  greater  impact  and 
added  value  than  the  existing  initiatives  and  instruments.  The  specific  targeting  of  the 
initiative  is  also  consistent  with  the  EU’s  commitment  to  ‘leave  no  one  behind’.  The 
approach set out in the proposal will allow for adjusted and tailor-made solutions according 
to the specific situations faced by different groups of children in need in each Member State. 
The  precise  identification,  targeting  and  actions  for  children  in  need  would  be  left  to  the 
Member States, based on their national, regional and local specificities.  

In  this  context  it  is  important  to  emphasise  that  Member  States  are  expected  to  continue 
developing  their  universal  policies  for  all  children,  in  line  with  the  ‘Investing  in  Children’ 
recommendation.  

Ensuring  access  to  the  key  services  on  its  own  is  not  sufficient,  as  the  services  need  to  be 
truly inclusive  and of high quality to  fully benefit all children in  vulnerable situations. The 
evidence  shows  that  although  these  service  may  be  free,  accessing  them  can  sometimes 
involve additional costs, which can act as barriers to children in need. The proposal therefore 
stresses  the  importance  of  the  effectiveness  of  access.  Effectiveness  of  access  should  be 
understood  as:  (i)  service  availability,  affordability,  and  quality;  (ii)  the  timeliness  of  its 
provision; and (iii) whether the potential users of a service are aware of its existence and of 
their entitlement to use it.  

However,  even  guaranteeing  effectiveness  of  access  may  not  be  enough  for  the  most 
vulnerable. Affordability is  a relative concept  and for many families living in  poverty even 

182  ‘Report “Our Europe, Our Rights, Our Future”. Children's and young people's contribution to the new EU Strategy on the Rights of the 
Child and the Child Guarantee’, available at https://www.unicef.org/eu/reports/report-our-europe-our-rights-our-future.  

31 

 
 
                                                           
moderate fees can be a barrier. Therefore, the proposal recommends making access to certain 
services  effective  and  free  of  charge:  early  childhood  education  and  care;  education  and 
school-based activities; a healthy meal at school; and healthcare. The selection of services to 
be  provided  free  of  charge  follows  on  the  calls  from  the  European  Parliament,  and  other 
stakeholders. 

5.3. Enabling policy framework  

From the experience in implementing the ‘Investing in Children’ recommendation, it is clear 
that  the  European  Child  Guarantee  on  its  own  will  not  be  sufficient  to  address  social 
exclusion of children.   

The  specific  actions  to  be  taken  under  the  European  Child  Guarantee  will  be  important  on 
their  own.  However,  to  be  fully  effective  these  actions  must  be  placed  in  a  broader 
enabling policy framework addressing the multi-dimensional nature of social exclusion. 
The evidence shows that the Member States that are most successful in ensuring that children 
in  need  have  access  to  key  services  have  a  comprehensive  range  of  policies  in  place.  This 
comprehensive  range  of  policies  sits  alongside  a  strategic  and  a  well-coordinated  approach 
encouraging integrated interventions at national, regional and local levels. At the EU level, it 
is the European Pillar of Social Rights and its action plan that provide for this comprehensive 
framework. 

Lack of income and sufficient resources to live in dignity, inadequate access to key services, 
labour  market  exclusion  and  poor  quality  work  are  the  primary  causes  of  social  exclusion. 
Providing  solutions  to  these  problems  demands  integrated  approaches  that  cut  across  all 
relevant  policy  domains.  It  also  requires  better  coordination  between  macro-  and 
microeconomic  policies  and  emphasising  the  crucial  role  of  policy  areas  outside  the 
traditional  remit  of  social-inclusion  policies.  The  proposal:  (i)  recognises  the  need  to  fight 
exclusion  across  the  policy  spectrum;  (ii)  encourages  Member  States  to  ensure  the 
consistency of social, education, health, nutrition and housing policies at national, regional at 
local  level;  and  (iii)  encourages  Member  States  to  make  these  policies  more  relevant  for 
supporting all children, and in particular children in need.  

As  shown  in  Chapter  3.6,  poverty  or  social  exclusion  tends  to  be  greater  in  remote,  rural, 
deprived  urban  or  segregated  areas.  These  areas  face  a  number  of  specific  economic  and 
structural  challenges,  such  as:  (i)  fewer  employment  opportunities;  (ii)  low  income  levels; 
(iii)  low  levels  of  education;  (iv)  poor  quality  infrastructure;  and  (v)  limited  access  to 
services.  The  proposal  advises  Member  States  to  address  the  territorial  dimension  of  social 
exclusion by focusing on the specific needs of children from deprived urban, rural, remote, 
and segregated areas, based on an integrated and multidisciplinary approach.   

The  challenges  faced  by  children  in  need  and  their  families  are  often  many  and  complex. 
However, the delivery of services to these children and families is often fragmented and there 
is  a  lack  of  coordination  and  cooperation  among  service  providers.  The  proposal  therefore 
encourages  Member  States  to  put  in  place  effective  arrangements  in  order  to  ensure  the 
coordinated and integrated delivery of services at all levels of administration. Ensuring that 
services are developed and delivered in  an equal  and inclusive manner is essential to  avoid 
stigmatisation and segregation. It is also important that these services make particular efforts 
to reach out to the children and families who are most in need.  

The  proposal  recognises  that  labour  market  situation  of  parents  is  the  most  important 
determinant of the material situation in which children grow up. This confirms a critical role 

32 

 
 
of policies supporting parents’ or guardians’ access to a decent income, either through labour 
market integration or through income support.   

5.4.  Relation to other Commission initiatives  

The proposal stems from the European Pillar of Social Rights and its action plan and forms 
part of a broader framework for combatting poverty or social exclusion. It will contribute to 
achieving the target of lifting 15 million people, including 5 million children, out of poverty 
or social exclusion by 2030 put forward in the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan.  

The  proposal  complements  the  EU  Strategy  on  the  Rights  of  the  Child,    which  pools 
existing  and  future  initiatives  of  the  Commission  on  children’s  rights  under  one  coherent 
policy  framework,  both  in  internal  and  external  action.  The  strategy  will  ensure  further 
mainstreaming  of  children’s  rights  throughout  all  Commission  portfolios.  It  will  strengthen 
the  Commission’s  work  in  the  following  fields:  (i)  child  participation  in  the  EU’s  political 
democratic life; (ii) socio-economic inclusion, education and health; (iii) combating violence 
against  children  and  ensuring  child  protection;  (iv)  child  friendly  justice;  (v)  digital  and 
information society; and (vi) the global dimension. The section on socio-economic inclusion 
is directly aligned with the European Child Guarantee. One of the aims of the strategy is to 
combat  any  discrimination  of  children,  including  on  the  grounds  of  their  sex  or  sexual 
orientation – or that of their parents. The strategyaims to bring together all new and existing 
EU legislative, policy and funding  instruments within one comprehensive framework. 

The  European  Child  Guarantee  is  also  complementary  to  the  Strategy  for  the  Rights  of 
Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030183.  The strategy aims at fostering social and economic 
inclusion of persons with disabilities in society and full respect of their rights, encompassing 
also the needs of children with disabilities. 

The  proposal  is  consistent  with  the  Council  Recommendation  on  High-Quality  Early 
Childhood  Education  and  Care  Systems,  adopted  on  22  May  2019184.  Furthermore,    it 
follows the Commission  Communication ‘Achieving  a European Education Area by 2025’, 
which  was  adopted  on  30  September  2020185,  and  informed  the    Council  Resolution  of  19 
February  2021  on  a  strategic  framework  for  European  cooperation  in  education  and 
training  towards  the  European  Education  Area  and  beyond  (2021-2030)186.  The 
Resolution  has  improving  quality,  equity,  inclusion  and  success  for  all  in  education  and 
training as one of its strategic priorities and sets the EU targets for: (i) the participation rate in 
early childhood education and care among children between 3 years old and the starting age 
for  compulsory  primary  education  at  96%187;  and  (ii)  the  share  of  early  leavers  from 
education and training at under 9%.  
On  5  March  2020,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Gender  Equality  Strategy  2020-2025188. 
Among other things, the strategy aims to counter gender stereotypes affecting the wellbeing 
and opportunities of girls and boys in all their diversity from an early age. It also announces 

183 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions ‘Union of Equality: Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030’, COM(2021) 101 final.  
184 Council Recommendation of 22 May 2019 on High-Quality Early Childhood Education and Care Systems, 2019/C 189/02. 
185 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions on achieving the European Education Area by 2025, COM(2020) 625 final. 
186 Council Resolution on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training towards the European Education Area 
and beyond (2021-2030), 2021/C 66/01. 
187 See Figures and Tables B2 to B8 in Annex B for further information on ECEC. 
188 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions ‘A Union of Equality: Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025’, COM(2020) 152 final. 

33 

 
 
                                                           
the revision of the Barcelona targets for participation in early childhood education and care. 
The  Strategy  also  promotes  women’s  economic  empowerment  and  the  equal  sharing  of 
unpaid care work, including caring for children, between women and men. As long as women 
continue to carry a disproportionate responsibility for bringing up children, the objectives of 
gender equality and children’s social inclusion will continue to be closely interconnected.  

On  1  July  2020,  the  Commission  issued  communication  ‘Youth  Employment  Support:  a 
Bridge to Jobs for the Next Generation’189 and a proposal for Council recommendation ‘A 
Bridge  to  Jobs  –  Reinforcing  the  Youth  Guarantee’,  which  the  Council  adopted  on  30 
October 2020190. The recommendation seeks to ensure that all young people under the age of 
30 receive a good quality offer of employment, continued education, an apprenticeship or a 
traineeship within four months of becoming unemployed or leaving formal education.  

On  19  September  2020,  the  Commission  adopted  an  EU  anti-racism  action  plan  2020  - 
2025191.  The  action  plan  envisages  combating  racism  through  policy  and  funding 
programmes in the areas of employment, housing and access to healthcare and education. It 
promotes actions to ensure that: (i) children with a minority racial or ethnic background have 
equal  access  to  education;  and  (ii)  teachers  are  trained  to  work  with  all  children  and  be 
sensitive to the needs of pupils from different backgrounds. It also envisages a Commission 
report on the application of the EU Racial Equality Directive, which prohibits discrimination 
based on ethnic or racial origin, including discrimination of Roma children, in different areas 
such as education and social protection.  

On  30  September  2020,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Communication  entitled  ‘Digital 
Education  Action  Plan  2021-2027:  Resetting  education  and  training  for  the  digital 
age’192,  which  presents  an  ambitious  vision  for  digital  education  in  a  lifelong  learning 
perspective with the inclusion of all learners across all ages at its core. 

On  7  October  2020,  the  Commission  adopted  the  EU  Roma  strategic  framework  for 
equality, inclusion and participation193. It consists of a Communication and a proposal for 
a  Council  Recommendation  on  Roma  equality,  inclusion  and  participation,  which  was 
adopted by the Council on 12 March 2021194. The Recommendation calls on Member States 
to  fight  multiple  and  structural  discrimination  against  Roma,  in  particular  against  Roma 
children, and to take stronger measures that support Roma children and their families in the 
interrelated  fields  of  employment,  social  services,  quality,  inclusive  mainstream  education 
and  early  childhood  education  and  care,  health,  housing  and  access  to  essential  services, 
nutrition and access to leisure activities.  

On 14 October 2020, the Commission adopted a Communication “A Renovation Wave for 
Europe - greening our buildings, creating jobs, improving lives”195, based on a principle 

189 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions ‘Youth Employment Support: a Bridge to Jobs for the Next Generation’, COM/2020/276 final. 
190 Council Recommendation of 30 October 2020 on ‘A Bridge to Jobs – Reinforcing the Youth Guarantee and replacing the Council 
Recommendation of 22 April 2013 on establishing a Youth Guarantee 2020/C 372/01’, 2020/C 372/01. 
191 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions ‘A Union of equality: EU anti-racism action plan 2020-2025’, COM(2020) 565 final. 
192 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions ‘Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027. Resetting education and training for the digital age’, 
COM(2020) 624 final.  
193 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘A Union of Equality: EU Roma strategic framework 
for equality, inclusion and participation’, COM(2020) 620 final. 
194 Council Recommendation of 12 March 2021 on Roma equality, inclusion and participation, 2021/C 93/01. 
195 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions ‘A Renovation Wave for Europe - greening our buildings, creating jobs, improving lives’, COM(2020) 662 final 

34 

 
 
                                                           
of affordability of the renovated housing and its accessibility – thus contributing to the goal 
of  guaranteeing  decent  housing  to  children  in  need  especially  through  the  Commission 
Recommendation on Energy Poverty196. 

On  12  November  2020,  the  Commission  adopted  the  LGBTIQ  Equality  Strategy  2020-
2025197,  which  presents  measures  to  promote  inclusion  and  combat  discrimination  against 
LGBTIQ persons and their families, including children. 

On  24  November  2020,  the  Commission  adopted  an  action  plan  on  integration  and 
inclusion 2021-2027198, which covers migrants and EU citizens with a migrant background. 
The  action  plan  focuses  on  the  enabling  factors  essential  for  a  successful  integration  and 
inclusion: (i) education and training; (ii) employment and skills; and (iii) health and housing. 
The action plan also pays particular attention to children of migrants and EU citizens with a 
migrant background. 

On  16  December  2020,  the  European  Parliament  formally  adopted  the  revised  Drinking 
Water  Directive199.  Its  objective  is  to  protect  human  health  from  adverse  effects  of  any 
contamination  of  water  intended  for  human  consumption  by  ensuring  that  it  is  wholesome 
and  clean.  In  the  context  of  the  European  Child  Guarantee,  the  directive  has  relevance  to 
adequate housing and healthy nutrition.  
On 3 February 2021, the Commission adopted the Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan200, putting 
childhood cancer under the spotlight. One of the flagship initiatives of the plan is to launch 
the ‘Helping Children with Cancer Initiative’ to ensure that children have access to rapid and 
optimal detection, diagnosis, treatment and care. The Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan will also 
reinforce and develop new policies and legislation to help create a ‘Tobacco-Free Generation’ 
where less than 5% of the population uses tobacco by 2040, compared to around 25% today. 

To  increase  vaccination  coverage  rates  among  children,  the  Commission  will  step-up  the 
implementation  of  the  Council  Recommendation  to  strengthen  EU  cooperation  on  vaccine-
preventable  diseases201.  The  Commission  will, in  addition,  support  three  large  research  and 
innovation  actions  to  address  low  vaccine  uptake  and  concerns  about  vaccinations  among 
parents  and  health-care  professionals,  and  ultimately  improve  vaccination  coverage 
particularly among children and young adults. 

Fighting early leaving from education and training has been high on the EU political agenda 
for the last decade. The headline target to reduce the number of early leavers from education 
and training in Europe to less than 10% was established in 2010 as part of the Europe 2020 
Strategy202.  After  the  adoption  of  the  Strategy,  the  Commission  developed  a  set  of  policy 
documents203, leading to the adoption of the Council Recommendation on policies to reduce 

196 Commission Recommendation of 14 October 2020 on Energy poverty, (EU) 2020/1563. 
197 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions ‘Union of Equality: LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025’, COM(2020) 698 final. 
198 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions ‘Action plan on Integration and Inclusion 2021-2027’, COM(2020) 758 final.  
199 Directive (EU) 2020/2184 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on the quality of water intended for 
human consumption (recast). 
200 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘Europe's Beating Cancer Plan’, COM(2021) 44 final. 
201 Council Recommendation of 7 December 2018 on strengthened cooperation against vaccine-preventable diseases, 2018/C 466/01. 
202 Communication from the Commission ‘EUROPE 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’, COM(2010) 2020 final.  
203 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions ‘Tackling early school leaving: a Key contribution to the Europe 2020 agenda’ COM(2011) 18 final, and 
Commission Staff Working Paper ‘Reducing early school leaving Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Council recommendation 
on policies to reduce early school leaving’, SEC(2011) 96 final. 

35 

 
 
                                                           
early school leaving in 2011204, which sets out a framework for coherent, comprehensive, and 
evidence-based  policies.  Policy  cooperation  in  the  framework  of  the  Open  Method  of 
Coordination  has  promoted  exchange  of  practices  and  elaboration  of  policy  guidance205, 
investment in research and development and a special focus on early leaving from education 
and  training  in  the  EU  programmes,  in  particular  the  European  Structural  and  Investment 
Funds and Erasmus+. An online European Toolkit for Schools has also been developed206. 

In a wider policy context, the EU has also put forward a number of initiatives to address the 
main driver of child poverty: the employment status of parents. For example, the EU has put 
forward a number of initiatives including: (i) the Commission Recommendation on the active 
inclusion of people excluded from the labour market207; (ii) the Council Recommendation on 
the integration of the long-term unemployed into the labour market208; (iii) the Directive on 
work-life  balance  for  parents  and  carers209;  (iv)  the  Council  Recommendation  on  access  to 
social protection210; (v) the new Skills Agenda211; (vi) the European instrument for temporary 
support  to  mitigate  unemployment  risks  in  an  emergency  (SURE)212;  and  (vii)  the 
Commission proposal for a Directive on adequate minimum wages213. 

6. THE  USE OF  EU  FUNDS  TO COMBAT  CHILD POVERTY 

AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION 

EU  funding  instruments  have  been  supporting  a  wide  range  of  actions  that  contribute  to 
tackling and preventing child poverty and social  exclusion. These include: (i) investment in 
early childhood education and care; (ii) community support and active inclusion measures for 
parents;  (iii)  housing  support  for  severely  disadvantaged  communities  and  children;  (iv) 
educational  support;  (v)  after-school  activities;  and  (vi)  the  transition  from  institutional  to 
family- and community based care. 

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

6.1. The 2014-2020 programming period 

In  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds214 
supported a number of policy measures, including: (i) tackling child poverty and exclusion; 

204 Council Recommendation of 28 June 2011 on policies to reduce early school leaving, 2011/C 191/01. 
205 European Commission, ‘Schools policy. A whole school approach to tackling early school leaving’, Publications Office of the European 
Union, Luxembourg 2015. 
206 See https://www.schooleducationgateway.eu/en/pub/resources/toolkitsforschools.htm.  
207 Commission Recommendation of 3 October 2008 on the active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market, 2008/867/EC. 
208 Council recommendation of 15 February 2016 on the integration of the long-term unemployed into the labour market, 2016/C 67/01. 
209 Directive (EU) 2019/1158 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on work-life balance for parents and carers and 
repealing Council Directive 2010/18/EU. 
210 Council Recommendation of 8 November 2019 on access to social protection for workers and the self-employed, 2019/C 387/01. 
211 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions ‘European Skills Agenda for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience’, COM(2020) 274 final. 
212 Council Regulation (EU) 2020/672 of 19 May 2020 on the establishment of a European instrument for temporary support to mitigate 
unemployment risks in an emergency (SURE) following the COVID-19 outbreak. 
213 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on adequate minimum wages in the European Union, 
COM/2020/682 final. 
214 'European Structural and Investment Funds' - 'ESI Funds are the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social 
Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund, with the Fund for rural development, namely the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

36 

 
 
                                                           
 
(ii) work-life balance; (iii) shift from institutional to family- and community-based services; 
(iv)  quality  mainstream  education;  and  (v)  care  services.  The  ‘Investing  in  Children’ 
recommendation was meant to inform the funding priorities for cohesion policy and leverage 
more funding opportunities from EU funding for children and their families. 
The  European  Social  Fund215  (ESF)  was  used  for  numerous  actions  supporting  children216, 
including those most in need. Human capital development and a more inclusive society were 
the  key  drivers  of  ESF  investment  in  children  and  intervention  to  break  the  cycle  of 
disadvantage.  The  relevant  actions  can  be  divided  into  three  broad  categories:  (i)  inclusive 
education  and  training  operations;  (ii)  work-life  balance  and  childcare  operations;  and  (iii) 
other inclusive services, including a wide range of social services, deinstitutionalisation and 
the shift from institutional to community-based care, as well as material support to vulnerable 
children. 
The funding from the European Regional Development Fund217 (ERDF) was used to support 
investments in equipment and social infrastructure, such as: (i) early childhood education and 
care; (ii) out-of-school care; (iii) inclusive education; (iv) healthcare; (v) housing and shelters 
for  victims  of  domestic  violence;  and  (vi)  the  regeneration  of  deprived  neighbourhoods. 
Alongside the ESF, the ERDF also financed deinstitutionalisation and the shift away from the 
institutional  care  of  children  to  community-based  care.  The  ERDF  also  supported  Interreg 
cross-border cooperation projects, such as on the protection across borders of children in need 
or subject  to  violence.  In addition,  the ERDF tested new ways to  resolve legal  obstacles in 
border regions in order to support access to cross-border services for children. 
The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development218 (EAFRD) supported investments 
in the setting up, improvement or expansion of local basic services for the rural population, 
such as early childhood education and care, educational activities, and healthcare services.  
The 2014-2020 Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived219 (FEAD) was also at Member 
States’ disposal to provide food, material assistance and social inclusion activities to deprived 
children.  FEAD  offered  in-kind  support  to  children  and  their  families,  which  often  were 
accompanied by social inclusion measures addressing in an integrated manner various aspects 
of poverty. 

Several EU-funded programmes focused on actions aimed to protect and promote the rights 
of  the  child,  such  as  actions  under  the  Rights,  Equality,  Citizenship  and  Values 
programme220, which funds direct management projects to promote and protect the rights of 
the child, including for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Calls for proposals in the 
past have covered areas such as integrated child protection systems and alternative care or the 
protection  of  children  in  migration.  Under  the  Asylum  Migration  and  Integration  Fund  and 
Internal  Security  Fund,  EU  funds  were  made  available  to  protect  children  in  migration, 

(EAFRD), and for the maritime and fisheries sector, namely measures financed under shared management in the European Maritime and 
Fisheries Fund (EMFF). See Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 
215 Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013.  
216 For examples, see the ESF website.  
217 Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Regional 
Development Fund and on specific provisions concerning the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) 
No 1080/2006. 
218 Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by 
the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.  
219 Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 on the Fund for European Aid to the 
Most Deprived. 
220 With total budget of EUR 439.5 million over the period 2014-2020, see Single Electronic Data Interchange Area (SEDIA) for details. 

37 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
including by protecting them from trafficking. The Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 
was  also  used  to  improve  adaptation  of  services  for  migrant  children  and  children  with  a 
migrant background. 
The  Erasmus+  programme221  supported  the  training  and  further  professionalization  of  staff 
working  in  early  childhood  education  and  care  and  in  education.  It  also  funds  projects 
seeking to improve quality in those sectors. 
The  Employment  and  Social  Innovation222  (EaSI)    programme  promoted  social  innovation 
while: (i) paying particular attention to vulnerable groups; (ii) combating discrimination; (iii) 
promoting  adequate  social  protection;  and  (iv)  fighting  poverty.  The  EaSI  carried  out  this 
work by engaging organisations across Europe. The EaSI innovative projects are meant to be 
scaled-up through further EU funding, such as the ESF, or national schemes. 

The  research  and  innovation  framework  programme  Horizon  2020  has  funded  –  and  will 
continue  funding  until  2024  –  numerous  research  projects  on  children  in  areas  such  as:  (i) 
social inclusion; (ii)  education; (iii) inequalities; (iv) integration of migrant children; and (v) 
mental health and wellbeing of children and adolescents. 

In  2017-2020,  the  Structural  Reform  Support  Programme  provided  technical  support  to 
implement  Member  States’  reforms  aimed  at:  (i)  increasing  the  quality  of  early  childhood 
education and care and preventing early school leaving; (ii) making education systems more 
inclusive; (iii) supporting deinstitutionalisation of children; (iv) improving access to services 
for children with disabilities; (v) fostering social  integration of migrant and ethnic minority 
children; (vi) increasing the child-friendliness of national justice systems; and (vii) reviewing 
family protection legislation, to meet the evolving needs of all types of families. 

6.2. The 2021-2027 programming period 

Building  on  all  these  experiences,  the  cohesion  policy  funds,  in  particular  the  European 
Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and the ERDF will continue to support employment, education and 
social  policies  in  the  next  multiannual  financial  framework  2021-2027.  Under  this 
framework,  all  Member  States  will  allocate  at  least  25%  of  their  ESF+  resources  to  social 
inclusion.  Member  States  where  the  risk  of  poverty  or  social  exclusion  among  children  is 
above the EU average for the years 2017 – 2019 (i.e. above 23.4%,) will earmark at least 5 % 
of  their  ESF+  share  to  measures  for  tackling  child  poverty,  while  all  other  Member  states 
have an obligation to programme an appropriate amount. Investments in the relevant actions 
under the specific objectives on inclusion will be counted against the 25% earmarking, except 
when programmed under the specific objective on education. In addition, Member States can 
invest in: (i) actions to tackle food or material deprivation; and (ii) accompanying measures 
for children under the relevant specific objective of ESF+. If they invest in these two areas, 
this  will  be  counted  against  the  3%  that  they  are  required  to  spend  to  address  material 
deprivation.  

On  financing  the  Youth  Guarantee  (which  is  addressed  to  people  aged  over  15),  Member 
States  must  devote  at  least  12.5%  of  their  ESF+  resources  to  support  young  people  not  in 
education, employment or training if the percentage of their population accounted for by this 
group  was  above  the  EU  average  in  2017-2019,  as  well  as  in  outermost  regions.  All  other 

221 Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing 'Erasmus+': the Union 
programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC.  
222 Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on a European Union Programme 
for Employment and Social Innovation ("EaSI") and amending Decision No 283/2010/EU establishing a European Progress Microfinance 
Facility for employment and social inclusion. 

38 

 
 
                                                           
Member States must dedicate an appropriate amount to people not in education, employment 
or training. Support for social innovation with a focus on vulnerable groups will continue in 
2021-2027 through both the EaSI and the shared management strand of the ESF+. 

The programming of Union funds for 2021-2027 should continue to address some of the gaps 
identified  in  the  country-specific  recommendations  during  the  European  Semester  process. 
With  this  purpose  in  mind,  the  country  reports  of  the  2019  European  Semester223  have 
identified (in Annexes D) some priority areas to make the best use of those funds, also taking 
into  account  regional  disparities.  Several  priorities  closely  relate  to  the  services  covered  by 
the European Child Guarantee, such as: (i) access to early childhood education and care and 
inclusive  education;  (ii)  the  transition  from  institutional  to  family-  and  community-based 
services;  and  (iii)  access  to  quality  and  affordable  social  and  healthcare  services. 
Furthermore,  for  the  purposes  of  the  European  Child  Guarantee,  the  following  policy  lines 
from the 2014-2020 period will still hold in 2021-2027: 

  Comprehensive actions to foster the inclusion of marginalized children with particular 
attention to those with disabilities, with a migrant background, or from marginalised 
Roma communities. 

  The shift from institutional to community/family-based care, including prevention of 

institutionalisation 

  Providing access to quality and non-segregated, inclusive education for marginalised 
children,  including  children  of  Roma  ethnicity  and  children  with  disabilities,  and 
children with a migrant background 

 

Improving access to quality and non-segregated childcare, and to educational, social 
and healthcare services. 

The  actions  supporting  the  European  Child  Guarantee  may  also  be  included  in  the  ‘social 
window’ of InvestEU programme, which is meant to provide the EU with long-term funding, 
crowding  in  private  investments  in  support  of  a  sustainable  recovery  and  helping  build  a 
greener,  more  digital  and  more  resilient  European  economy224.  This  instrument  is  demand-
based and thus its resources would be allocated further to the submission of eligible requests.  

In the 2021-2027 programming period, the ERDF investments will address the needs of the 
children,  aiming  to  ensure:  (i)  equal  access  to  inclusive  and  quality  education;  (ii) 
socioeconomic integration of marginalised communities, including Roma, and children with a 
migrant background; (iii) equal access to healthcare, in particular primary care services; (iv) 
transition from institutional to family- and community-based care; (v) investment in housing 
for  low-income  households,  people  with  special  needs  and  above-mentioned  vulnerable 
groups. When investing in social infrastructures ERDF funding should not be used to build 
institutional care settings, and infrastructures for segregated/parallel services. In addition, the 
ERDF  will  continue  to  support  cooperation  projects  in  these  fields,  in  particular  under  the 
Interreg-specific objective of better cooperation governance. Projects can include promoting 
legal  and  administrative  cooperation,  as  well  as  cooperation  between  citizens,  civil  society 
actors  and  institutions,  in  particular,  with  a  view  to  resolving  legal  and  other  obstacles  in 
border regions and by building up mutual trust across borders. 

223 See https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2019-european-semester-country-reports_en.  
224 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2021 establishing the InvestEU Programme and amending 
Regulation (EU) 2015/1017. 

39 

 
 
                                                           
The Regulation  for the  Asylum and Migration Fund stresses the need to  support “measures 
targeting vulnerable persons and applicants for international protection with special reception 
or  procedural  needs,  including  measures  to  ensure  effective  protection  of  children  in 
migration, in particular those unaccompanied” as well as “integration measures implemented 
by local and regional authorities and civil society organisations”. These measures can benefit 
from  a  90%  EU  co-financing  rate.  The  Asylum  and  Migration  Fund  interventions  may  be 
used to:  

 

target  vulnerable  persons  and  applicants  for  international  protection  with  special 
reception or procedural needs; 

  develop  specific measures to  ensure effective protection of children in  migration, in 

particular unaccompanied minors; 

 

invest in integration programmes focusing on inclusive education and care; 

  provide  alternative  forms  of  care,  integrated  into  existing  child  protection  systems; 

and 

  contribute to guarantee effective protection of children in migration, such as providing 
appropriate housing for, and a timely appointment of guardians to, all unaccompanied 
minors. 

In  addition,  through the  ‘thematic facility’, 36.5% (EUR 3.6 billion) of the envelope of the 
Fund  will  be  distributed  throughout  the  implementation  period  to  address  particular  needs. 
This offers increased flexibility to address the additional gaps, provided they fall within the 
scope of the Asylum and Migration Fund. 

The  Erasmus+  Regulation  provides  for  an  increased  budget  of  EUR  30  billion.  It  has  the 
general  objective  of  supporting  the  educational,  professional  and  personal  development  of 
people  in  education,  training,  youth  activities  and  sport  through  lifelong  learning.  In  the 
future  programme  special  attention  will  be  paid  to  make  Erasmus+  more  inclusive  by 
ensuring  the  outreach  to  people  with  fewer  opportunities.  Key  action  3  “Support  to  policy 
development and cooperation” could lead to actions to improve cooperation between schools 
and educational institutions in order to strengthen inclusive education. 

Throughout  the  period  2021-2017,  the  Technical  Support  Instrument,  which  succeeds  the 
Structural  Reform  Support  Programme,  will  support  Member  States,  at  their  request,  in 
designing, preparing and implementing structural reforms in such areas as education, social 
services,  justice  and  health,  including  cross-sectoral  reforms  tackling  child  poverty  and 
exclusion.225  The  Commission  stands  ready  to  provide  demand-driven  technical  support  to 
facilitate reforms through capacity building, stakeholder consultations, review and analysis of 
legislation,  policy  frameworks  and  institutional  set-ups,  provision  of  concrete  proposals  for 
new models, or piloting and action planning.  

The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) can also support some of the actions covered by 
the  European  Child  Guarantee.  In  particular,  Pillar  6  of  the  Facility  is  dedicated  to  the 
“Policies  for  the  next  generation,  children  and  youth,  including  education  and  skills”.  The 
reforms and investments financed under RRF are expected to tackle challenges identified in 
the 2020 and 2019  country-specific recommendations, many of which directly  or indirectly 

225 Regulation (EU) 2021/240 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 February 2021 establishing a Technical Support 
Instrument. 

40 

 
 
                                                           
referred  to  the  situation  of  children.  In  addition,  the  Commission  Guidance  on  the  RRF226 
invites the Member States to provide an analysis of existing challenges and propose reforms 
and investments related to adapting education systems to the challenges of the 21st century. 
Through  these  priorities,  the  RRF  can  financially  support  Member  State  reforms  and 
investments  in  areas  that  include,  among  others,  inclusive  education,  access  to  digital  tools 
and infrastructure, child poverty and bridging the generational gap.  
The  research  and  innovation  framework  programme  Horizon  Europe227  (2021-2027)  will 
continue  funding  research  to  support  policies  for  children  and  youth  in  a  variety  of  fields, 
including  educational  opportunities  and  poverty,  migration  and  integration,  political 
participation, sustainability, the digital economy, health, etc. 

7. IMPLEMENTATION  AND  MONITORING  OF  THE 

EUROPEAN CHILD GUARANTEE  

Child  policies  are  cross-sectoral  and  dealt  with  at  different  administrative  levels  (national, 
regional  and  local).  Efficient  coordination  of  relevant  actions  is  therefore  indispensable. 
According  to  the  preparatory  action  for  child  guarantee228,  one  of  the  main  barriers  to  the 
creation of effective policies is a lack of general social and political awareness on the extent 
of  child  poverty  or  social  exclusion.  The  failure  to  develop  a  strategic  and  coordinated 
approach  leads  to  inadequate  and  under-resourced  provision  and  to  piecemeal  programmes 
and  projects.  To  ensure  that  the  European  Child  Guarantee  becomes  fully  operational, 
specific  requirements  for  implementation,  monitoring  and  reporting  are  necessary.  This 
chapter discusses these specific requirements in detail. 

7.1. Governance and reporting 

The evidence collected by the preparatory actions is clear: the Member States that are most 
successful in ensuring efficient access to services for children in vulnerable situations have a 
comprehensive  range  of  policies  in  place.  These  successful  Member  States  also  have  a 
strategic and well-coordinated approach. The coherence of social, education, health, nutrition 
and housing policies at  various  governance levels needs to be assessed  and improved, with 
special attention paid to their relevance for supporting children in need. Therefore, it seems 
pertinent  for  Member  States  to  have  national  Child  Guarantee  Coordinators,  with  a 
mandate  and  resources  to  effectively  coordinate  and  monitor  the  implementation  of  the 
European Child Guarantee. A key element of the coordination at national level would be the 
identification of children in need and of the barriers they face in accessing and taking-up the 
services covered by the European Child Guarantee.  

The  implementation  of  the  European  Child  Guarantee  also  requires  the  preparation  of 
national  action  plans  on  how  to  implement  the  policy  measures  listed  in  the  proposed 
Recommendation, covering the period until 2030. Such action plans are to comprehensively 
address  all  aspects  relevant  for  a  successful  implementation  and  in  particular  the  following 
elements:  (i)  the  targeted  categories  of  children  in  need  to  be  reached  by  corresponding 
measures;  (ii)  quantitative  and  qualitative  targets  to  be  achieved  in  terms  of  the  number  of 
children in need to be reached by corresponding measures; (iii) measures taken to implement 

226 See https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/guidance-member-states-recovery-and-resilience-plans_en.  

227 See https://ec.europa.eu/info/horizon-europe_en.  
228 Feasibility study for a child guarantee. Final report, p. 121. 

41 

 
 
                                                           
the Recommendation with the indication of the adequate funding sources and timelines; (iv) 
other  measures  to  address  child  social  exclusion  and  break  intergenerational  cycles  of 
disadvantage; (v) a national framework for data collection, monitoring and evaluation of the 
Recommendation.  

In line with high standards for inclusive policy  making, and to make sure that the views of 
stakeholders  who  will  ultimately  be  responsible  for  delivering  the  services  to  children  are 
duly  taken  into  account,  the  preparation,  implementation,  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the 
national action plans needs to be consulted with regional and local authorities, children and 
relevant  stakeholders  representing  civil  society,  non-governmental  organisations  (in 
particular  those  promoting  children’s  rights),  and  bodies  responsible  for  promoting  social 
inclusion.  

The  proposal  also  envisages  the  necessity  of  developing  effective  outreach  strategies  by 
Member  States  towards  children  in  need  and  their  families,  in  particular  at  local  level  and 
through  educational  establishments,  civil  society  and  social  economy  organisations,  trained 
mediators or family-support services, with a view of raising the awareness and encouraging 
the take-up of services. 

Finally, the proposal sets out a requirement for regular reports every two years by Member 
States to the Commission on the progress in implementing the European Child Guarantee. 

7.2. Implementation, monitoring and evaluation 

The  governance  processes  at  the  EU  level  help:  (i)  identify  gaps  and  challenges;  and  (ii) 
design relevant policy responses. The European Semester229 and the social open method of 
coordination  are  particularly  relevant  for  monitoring  the  implementation  of  the  European 
Child Guarantee.230  

The proposal invites the Commission, Member States, the Social Protection Committee and 
the  national  Child  Guarantee  Coordinators  to  work  together  in  order  to  facilitate  mutual 
learning, share experiences, exchange of good practices and follow up on the actions taken in 
response to the Recommendation. 

The  proposed  biennial  implementation  reports  submitted  to  the  Commission  by  the 
Member  States  will  serve  as  the  basis  for  Commission’s  monitoring  and  discussions  in  the 
Social Protection Committee.  

The proposal underlines the key role of the Commission and the Social Protection Committee 
in establishing a common monitoring framework and developing common quantitative and 
qualitative  indicators  to  assess  the  implementation  of  the  Recommendation.  Furthermore, 
with a view of informed policy making, the proposal envisages that the Commission and the 
Social Protection Committee work together to enhance the availability, scope, relevance, and 

229 The European Semester is the annual cycle of economic and budgetary policy coordination in the EU, in which guidance is provided to 
the Member States in view of their policy decisions at national level. This guidance includes recommendations on employment and social 
issues, reflecting the Social Scoreboard indicators, which is meant to monitor Member States’ performance with regard to the principles of 
the European Pillar of Social Rights.  
230 During the 2018-2019 European Semester cycle, the Council issued altogether 35 country-specific recommendations on family income 
support, efficiency of social protection, inclusive education, financial [dis]incentives to accept paid work for single and second earners, as 
well as on access to ECEC and healthcare – all of which are relevant for the situation of children. In the 2020 Semester cycle access to 
distance (or “digital”) learning was mentioned in recommendations to four Member States, while securing equal access to education 
appeared in recommendations to seven other Member States. In a wider Covid-19 context, strengthening of social safety nets, including 
unemployment benefits, was recommended to 15 Member States. In its Special Report 20/2020, the European Court of Auditors 
recommends to the Commission to strengthen the Semester as a tool for fighting child poverty and to identify situations that could lead to a 
potential country-specific recommendation directly related to child poverty. 

42 

 
 
                                                           
quality  of  data  on  children  in  need,  their  access  to  services,  and  adequacy  and  coverage  of 
benefits targeted at children. 

The  proposal  invites  the  Commission  to  take  stock  of  the  implementation  of  the  European 
Child  Guarantee  and  report  to  the  Council  by  five  years  after  the  adoption  of  the 
Recommendation. 

Finally,  the  proposal  invites  the  Commission  to  strengthen  awareness  raising  and 
communication  efforts  and  increase  the  dissemination  of  results  and  good  practice 
examples at EU level and among Member States and relevant stakeholders.    

8. EXPECTED 

IMPACTS  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  CHILD 

GUARANTEE   

While  respecting  the  Commission’s  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  an  impact  assessment  of 
the  economic,  social,  fundamental  rights  and  environment  impacts  of  the  proposal  was  not 
carried  out.  The  selected  instrument  for  the  initiative  –  a  proposal  for  a  Council 
recommendation - offers guidance on the implementation of the European Child Guarantee. 
This  instrument  also  allows  Member  States  to  be  flexible  in  designing  and  implementing 
measures,  according  to  their  national  practices.  As  a  result,  the  expected  impact  of  the 
recommendation will strongly depend on: (i) Member States’ commitment; and (ii) the level 
of ambition of the national action plans adopted thereafter to implement it.  

Against this background, this chapter draws from Phase II of the preparatory action (‘Study 
on  the  economic  implementing  framework  of  a  possible  EU  Child  Guarantee  Scheme 
including its financial foundation’). This chapter also attempts to assess the likely impacts of 
the  proposal  on  ensuring  access  for  children  in  need  to  the  five  key  services.  Finally,  this 
chapter includes a simplified analysis of the possible costs to ensure such access. However, 
the calculations are only very indicative due to the scarcity and incomparability of data.  

8.1. Expected impacts of the proposal 

There is an ample body of evidence that investments at relatively low financial costs during 
childhood  can  yield  lifetime  gains,  not  only  for  individuals  but  also  for  societies  and 
economies231.  Intergenerational  mobility  appears  to  be  highly  influenced  not  just  by  the 
amount of investment in children, but also by the rate of return on this investment, which is 
highest  in  the  very  early  years  of  childhood.  Available  studies232  emphasise  the  critical 
influence  of  investment  in  pre-school  years  (especially  before  the  age  of  3),  during  which 
most of the essential cognitive and social skills are formed. These appear to be the years with 
the highest rate of return on education achievement and overall human capital investment in 
children. This rate of return is especially high when combined with intervention in health and 
education.  Children  from  disadvantaged  backgrounds  benefit  even  more  from  this 
investment,  because  high-quality  early  childhood  education  and  care  helps  to  reduce  the 
inequality stemming from non-school factors such as family and neighbourhood.  

Risk prevention tends to be less costly than risk correction. Child social exclusion and the 
transmission of disadvantage across generations produce significant costs not only for those 
directly  concerned,  but  also  for  society  as  a  whole.  It  is  broadly  acknowledged  that  public 

231 See for instance the Social Investment Package, European Commission, 2013. 
232 Heckman, J.J., The Case for Investing in Disadvantaged Young Children (article in CESifo DICE Report 6(2):3-8), 2008. 

43 

 
 
                                                           
 
expenditure to mitigate the adverse effects of social exclusion at an early age would be lower 
than public expenditure to deal with the consequences of social exclusion in childhood across 
a persons’ life-span, such as unemployment or health problems. Early intervention can reduce 
the need for government spending on social protection in the future. By way of example, the 
estimated annual total cost to the economies of the EU of leaving people to live in inadequate 
housing  is  nearly  EUR  194  billion.  This  involves  both  direct  costs,  such  as  healthcare  or 
social services, and indirect costs, such as the loss of productivity233. The economic costs of 
health inequalities are also significant. The monetary value of welfare losses related to health 
inequality is estimated to be EUR 980 billion per year or 9.4% of the EU GDP234. 

Improving  access  to  quality  early  childhood  education  and  care  (ECEC)  is  essential  for 
low-income  children,  since  education  is  a  major  contributor  to  intergenerational  income 
mobility. Participation in ECEC can particularly increase the chances of children from low-
income  households  to  reach,  or  even  surpass,  the  EU  average  scores  on  PISA  tests  in 
mathematics and reading. The effects are especially strong when children enter the facilities 
at an early age. There is broad consensus235 that good quality ECEC is an efficient means of 
preventing  early  leaving  from  education  and  training  and  improving  future:  (i)  academic 
performance;  (ii)  health;  (iii)  employment  outcomes;  and  (iv)  social  mobility.  Evidence 
shows  that  disadvantaged  children  are  as  much  as  three  times  more  likely  to  finish  a 
secondary  school  if  they  participate  in  early  childhood  education  and  care.236  There  is  also 
abundant  and  robust  evidence237  indicating  that  these  services  can  have  a  direct  beneficial 
impact on: (i) children’s development (both cognitive and other developmental domains); and 
(ii) parents (improving their job prospects and income). Mid-term and long-term impacts of 
ECEC include long lasting effect on educational pathways. However, this impact can only be 
fully realised when ECEC is of high quality, meaning that it: (i) is accessible; (ii) is staffed by 
skilled  and  well-qualified  workers;  (iii)  operates  a  comprehensive  curriculum;  (iv)  is  well 
monitored: and (v) is appropriately governed and adequately funded.  

Better  education  has  been  shown  to  be  associated  with:  (i)  lower  disease  burden;  (ii) 
improved  individual-level  productivity  and  skill-sets;  (iii)  access  to  higher  wages;  and  (iv) 
general benefits for the individual and to the wider society and economy. The average rate of 
return to an additional year of education is estimated to be around 10%238.  High-quality and 
inclusive education and training help to build societal and personal resilience. They also bring 
other non-economic benefits. The impact of high-quality and inclusive education and training 
on  children  from  disadvantaged  backgrounds  is  even  stronger  as  it  helps  to  reduce  socio-
economic differences with children from more affluent families.  

Health is a value in itself. It is also a precondition for economic prosperity. People’s health 
influences economic outcomes in terms of their productivity, their likelihood to be in work, 
and  their  level  of  education.  Healthy  citizens  also  require  less  public  spending  on  medical 
care. Investing in health, from an early age: (i) allows people to remain active and in better 
health for longer; (ii) raises the productivity of the workforce; and (iii) reduces the financial 

233 Inadequate housing in Europe: Costs and consequences, Eurofound 2016. 
234 Mackenbach, J. P.,  Meerding, W. J., Kunst, A. E., ‘Economic costs of health inequalities in the European Union’, Journal of 
Epidemiology and Community Health, December 2010.  
235 See for instance: ECEC for children from disadvantaged backgrounds: findings from a European literature review and two case studies, 
European Commission.  
236 See OECD research note ‘Investing in high-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC)’, available at 
https://www.oecd.org/education/school/48980282.pdf.  
237 Idem.  
238 Right in principle and in practice: a review of the social and economic returns to investing in children, UNICEF, June 2012. 

44 

 
 
                                                           
pressure  on  health  systems.  Good  health  can  improve  educational  outcomes,  as  measured 
through both school attendance and performance while in school. At all stages of life public 
disease  prevention  and  health  promotion  programmes  are  particularly  important.  Early 
intervention  and  prevention  programmes  for  children  from  disadvantaged  backgrounds  can 
help break the cycle of intergenerational transmission of health problems239.  

Food and nutrition programmes can help to educate about healthy and active lifestyles and 
thereby reduce malnutrition and poor nutrition. This is especially important for children who 
suffer  from  food  insecurity.  Healthy  and  sustainable  school  meals  of  good  quality  have  a 
direct  nutritional  benefit  to  children  and  also  offer  financial  relief  to  families  and  support 
local businesses. In addition, they can be beneficial for engaging children in learning about 
food and its health and  environmental impact240. Addressing harmful behaviours (including 
poor  diet,  lack  of  physical  activity,  obesity  and  use  of  alcohol  and  tobacco)  and 
simultaneously  ensuring  healthy  and  active  environments  for  children  (with  reduced  online 
marketing  of  unhealthy  food  options),  is  important  to  reduce  health  inequalities  that  block 
social mobility241. As a result, physical and psychological well-being of children is likely to 
increase  in  the  long-term.  There  is  also  some  evidence  that  providing  school  meals  may 
encourage  school  attendance  and  therefore  reduce  the  likelihood  of  dropping  out242.  A 
universal provision at school level reduces stigma and increases take-up. 

Having access to decent housing is crucial for allowing people to achieve their full economic 
potential  and  contribute  productively  to  society.  It  is  also  an  important  precondition  for 
ensuring  children’s:  (i)  health  and  wellbeing;  (ii)  emotional,  social,  cognitive  and  physical 
development; and (iii) present and future prospects. The loss of one’s home – or the prospect 
of losing one’s home – has strongly negative impacts on children and on the family’s overall 
life situation. Targeted, integrated policies that mitigate the overall impact  of homelessness 
are good examples of investments with high rates of return243. There are long-term social and 
economic  benefits  to  providing  permanent  housing  and  support  measures  for  homeless 
families  and  preventing  the  circumstances  which  might  lead  to  homelessness244.    These 
benefits  include:  (i)  lower  public  expenditure  on  shelters  and  crisis  support  services;  (ii) 
lower public expenditure on healthcare; (iii) increased employment; (iv) higher tax revenues; 
(v) lower judicial system costs; and (vi) greater social cohesion.  

Figure  4  illustrates  the  proposal’s  likely  impacts  on  children’s  well-being  and  attempts  to 
depict  the  complex  interconnections  between  the  proposal’s  various  aspects.  The  increased 
housing security, more comprehensive preventive healthcare and greater food security (direct 
consequences  of  the  European  Child  Guarantee  shown  in  the  middle  column)  all  help  to 
reduce the economic strain on parents. Those and the remaining direct consequences increase 
children’s  well-being,  what  improves  their  future  attainment  as  adults  and  contributes  to 
greater social cohesion in the long run. This in turn, like any other investment in children, is 
set to reduce future public expenditures. Quantifying the exact size of the benefits that will 
materialise  in  the  years  to  come  requires  longitudinal  studies  and  complex  estimation 
techniques, which exceed the remit of the Phase II preparatory action. 

239 OECD, ‘A broken social elevator? How to promote social mobility’, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2018. 
240 OECD/European Union, ‘Health at a Glance: Europe 2020: State of Health in the EU’ Cycle, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2020. 
241 OECD, ‘The Heavy Burden of Obesity: The Economics of Prevention’, OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2019. 
242 Study on the economic implementing framework of a possible EU Child Guarantee Scheme including its financial foundation. Final 
Report. 
243 Commission Staff Working Document, ‘Confronting Homelessness in the European Union’, SWD(2013) 42 final. 
244 Idem. 

45 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 4: Expected impact of the European Child Guarantee  

Source: Study on the economic implementing framework of a possible EU Child Guarantee Scheme including 
its financial foundation Draft Final Report 

8.2. Simplified cost analysis 

The Phase II of the preparatory action looked at the possible costs that competent authorities 
might face to guarantee that all children at risk of poverty in the EU have access to the five 
services  in  question.  The  results  were  published  in  a  study  “The  economic  implementing 
framework  of  a  possible  European  Child  Guarantee  scheme  including  its  financial 
foundation”245.  The  focus  of  the  study  was  exclusively  on  children  at  risk  of  poverty. 
Estimating the costs was extremely difficult given: (i) the limited data available on the costs 
of services; and (ii) the often poor international comparability of these data.  

The  computation  of  the  costs  was  done  separately  for  two  selected  types  of  action  for 
children at risk of poverty, as set out in the two bullet points below.   

  Providing  free  school  meals,  providing  free  early  childhood  education  and  care  and 
removing  indirect  school  costs.  The  study  calculated  the  costs  of  implementing  the 
actions/services in all the Member States where this is currently not  implemented or 
not fully implemented. 

  Health  examinations;  providing  services  aiming 

to  prevent  and  fight  child 
homelessness; and integrated delivery of services. To assess this cost, the study drew 
on  the  cost  information  available  in  the  in-depth  assessment  of  the  actions  and  the 
related national and sub-national policies/ programmes. The study estimated the cost 
of implementing the action in the countries where available data make this estimation 
possible. 

During  Phase  II  of the preparatory action, the concrete policies and  actions  in  EU Member 
States were all identified and listed. This made it possible to identify interesting practices at 
national, regional, and local levels (including EU-funded practices) that should be taken into 
account  when  replicating  these  actions  in  other  contexts.  The  estimation  of  the  resources 
needed is based on the estimated cost of the priority actions in countries where these actions 

245 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=23764&langId=en. 

46 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
are in place, compared to the cost in the Member States where they are not  – or not fully – 
implemented. The review of expected short-term and long-term benefits is based on both: (i) 
the  experience  of  countries  which  implement  the  actions;  and  (ii)  evaluations  in  other 
countries,  including  non-EU  countries.  This  review  provides  insights  into  the  cost-saving 
aspects  of  the  investment  needed.  Finally,  the  study  presents  evidence  that  COVID-19  has 
had a particularly severe effect on children at risk of poverty and their families. 

Due to the serious limitations of the data, the computations must be interpreted as an attempt 
to provide rough estimates of the financial resources that would be needed to guarantee the 
access of children at risk of poverty to the above actions/services.  

The results of the study showed that it would be relatively cheap to: (i) provide free school 
meals to children at risk of poverty; (ii) provide free, high-quality early childhood education 
and care to  children at risk of poverty;  and (iii) remove all school  costs. The costs of these 
three  actions  are  low  in  relation  to  their  large  potential  benefits.  The  additional  cost  of 
removing  all  school  costs  and  providing  free  school  meals  every  weekday  (including 
holidays)  for  all  children  at  risk  of  poverty  aged  between  6  and  17  is  less  than  3%  of  the 
current budget for primary and secondary education in most countries. 

47 

 
 
 
ANNEX A: Additional data on children in need 

This  annex  presents  some  general  quantitative  and  qualitative  information,  available  from 
Eurostat or collected during the preparatory action.  

Children at risk of poverty or social exclusion 

Figure A1: Risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE) in 2019 – thousands of children 
living in households…  

Malta
Luxembourg
Cyprus
Slovenia
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Croatia
Denmark
Finland
Slovakia
Czechia
Ireland
Austria
Hungary
Portugal
Bulgaria
Sweden
Netherlands
Belgium
Greece
Poland
Romania
Germany
Spain
Italy
France

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

...at risk of poverty (only)

...with very low work intensity and at risk of poverty

...at risk of poverty and experiencing severe material deprivation

…at risk of poverty, and experiencing severe material deprivation, as well as very low work intensity 

…experiencing severe material deprivation and very low work intensity 

…experiencing severe material deprivation (only) 

…experiencing very low work intensity (only) 

Source: EU SILC [ilc_pees01], extracted 2.12.2020. 

 
 
 
 
 
Table A2: Child material and social deprivation – results of the test survey in 2014: 
proportion of children lacking given item (or in arrears) in the country, out of the total child 
population 

Source: Guio A.-C., Gordon D., Marlier E., Najera H., Pomati M., 2018, Towards an EU measure of child 
deprivation, Child Indicator Research 11(3): 835–860. 

Homeless children 

The  availability  and  nature  of  data  on  the  extent  of  child  homelessness  varies.    In  some 
Member States, there are national data, while in others only city-level statistics are available. 
Depending  on  the  category  of  the  European  Typology  of  Homelessness  and  housing 
exclusion (ETHOS), the number of Member States (in some cases cities) reporting relatively 
recent  (i.e.  2016  or  later)  figures  on  homelessness  among  children  varies  between  11  and 
none.  It  is  therefore  not  possible  to  provide  an  overall  figure  on  the  number  of  homeless 
children in the EU – a more systematic collection of information is necessary. Phase II of the 
Preparatory  Action  looked  at  available  data  on  the  numbers  of  different  categories  of 
homeless  children  across  the  EU  Member  States  and  cities,  with  the  results  listed  below, 
totalling  91 155  individuals.  The  real  number  of  homeless  children  across  the  EU  is  likely 
much higher, given that the data cover only 12 Member States and four capital cities. 

49 

 
 
 
 
Table A3: Numbers of children suffering from different forms of homelessness across the EU 

Form of homelessness 

Children living rough 

Children living in emergency accommodation 

Children living in accommodation for the 
homeless 

Children living in penal institutions 

Children living in healthcare institutions 

Children living in non-conventional dwellings 

Member State / City 
Greece 
Paris 
Portugal 
Brussels 
Poland 
Romania 
Vienna 
Brussels 
Luxembourg 
Latvia 
Poland 
France 
Hungary 
Czechia 
Greece 
Ireland 
Brussels 
Poland 
Luxembourg 
Croatia 
Bratislava 
Portugal 
Czechia 
Austria 
Latvia 
Latvia 
Poland 
Brussels 
Poland 

Year 
2020 
2018 
2018 
2018 
2019 
2019 
2019 
2018 
2019 
2019 
2019 
2016 
2018 
2018/2019 
2020 
2020 
2018 
2019 
2018 
2018 
2016 
2018 
2018 
2018 
2019 
2019 
2019 
2018 
2019 

Number 
957 
700 
63 
20 
3 
466 
457 
227 
41 
38 
18 
60 000 
7 892 
4 342 
3 727 
2 787 
720 
531 
439 
364 
284 
171 
5 900 
125 
36 
712 
2 
87 
46 

Source:  Study on the economic implementing framework of a possible EU Child Guarantee Scheme including 
its financial foundation, Chapter J3.2 

Children with disabilities 

According to the Feasibility Study for a Child Guarantee Final Report, the main challenges 
related  to  data  collection  on  children  with  disabilities  stem  from  the  fact  that  their  correct 
identification requires a comprehensive description of their life situation. This comprehensive 
description  should  include:  (i)  their  physiological  or  intellectual  condition  (potential 
impairment);  (ii)  the  restrictions  they  face  in  activities  and  participation;  and  (iii)  the 
environmental  factors  that  support  or  are  a  barrier  to  their  participation.  To  be  effective  in 
identifying  disability  (and  providing  adequate  services)  it  is  important  to  start  as  early  as 
possible in the child’s life identifying the impairments, maintain focus throughout all stages 
of  life,  and  consider  disability  determination  as  a  whole-person  assessment  that  includes 
barriers  in  the  environment.  In  all  cases,  gathering  information  on  all  three  sets  of 
determinants requires that various persons (starting with the most immediate family) provide 

50 

 
 
 
information related to all aspects of a person’s life. These complex data are not collected at 
EU level.246 

Figure A4: Proportion of children with moderate disabilities or severe disabilities, Children 
0-15 years old, EU Member States, 2017, % 

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

severely limited
limited (but not severely)

Source: EU-SILC 2017, ad-hoc module, Users’ Data-Base (UDB) version March 2019, Feasibility Study for a 
Child Guarantee Final Report calculations. 

Children with migrant background 

According to the Feasibility Study for a Child Guarantee the main challenges related to data 
collection  on  migrant  children  include:  (i)  incomplete,  unreliable  or  duplicated  data;  (ii) 
differing  definitions  for  age  categories;  and  (iii)  differing  criteria  for  recording  data.247 
Unaccompanied children may go undetected, avoid being registered, or claim to be older than 
18, so that they can continue their journeys and not be taken into custody. Other children may 
not know how old they are, and some young adults claim to be under 18 years old to benefit 
from  the  additional  legal  guarantees  available  for  children.  There  may  also  be  cases  of 
children who apply for asylum in more than one country, and there are many children who do 
not  apply  for  asylum  at  all.  For  example,  Germany  reported  that  more  than  42 000 
unaccompanied and separated children entered the country in 2015, but only 14 439 claimed 
asylum248. Some Member States record all those who claim to be unaccompanied minors in 
the  statistics,  whereas  others  only  count  those  recognised  as  such  following  an  age 
assessment by an authority249. 

For children with a migrant background who are established in their host Member States, the 
Eurostat data include the total  number of migrants who do not have the citizenship of their 
host  country  and  the  total  number  of  those  who  are  foreign  born.  Some  figures  can 
underestimate  the  total  number  of  EU  inhabitants  with  migrant  background  because  they 
exclude children born in the host country from parents born in a non-EU country. Estimates 
of  the  numbers  of  children  who  have  recently  moved  with  their  parents  from  another  EU 
Member State – and whose situation is often very similar to that of non-EU migrants – may 
also be lacking.  

246 Feasibility Study for a Child Guarantee Final Report, p. 27. 
247 See Schumacher, G., Loeschner, J. and Sermi, F., ‘Data on Children in Migration’, Publications Office of the European Union, 
Luxembourg 2019.  
248 European Commission,2016, Statistical Annex to the Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum 2015. 
249 Humphries, R. and Sigona, S., ‘Children and unsafe migration in Europe: Data and policy, understanding the evidence base’, Global 
Migration Data Analysis Centre Briefing Series, Issue 5, 2016. 

51 

 
 
 
                                                           
Table A5: Number of dependent children with at least one parent born outside the EU, 2017 

Germany 

3.352.196  Greece 

238.862  Luxembourg 

27.779 

France 

3.241.053  Denmark 

161.106  Lithuania 

Italy 

Spain 

1.818.926 

Ireland 

138.407  Finland 

1.465.731  Croatia 

126.499  Hungary 

Netherlands 

773.250  Slovenia 

50.507  Estonia 

Sweden 

596.660  Czechia 

47.210  Slovakia 

Belgium 

574.766  Poland 

44.144  Malta 

Austria 

416.963  Cyprus 

38.556  Bulgaria 

Portugal 

254.058  Latvia 

30.292  Romania 

24.239 

23.029 

21.414 

19.781 

8.298 

8.182 

7.849 

5.733 

Note: The focus is on ‘dependent children’, i.e. children below the age of 15, plus children aged 16-24 who are 
inactive and live with at least one of their parents. 
Source: Feasibility Study for a Child Guarantee Final Report based on LFS (2017). 

Figure A6: Incidence of early leaving from education and training by pupils’ place of birth, 
2019 

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Reporting country

Non-EU27 countries

Other EU27 countries

Overall population

Note: no data on Other-EU27 for Denmark, Portugal and Slovenia, 2018 figures for Finland/Non-EU27 and 
Sweden/Other-EU27. Source: Eurostat [edat_lfse_02]. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
Table A7: Levels of equality in entitlements to health care for three groups of migrant 
children compared to national children 

Children seeking 
asylum 

Children of irregular 
non-EU migrants 

Children of irregular 
migrants from other 
EU countries 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czechia 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 

Hungary 
Iceland 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Norway 
Poland 

Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 

no data 
no data 
no data 

no data 

no data 

no data 

Key to shading: 
Entitlements equal to 
nationals regarding 
coverage and cost and 
included in same health 
care system 

Entitlements equal to 
nationals regarding 
coverage and cost but 
enrolled in parallel health 
care system 

Entitlements restricted 
compared to nationals or 
No legal entitlements 

Unclear legal provision 

Source: Hjern and Østergaard + Correction by BG SPC delegate, 21.09.2020. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Children with a minority racial or ethnic background (in particular Roma) 

Roma  are  invisible  in  most  national  and  international  surveys  that  cover  the  general 
population,  either:  (i)  because  data  on  ethnic  origin  are  not  collected;  (ii)  because  not  all 
Roma are willing to reveal their ethnic identity; or (iii) because of sampling difficulties.  

Table A8: Estimated numbers of Roma across the EU 

Member State 

Official number  

Estimate 

Minimum  Maximum 

Average 
(Figure used 
by CoE) 

Average as a 
share of total 
population 

Bulgaria 
Slovakia 
Romania 
Hungary 
Czechia 
Spain 
Greece 
Ireland 
Croatia 
France 
Latvia 
Sweden 
Portugal 
Austria 
Slovenia 
Belgium 
Italy 
the Netherlands 
Finland 
Germany 
Cyprus 
Poland 
Lithuania 
Estonia 
Luxembourg 
Denmark 
Malta 

325 343 
89 920 
619 007 
190 046 
11 718 
n.a. 
n.a. 
22 435 
9 463 
n.a. 
8 517 
n.a. 
n.a. 
6 273 
3 246 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
502 
12 731 
2 571 
584 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

700 000 
380 000 
1 200 000 
500 000 
150 000 
500 000 
50 000 
32 000 
30 000 
300 000 
9 000 
35 000 
34 000 
20 000 
7 000 
20 000 
120 000 
32 000 
10 000 
70 000 
1 000 
15 000 
2 000 
600 
100 
1 000 
0 

800 000 
600 000 
2 500 000 
1 000 000 
250 000 
1 000 000 
300 000 
43 000 
40 000 
500 000 
16 000 
65 000 
70 000 
50 000 
10 000 
40 000 
180 000 
48 000 
12 000 
140 000 
1 500 
50 000 
4 000 
1 500 
500 
4 000 
0 

750 000 
490 000 
1 850 000 
750 000 
200 000 
750 000 
175 000 
37 500 
35 000 
400 000 
12 500 
50 000 
52 000 
35 000 
8 500 
30 000 
150 000 
40 000 
11 000 
105 000 
1 250 
32 500 
3 000 
1 050 
300 
2 500 
0 

European Union (27) 

1 292 893 

4 338 700 

7 985 500 

6 162 100 

9.94% 
9.02% 
8.63% 
7.49% 
1.90% 
1.63% 
1.55% 
0.84% 
0.79% 
0.62% 
0.56% 
0.53% 
0.49% 
0.42% 
0.41% 
0.28% 
0.25% 
0.24% 
0.21% 
0.13% 
0.11% 
0.09% 
0.09% 
0.08% 
0.06% 
0.05% 
0.00% 

1.18% 

See also:  Ivanov, A. and Kagin, J. (2014). Roma Poverty from a Human Development Perspective. Bratislava: 
UNDP Regional Support Centre for Europe and CIS, and Till-Tentschert, U., Ivanov, A., Elena, M., Kling, G.J., 
and  Latcheva,  R.  (2016).  Measuring  Roma  Inclusion  Strategies  –  a  Fundamental  Rights  Based  Approach  to 
Indicators. Vienna/Geneva. 

Source: Council of Europe. 

54 

 
 
 
Figure A9: Income poverty rate of Roma children; selected EU Member States, 2014, % 

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

BG

CZ

EL

ES

HR

HU

RO

SK

Roma

General population

Source: Feasibility Study for a Child Guarantee Final Report, p. 49, quoting FRA Second European Union 
Minorities and Discrimination Survey, 2016 and EU-SILC 2014, Eurostat, Table [TESSI012]. 

Children in alternative care 

According to the Feasibility Study for a Child Guarantee Final Report, the data on children in 
alternative  care is  very limited:  some children in  alternative  care are double-counted or not 
counted  at  all.  Some  statistics  report  the  ‘flow’  figures  (number  of  children  entering  and 
leaving the alternative care systems) but not the total number of children in the care system at 
a  given  time  (the  ‘stock’  figure).  Different  age  categories  are  used,  which  makes  cross-
country  comparisons  difficult  (e.g.  some  statistics  include  the  over-18s  still  supported  by 
child-protection  services  during  their  transition  to  adulthood).  Most  Member  States  do  not 
disaggregate  data  according 
to  gender,  age,  disability,  or  migrant  background. 
Unaccompanied  minors  or  children  with  disabilities  placed  in  residential  care  might  not  be 
included  in  statistics  related  to  children  in  alternative  care,  but  they  might  be  included  in 
other statistics collected by different public authorities. In some Member States, children with 
disabilities are cared for in boarding schools, creating a sort of ‘hidden’ institutionalisation of 
children, as they do not appear in the statistics on children in residential care.250 

250 Feasibility study for a child guarantee. Final report, p. 23. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table A10: Number of children in residential institutional care across the EU 

Member State  Number  Remarks 
Belgium 
– Flanders 
– Wallonia 
and Brussels 

10 439 

6 092 

Includes  boarding  schools  and  community  institutions,  which  cater  not  only  to 
children on need of a care placement, but also to those in conflict with the law 

Bulgaria 

3571 

Czechia 

9 052 

Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 

France 

3 940 
95 582 
1 068 
369 
3 000 
21 283 

57 368 

According to the Agency for Social Assistance, the total number of children placed in 
specialized  institutions  at  the  end  of  2019  was  476  (84  children  in  8  Homes  for 
children deprived from parental care, and 392 children in 13 Homes for medico-social 
care  for  children).  The  number  of  children  in  residential  care  (Family-type  centers, 
Transitional housing and Crisis Centers) at the end of 2019 was 3 095 (excluding the 
number of children in institutions). 
This  number  includes  children  and  young  people  in  the  juvenile  justice  system.  To 
obtain the  total number of children in residential care, it is necessary to combine the 
data  from  three  different  ministries.  The  difficulty  in  getting  a  clear  number  of 
children  in  residential  care  is  increased  by  the  fact  that  this  number  includes  inflow 
information provided by the Ministry of Health (1,490 children admitted in institutions 
for children aged 0-3), whereas the other ministries provide stock numbers at the end 
of the year. 

Plus  12 575  children  in  “other  types  of  placement”,  which  covers  family-based 
alternative  care  options  (e.g.  kinship  care,  placement  with  the  prospective  adoptive 
family) and residential care options (e.g. SOS Children’s Villages, boarding schools). 

23 700 

6 183 
155 

1 045 
21 000 
100 
1 170 
3 871 

803  83 of these children were placed in institutions outside Luxembourg 

Croatia 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
The 
Netherlands  
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
Source: Frazer, H., Guio, A.-C. and Marlier, E. (eds.) (2020). “Feasibility Study for a European Child 
Guarantee: Final Report”, Feasibility Study for a Child Guarantee Final Report, Brussels: European 
Commission, pp 24-26; Updated by BG and ES delegates to SPC.  

8 411 
16 856 
6 119 
18 200 
n/a 
5 266 
9 104 
11 000 

Number of beds. Children with multiple forms of youth care appear several times in 
the statistics 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Children in precarious family situations 

Figure A11: Households comprising a single adult with children and other households with 
children among all households in a Member State, 2018, % 

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Single adult with dependent children

Other households with dependent children

Note: sorted by the share of single adult households among all households with children. 
Source: EU-SILC [ilc_lvph02], retrieved on 15.09.2020. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX B: Additional information on services covered by the 
European Child Guarantee 
In  the  EU  as  a  whole,  more  than  EUR  300  billion,  or  2.2%  of  GDP,  is  spent  on  social 
protection  benefits  with  “family  and  children”  function.  Germany  and  France  account  for 
over half of this expenditure, spending respectively 3.3% and 2.4% of their GDP. Most other 
Member States spend considerably less, with the median figure being 1.7% of GDP.  

Figure B1: Social protection expenditure as percentage of GDP, per function, 2018 

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Sickness/Health care

Disability

Old age

Survivors

Family/Children

Unemployment

Housing

Social exclusion n.e.c.

Note: Member States sorted by the percentage of GDP spent on Family/Children. 
Source: Eurostat [SPR_EXP_GDP], extracted 13.11.2020. 

Figure B2: Expenditure on social protection benefits with function Families/Children, % of 
GDP, 2009-2018  

4,5

4,0

3,5

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

EU - 27
Germany
France
Lithuania
Austria
Slovakia

Belgium
Estonia
Croatia
Luxembourg
Poland
Finland

Bulgaria
Ireland
Italy
Hungary
Portugal
Sweden

Czechia
Greece
Cyprus
Malta
Romania

Denmark
Spain
Latvia
Netherlands
Slovenia

 Source: Eurostat [SPR_EXP_GDP], extracted 14.02.2021. 

58 

 
 
 
Early childhood education and care (ECEC)  

On average in the EU-27, the employment rate of women (aged 25-49) who have at least one 
child aged under 6 is 14.3 pps lower than for women who do not have a  young child. The 
impact  of  parenthood  on  women  employment  is  particularly  strong  in  Czechia  (45.3  pps 
lower than women without a young child), Hungary (44.0 pps lower) and Slovakia (43.3 pps 
lower).251 Those are also the Member States where enrolment in ECEC is low, especially for 
younger children, as shown by Figure.B2. 

Figure B3: ECEC enrolment and employment impact of parenthood

d
o
o
h
t
n
e
r
a
p
f
o
t
c
a
p
m

i

t
n
e
m
y
o
p
m
E

l

)
n
e
m
o
w

(

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Enrolment in early childhood education and care, children under 3 y.o. 

Source: Eurostat, Commission’s proposal for the 2021 Joint Employment Report. 

Table B4: Compulsory early childhood education and care across the EU, 2020 

Starting age of compulsory education 
at ISCED level 0 (ECEC) 

Member States 

3 years 

4 years 

5 years 

6 years 

FR, HU 

EL, LU 

AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, LV, NL 

FI, LT, PL, SE 

No compulsory ECEC 

DK, DE, EE, ES, HR, IE, IT, MT, PT, RO, SI, SK  

Source: Eurydice Facts and Figures: Compulsory education in Europe 2020/21.  

251 Commission’s proposal for the 2021 Joint Employment Report. 

59 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
Figure B5: Percentage of children in formal early childhood education and care, 2018* or 
2019 

Children under 3 years of age 

Children aged 3 to minimum compulsory school age 

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

30 hours or more per week

Less than 30 hours per week

Barcelona objective

Source: Eurostat [ilc_caindformal], 21.10.2020. 

In 2009, the Strategic Framework for European Cooperation in Education and Training set 
the ambition to have by 2020 at least 95% of children aged between four years old and the 
age for starting compulsory primary education enrolled in ECEC. In 2018, the EU-27 almost 
reached  this  target,  with  an  average  of  94.8%,  representing  a  4.5  pps  increase  since  2009 
(Figure A14). Those high participation rates reflect the fact that at least one year of ECEC is 
now  compulsory  in  most  Member  States  (Table  A1).  In  addition,  Denmark  and  Ireland 
provide universal – but not compulsory – access to ECEC in this age group.  

60 

 
 
Figure B6: ECEC participation of children aged between 4 and the age for starting 
compulsory primary education, 2018 and changes since 2009, % 

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10

Decrease since 2009

Increase since 2009

95% target

Source: Eurostat [educ_uoe_enra10], quoted in Education and Training Monitor 2020. 

Figure B7: ECEC participation rates of children at risk of poverty (AROP), compared to all 
children. Age group 0-2 years, 2019, %  

Source: Study on the economic implementing framework of a possible EU Child Guarantee Scheme including 
its financial foundation. Final Report, using EU-SILC 2019, no data for IT and IE. 

61 

 
 
 
 
Figure B8: ECEC participation rates of children at risk of poverty (AROP), compared to all 
children. Age group 3 years to mandatory school age, 2019, %  

Source: Study on the Economic Implementing Framework of a possible EU Child Guarantee scheme including 
its financial foundation, using EU-SILC 2019, no data for IT and IE. 

Table B9: Accessibility and affordability of early childhood education and care for children 
living in low-income households 

Entitlement as of age… 

Free as of age… 

Childcare  under 3 y.o. – priority 
for low-income households 
No 
Yes 
No 
No 
No 
No 
No 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
Yes 
No 
No 
Yes 
No 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
No 
Yes 
No 
No 
No 
No 
No 

BE 
BG 
CZ 
DK 
DE 
EE 
IE 
EL 
ES 
FR 
HR 
IT 
CY 
LV 
LT 
LU 
HU 
MT 
NL 
AT 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SI 
SK 
FI 
SE 
Source: Study on the Economic Implementing Framework of a possible EU Child Guarantee scheme including 
its financial foundation. Draft final report based on Eurydice and OECD. 

2y6m 
3y 
3y 
6m 
1y 
1y6m 
2y8m 
4y 
3y 
3y (2y in deprived areas) 
No formal entitlement 
5y 
4y8m 
1y6m 
6y 
3y 
3y 
2y9m 
5y 
5y 
3y 
4y 
3y 
11m 
No formal entitlement 
9m 
1y 

2y6m (23hrs/week) 
5y 
5y 
Reduced fee 
Reduced fee 
1y6m 
2y8m (15 hrs/week) 
4y 
3y 
3y (2y in deprived areas) 
Reduced fee 
3y 
4y8m 
1y6m 
Reduced fee 
1y 
3y 
2y9m 
4y 
5y (20hrs/week) 
3y 
3y 
3y 
Reduced fee 
5y 
6y 
3y 

62 

 
 
  
Education 

Table B10: Annual costs of education (upper estimates for an “average child”) and social 
benefits to cover them, EUR 

Member State 

Primary 

General 
secondary 

Vocational 
secondary 

Austria 
Belgium 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czechia 
Denmark 
Estonia 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 

657 
629* 
200 
410 
659 
150 
n.a. 
291 
n.a. 
210 
78 
380 
250 
250 
280 
193 
300 
n.a. 
165 
205 
250 
n.a. 
1200** 
617 

999 
1145* 
580 
670 
698 
225 
n.a. 
906 
n.a. 
350 
78 
735 
1150 
250 
280 
273 
350 
n.a. 
186 
255 
392 
n.a. 
n.a. 
631 

n.a. 
1062* 
700 
580 
690 
n.a. 
n.a. 
1036 
n.a. 
350 
78 
735 
900 
250 
n.a. 
n.a. 
140 
n.a. 
233 
110 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
237 

Maximum annual amount of social 
benefits available to low-income children 
Primary /Secondary 
171 / 78 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
1485 
150 / 225 
382 
370 /404 
150 
0 
114 
150 /275 
n.a. 
45 
78 
1081 
in kind 
434 
664 
16 
27 
33 /45 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Notes:  (*)  includes  all  items  except  exams/fees,  plus  transportation,  “free”  financial  contribution,  and  use  of 
cafeteria (not meals); (**) includes school meals. Source: Study on the economic implementing framework of a 
possible EU Child Guarantee Scheme including its financial foundation. Draft Final Report. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure B11: Expenditure on education (EUR per each thousand euros of household 
consumption, 2015) 

69 

74 

67 

Single person with
dependent children
Two adults with
dependent children

31 

25 

29 

18 

16 

12  10  9 

8 

19 

16 

20 

20 

17 

8 

11 

38 

32 

26 

21 

18 

12 

6 

2  1 
17  7  11  12  7  18  21  21  64  28  11  16  12  65  18  13  11  13  49  19  21  17  41  8  18  9  1  6 

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Source:  Eurostat [hbs_str_t224]. 

Figure B12: Participation rate (%) in non-formal education and training during last 4 weeks,  
youth aged 15-19 y.o., 2019 

Boys

Girls

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Source: Eurostat [yth_educ_060], (*) indicates low reliability of data. 

64 

 
 
 
 
Healthcare  

Table B13: Households with children with unmet medical or dental needs, 2017, % 

All households with children 

Households composed of one adult with 
dependent child(ren) 

AROP* 

Not AROP* 

Total 

AROP* 

Not AROP* 

Total 

l
a
c
i
d
e
m

l
a
t
n
e
d

l
a
c
i
d
e
m

l
a
t
n
e
d

l
a
c
i
d
e
m

l
a
t
n
e
d

l
a
c
i
d
e
m

l
a
t
n
e
d

l
a
c
i
d
e
m

l
a
t
n
e
d

l
a
c
i
d
e
m

l
a
t
n
e
d

EU-27 

3,0 

7,8 

1,3 

1,3 

1,6 

2,6 

1,6 

6,6 

1,5 

1,9 

1,5 

3,6 

Austria 

0,0 

26,6 

0,0 

4,4 

0,0 

7,8 

0,0 

24,0 

0,5 

6,8 

0,3 

14,2 

Belgium 

7,8 

7,5 

1,4 

0,8 

2,5 

2,4 

3,9 

n.a. 

3,3 

0,0 

3,6 

2,3 

Bulgaria 

4,7 

5,8 

0,9 

1,6 

2,0 

2,0 

9,3 

6,4 

17,9 

0,5 

14,7 

2,7 

Croatia 

0,4 

0,0 

0,5 

0,5 

0,4 

0,5 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

2,2 

0,0 

1,5 

Cyprus 

4,1 

2,5 

0,8 

2,9 

1,4 

2,8 

21,6 

5,7 

2,6 

0,9 

7,4 

2,1 

Czechia 

2,4 

6,0 

2,8 

4,0 

2,7 

4,4 

3,6 

23,1 

4,0 

3,9 

3,8 

9,8 

Estonia 

3,5 

17,2 

1,5 

1,2 

1,8 

5,7 

7,3 

20,8 

1,6 

0,0 

3,4 

9,8 

France 

1,8 

2,7 

1,5 

0,6 

1,6 

0,9 

0,6 

4,1 

1,7 

1,0 

1,3 

2,1 

Germany  

0,7 

0,6 

0,0 

0,3 

0,1 

0,4 

0,0 

1,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,5 

Greece 

4,5 

4,2 

1,9 

1,0 

2,4 

1,7 

4,1 

0,0 

7,3 

5,8 

6,3 

3,2 

Hungary 

0,0 

9,9 

0,3 

2,0 

0,2 

3,1 

0,0 

n.a. 

0,7 

3,5 

0,5 

6,8 

Italy 

4,6 

9,6 

1,0 

6,9 

1,7 

7,3 

6,7 

7,5 

1,8 

7,3 

3,9 

7,4 

Latvia 

4,8 

1,1 

1,9 

4,4 

2,4 

3,6 

2,3 

0,9 

1,9 

0,7 

2,0 

0,8 

Lithuania 

4,2 

1,6 

1,7 

0,5 

2,3 

0,7 

0,0 

10,5 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

5,1 

Luxembour
g 

1,8 

1,8 

0,9 

0,0 

1,1 

0,3 

9,7 

0,0 

15,4 

0,0 

12,6 

0,0 

Malta 

0,0 

9,7 

0,7 

1,1 

0,6 

2,8 

0,0 

n/a 

0,0 

n/a 

0,0 

18,0 

Poland 

0,8 

3,1 

2,1 

0,2 

1,9 

0,9 

6,5 

0,0 

1,7 

0,0 

2,8 

0,0 

Portugal 

3,7 

2,3 

0,3 

1,9 

0,9 

2,0 

0,8 

10,9 

0,0 

2,1 

0,3 

3,8 

Romania 

11,7 

18,8 

5,3 

2,8 

7,4 

6,0 

n.a. 

11,4 

2,2 

6,0 

1,7 

8,1 

Slovakia 

0,0 

12,4 

0,8 

2,4 

0,6 

5,7 

0,0 

n.a. 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

3,5 

Spain 

0,8 

3,4 

0,1 

0,3 

0,3 

0,9 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

65 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Note: (*) AROP: at risk of [income] poverty. No reliable data for Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, 
Slovenia, and Sweden Source: Eurostat [ilc_hch14], extracted 2.12.2020.  

Nutrition 

Figure B14: Budget allocations under the EU school fruit, vegetables and milk scheme in the 
school year 2020/2021, EUR millions 

25

20

15

10

5

0

Definitive allocation for school fruit and vegetables

Definitive allocation for school milk

Source: Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/467 of 25 March 2020 fixing the definitive allocation 
of Union aid to Member States for school fruit and vegetables and for school milk for the period from 1 August 
2020 to 31 July 2021. 

Table B15: Provision of free and subsidised school meals in the EU 

Group 1: Universal free meals (at least at some ages) 

EE, FI, LT, LV, SE 

Group 2: Targeted free meals across the whole country 

CY, CZ, DE, ES, HU, LU, MT, PT, SI, SK 

Group 3: Subsidised meals and/or free meals not covering the 
whole country 

AT, BE, BG, EL, FR, HR, IE, IT, PL, RO 

Group 4: No provision 

DK, NL 

Source: Study on the economic implementing framework of a possible EU Child Guarantee Scheme including 
its financial foundation. Final Report.  

66 

 
 
 
Housing  

Figure B16: Overcrowding rate by age and poverty status, 2018* or 2019 

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Total population

Children

All people at risk of poverty

Children at risk of poverty

Note: Sorted by incidence among children at risk of poverty. 
Source: EU-SILC. 

Figure B17: Inability to keep home adequately warm 

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

All non-AROP households
AROP households of single persons with dependent children

All AROP households
AROP households with dependent children

Note: Member States sorted by ‘AROP households with dependent children’ category. 
Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC [ilc_mdes01] extracted 28.01.2021. 

67 

 
 
Figure B18: Share (%) of children who experienced various aspects of housing deprivation 
in 2010 and 2019, by income level of the household 

50

40

30

20

10

0

No indoor toilet 2010

No indoor toilet 2019
No bath nor shower 2010

No bath nor shower 2019
Leaking roof, damp walls, floors, or foundation or rot in window frames or floor, 2010, AROP

Leaking roof, damp walls, floors, or foundation or rot in window frames or floor, 2010, not AROP
Leaking roof, damp walls, floors, or foundation or rot in window frames or floor, 2019, AROP

Leaking roof, damp walls, floors, or foundation or rot in window frames or floor, 2019, not AROP
Too dark, 2010, AROP

Too dark, 2010, not AROP
Too dark, 2019, AROP

Too dark, 2019, not AROP

Note: Only values of 0.3% or more shown. 
Source: EU-SILC [ilc_mdho01]. 

68 

 
 
Figure B19: Social/public housing as a share of total housing stock (2017) and Public 
spending on housing allowances (2018 or latest available) 

1,00

0,90

0,80

0,70

0,60

0,50

0,40

0,30

0,20

0,10

0,00

Share of social/public housing (1,00 = all housing stock in a Member State)
 Total government spending on housing allowances (1,00 = 1% of GDP)

Notes: (*) According to SPC delegates, the shares of social/public housing are 32% for the Netherlands and 3% 
for Czechia, and the share of households living in public housing is estimated at 30% in Sweden. In Member 
States marked (**), housing allowances are provided but data on public spending is not available.  
Sources: Housing Europe, The State of Housing in the European Union 2017 for the shares of social/public 
housing, and OECD Questionnaire on Affordable and Social Housing (2016, 2019) for the public spending on 
housing allowances. 

69 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX C: Report on consultation with stakeholders  

INTRODUCTION  

This  report  gives  an  overview  of  the  wide  consultation  process  carried  out  over  the  period 
July  –  November  2020.  The  purpose  of  the  consultation  was  to  collect  and  identify 
stakeholders’ views and priorities on key elements of the Commission proposal for a Council 
Recommendation  establishing  a  European  Child  Guarantee.  The  aim  of  this    report  is  to 
provide an overview of consultation activities and their outcome, and to inform stakeholders 
about how their contributions were taken into account in the preparation of the proposal. The 
report. 
list  of 

is  presented  at 

the  consulted 

the  end  of 

stakeholders 

the 

STAKEHOLDERS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE CONSULTATIONS 

Committee of the Regions  

The  dedicated  hearing  with  the  Committee  of  the  Regions,  Commission  for  Social  Policy, 
Education, Employment, Research and Culture (SEDEC) took place on 25 November 2020. 
Members  welcomed  the  concept  of  a  European  Child  Guarantee,  supported  the  envisaged 
scope and  emphasized the importance of the European Social  Fund Plus  (ESF+) to  support 
the proposal. They asked for more integration and participation of the regions in the design, 
management  and  implementation  of  the  European  Chid  Guarantee  and  stressed  the 
importance of other EU initiatives, such as the proposal for a minimum wage directive, which 
can be combined with the European Child Guarantee to mitigate child poverty.  

European Economic and Social Committee 

The  dedicated  hearing  with  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  (EESC)  took 
place  on  11  November  2020.  Participants  welcomed  the  initiative.  Members  of  the  EESC 
stressed the importance of a holistic strategy to tackle child poverty and, on the funding side, 
the  need  for  additional  allocation  of  national  funds  to  complement  those  coming  from  the 
European Union. Furthermore, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic were discussed during 
the hearing, especially the impact on education, healthcare and housing. 

Social Protection Committee 

In  June  2020,  the  Commission  distributed  a  questionnaire  to  the  Social  Protection 
Committee252  (SPC)  asking  for  validation  of  some  child  policy-relevant  data  and  for 
additional  information  on  the  undertaken  policy  measures.  Altogether,  23  Member  Sates 
replied  to  the  questionnaire.  The  replies  informed  the  evidence  base  for  the  initiative  and 
gave  useful  national  insights  into  various  types  of  disadvantage  children  are  exposed  to  as 
well as national efforts to address the issue.    

Furthermore,  on  20  November  2020,  the  SPC  held  an  exchange  of  views  on  the 
Commission’s  preparatory  work  for  the  European  Child  Guarantee.  The  delegates  reflected 
on  their  national  challenges  and  opportunities  in  terms  of  child  poverty  and  exclusion, 
focusing on children in need and their access to services. Delegates from 16 Member States 
took  the  floor  and  acknowledged  the  need  for  action  in  this  area.  The  Chair  concluded  by 

252 The Social Protection Committee (SPC) is an advisory policy committee to the Ministers in the Employment and Social Affairs Council 
(EPSCO). The SPC is established with a Council decision under article 160 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. See 
https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=758.  

70 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
confirming that the SPC stands ready to  take part  in  the implementation  and monitoring  of 
the future Recommendation. 

European Social Partners 

The trade unions and employers’ organisations were invited to take part in the hearing on 16 
October  to  reflect  upon  the  outlined  challenges  for  children  in  need  to  access  the  services 
identified  and  their  views  on  the  planned  initiative.  The  Social  Partners  welcomed  the 
Commission  proposal  for the European Child Guarantee and overall focused their  attention 
on the link between child poverty and employment situation of parents since one of the main 
drivers of child poverty is insufficient income in a household. The Social Partners raised the 
importance of promoting quality jobs as well as other of measures improving the employment 
situation of families with children. 

Cities 

Between  July  and  September  2020,  Eurocities  carried  out  a  survey  of  30  cities  across  18 
Member  States,  mapping  child  poverty  and  identifying  trends  in  the  ways  cities  address  it. 
Among the key findings, the report showed that 9 out of 10 cities have higher child poverty 
rates than the average for their Member State. Furthermore, the survey has shown that most 
cities have a strategy in  place dedicated to  reducing  child poverty. Around a quarter of the 
cities  participating  in  the  survey,  do  not  have  such  a  strategy  and  deal  with  child  poverty 
within wider anti-poverty  strategies. While many cities are willing to  do more for children, 
they face financial constraints. 

Civil Society Organisations 

Civil  Society  Organisations  were 
questionnaire and in the course of the strategic dialogue253.  

thoroughly  consulted 

through 

the  online-targeted 

The targeted questionnaire was available online from 20 October to 10 November 2020. The 
survey focused on the identification of barriers that prevent children from accessing certain 
services.  The  purpose  of  this  survey  was  to  collect  input  from  experts  on  the  actions  that 
could  be  taken  at  EU  level  through  the  European  Child  Guarantee  in  order  to  ensure  that 
Member States foster access to services for children in need. The questionnaire was sent to 
civil  society  organisations  working  in  the  area  of  social  inclusion.  Those  EU-umbrella 
organisations include foundations and special interest organisations advocating on behalf of 
children and families, focusing on poverty, children with special needs, children with migrant 
background  and  Roma  children.  Altogether,  34  respondents  representing  civil  society 
organisations  answered  the  questionnaire.  In  addition,  Commission  received  four  position 
papers. 

The strategic dialogue took place on 26 November with the participation of 60 EU-level civil 
society  organisations  dealing  with  social  issues,  in  particular  children  and  family  related. 
During the meeting, the Commission informed the participants about the main results of the 
targeted consultations. The Alliance for Investing in Children, European Social Network and 
Eurocities welcomed the initiative in the form of a proposal for a Council Recommendation 
and  asked  for  an  integrated  approach  to  secure  children’s  access  to  services.  They  insisted 
that Member States report annually to the Commission on their progress with implementation 
of  the  Recommendation,  and  that  this  reporting  is  taken  into  account  in  the  European 
Semester  process.  The  strategic  dialogue  also  gave  the  stakeholders  an  opportunity  to 

253 Strategic Dialogue involves an exchange of views between the Commission and civil society organisations on a specific initiative or 
action from the Commission.  

71 

 
 
                                                           
highlight  further  suggestions  for  the  initiative,  e.g.  as  regards  improved  participation  of 
children in the design of children-related policies. 

Children 

Between  25  September  and  2  November  2020,  UNICEF,  Eurochild,  Save  the  Children, 
World  Vision  and  Child  Fund  Alliance  conducted  a  joint  consultation  targeted  to  children 
(based in and outside the EU), dealing jointly with the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child 
2021-2024 (forthcoming) and the European Child Guarantee. This consultation consisted of 
two parts:  (1) an online survey  with  51 questions, targeting children aged 11 to  17, and (2) 
focus group interviews (online and face-to-face)254. In total, more than 10,000 children were 
consulted, of whom approximately 82% were from the EU255.  

Some of the main findings of this consultation are linked to the discrimination and exclusion 
faced by children, for instance, in access to basic services, unmet children’s expectations at 
school, violence episodes in children’s lives and the lack of consideration of children’s point 
of views. Overall, these challenges affect specially the most marginalized groups of children.  

Consultations on the Action Plan implementing the European Pillar of Social Rights  

In  January  2020,  the  Commission  launched  a  broad  public  discussion  feeding  into  the 
European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  Action  Plan  implementing  the  Pillar.  The  Commission 
invited abroad range of stakeholders to present, by 30 November 2020, their views on further 
actions  needed  and  to  pledge  their  own  commitments  to  implement  the  European  Pillar  of 
Social Rights.  

As the European Child Guarantee is highly relevant for the implementation of Principle 11 of 
the  Pillar  (Childcare  and  support  to  children),  this  consultation  has  also  provided  relevant 
feedback for the development of the proposal. 

The European Parliament, several Member States, regional and local  governments and civil 
society  organisations  strongly  support  the  Commission’s  intention  to  propose  a  European 
Child  Guarantee.  Most  civil  society  organisations  expect  the  future  Recommendation  to  be 
based  on  the  three  pillars  of  the  2013  Commission  Recommendation  on  Investing  in 
Children.  They  asked for multiannual  national  and subnational  strategies including targets, 
indicators, an earmarked budget and a monitoring mechanism. For Greece, children should be 
considered as independent holders of social rights, in particular when it comes to affordable 
and  accessible  education  and  care  (including  ECEC).  Investments  in  children  are  the  most 
effective long-term investments.  Estonia and Italy saw the need for an integrated approach to 
children  with  complex  problems  and  called  for  a  new  strategy  on  the  rights  of  children 
prioritising ending violence against children and providing safe environment for children. 

European Child Guarantee roadmap consultation 

254 Focus group interviews in Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, France, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain targeted diverse vulnerable groups, such as 
children with disabilities, Roma and other ethnic minority children, migrant and asylum-seeking children, children in alternative care and 
children living in poverty. Most of the participating children were aged between 9 and 17. 
255 The vast majority of the responses to the survey, over 8,000, come from member countries of the European Union, notably from 
Lithuania (1,771), Romania (1,454), Denmark (960), Ireland (902), Germany (771), Poland (632), Spain (278), Hungary (186), Italy (185), 
Portugal (165), France (153), Finland (141) and Slovenia (128). The second largest group of respondents are children from non-EU 
countries in the European region (almost 1,500). More than two thirds of these responses are from Albania (1,096 respondents), with 
multiple respondents also from Iceland (205 respondents), Kosovo (96 respondents), Switzerland (25), the United Kingdom (17) and Serbia 
(15). Due to the strong representation from some countries and less so from others, the responses here should be considered indicative and 
not representative of the entire wider European region. The online survey was available to collect responses from all countries in the world. 
274 children from other parts of the world responded, notably from Mexico (43), the United States (27), India (26), Uganda (24), 
Afghanistan (21), Burkina Faso (20) and Paraguay (13). 

72 

 
 
                                                           
The consultation launched with the European Child Guarantee roadmap was open for online 
comments  between  19  August  and  7  October  2020.  In  the  course  of  the  consultation,  the 
Commission  received  83  answers,  including    eight  public  authorities,  three  academic 
institutions  and  one  business  organisation,    31  representatives  of  public  authorities  (at 
national,  regional  or  local  level)  and  a  representative  of  academic  research  team. 
Furthermore, the International Organisation for Migration responded to the Roadmap and the 
targeted  online  questionnaire.  The  United  Nations  High  Commissioner  for  Refugees 
(UNHCR)  office  responded  to  the  targeted  online  questionnaire.  The  International  Labour 
Organisation (ILO) submitted an ad-hoc contribution, in which it reaffirmed its commitment 
to  strengthening  coordination  and  policy  coherence  in  all  aspects  related  to  decent  work 
including social protection. ILO welcomed the European Child Guarantee concept. 

The general public could also provide their feedback to the Roadmap of the ECG. Altogether, 
seven replies to the roadmap questionnaire came from individual EU citizens. 

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS 

General views on the initiative 

Overall, the European Child Guarantee is a welcomed initiative and stakeholders stressed the 
importance of ensuring access to free healthcare, free education, affordable early childhood 
education  and  care  (ECEC),  decent  housing,  adequate  nutrition  and  access  to  play  and 
recreational activities for all children. Stakeholders stressed the importance of granting access 
for all children in order to avoid stigma and discrimination for children in need. Furthermore, 
stakeholders emphasised that the initiative needs to address exclusion and discrimination. In 
sum,  children’s  protection  from  discrimination  should  become  a  priority  in  the  European 
Child Guarantee. 

Stakeholders  broadly  welcomed  the  Commission’s  approach,  according  to  which  the 
initiative should come in the form  of  a proposal  for a Council Recommendation. However, 
employers’ organisations questioned the effectiveness  of a Council Recommendation to  put 
in practice an effective implementation of this policy initiative.   

Stakeholders  emphasized  the  need  to  reduce  bureaucracy  in  the  provision  of  services  for 
children and to simplify the procedures at national, regional and local levels. Likewise, many 
stakeholders  referred  to  the  2013  Commission  Recommendation  ‘Investing  in  children: 
breaking  the  cycle  of  disadvantage’  and  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  as  the  bases 
upon  which  the  European  Child  Guarantee  should  be  built.  The  European  Child  Guarantee 
also  needs  to  be  embedded  in  the  integrated  approach  based  on  the  three  pillars  of  the 
aforementioned Commission Recommendation256. 

Integrated approach   

Stakeholders  highlighted  the  importance  of  developing  and  implementing  integrated 
strategies in fighting poverty and breaking the cycle of poverty among generations, focusing 
not  only  on  children’s  needs,  but  supporting  entire  families.  Thus,  they  asked  for  an 
integrated approach of the European Child Guarantee with other EU actions on gender, race 
and  LGBTIQ  equality  strategies,  inclusion  of  persons  with  disabilities,  homeless  assistance 
and minimum income. Stakeholders agreed that targeting children requires a two-generation 
approach, providing policies supporting both children and their families. Those policies must 

256 The Recommendation based the strategy on the following pillars: (1) Access to adequate resources; (2) Access to affordable quality 
services; (3) Children’s right to participate.  

73 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
guarantee work-life balance, take-up of adequately paid maternity, paternity and parental  or 
carers’ leaves, support services, flexible work arrangements, and family-friendly workplaces. 
Stakeholders  also  recognised  improving  work-life  balance  and  women  participation  in  the 
labour  market  as  important  topics  as  children  benefit  from  the  fight  against  the 
unemployment of children’s parents. 

Target groups 

Stakeholders  stressed  the  importance  of  including  specific  groups  of  children  in  the  target 
group of the European Child Guarantee, leaving no child behind. In this context, the Roma 
children,  children  with  invisible  or  non-communicable  diseases,  unaccompanied  children, 
homeless  children,  and  young  carers  were  mentioned.  In  addition  to  these  specific  groups, 
stakeholders suggested to address  the initiative also  to  children living in  large families (i.e. 
with three or more children) and to extend the upper age limit for the initiative’s beneficiaries 
to  21  years.  During  the  strategic  dialogue,  some  stakeholders  also  exchanged  views  about 
leaving  more  space  to  Member  States  in  defining  the  target  groups.  Some  participants 
claimed that governments are better placed to understand which children are more in need of 
help and support. Others claimed that leaving more autonomy to Member States would risk 
leaving the most vulnerable children outside the initiative-related policy measures. 

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic 

An  aspect  considered  relevant  for  the  definition  of  the  European  Child  Guarantee  concerns 
the  COVID-19  pandemic  effects.  Although  children  are  the  least  likely  to  contract  the 
disease, they are expected to suffer from long-term repercussions. The COVID-19 pandemic 
has also implications for all those children who relied on school meals - many of them do not 
have access to a proper meal per day due to school and day-care closures. Stakeholders asked 
to  adopt  measures  to  mitigate  experiences  of  increasing  poverty  and  inequality.  On  the 
funding  side,  stakeholders  asked  to  consider  the  urgencies  coming  from  the  COVID-19 
pandemic – such as lack of ITC equipment necessary for distant learning - and to cope with 
them.  They  asked  to  develop  child  poverty  measures  through  financial  instruments  for  the 
COVID-19 pandemic recovery and the EU budget 2021-2027.  

Challenges faced by children in need 

From  the  whole  consultation  process,  it  was  possible  to  observe  a  general  agreement  of 
diverse stakeholders that access to specific services is a significant challenge for children in 
need. The stakeholders agreed also with the definition of barriers, which hinder the access to 
specific services as defined in the targeted online consultation.  

In  the  targeted  online  consultation,  the  Commission  asked  the  stakeholders  to  identify  how 
difficult it is for various sub-groups of children in need to access various services. The graphs 
below  summarize  the  responses:  overall,  children  living  in  the  economically  precarious 
families  are  those  with  most  difficulties  in  accessing  services.  At  the  same  time,  adequate 
housing is considered the most difficult service to access for all children in need, regardless 
of the kind of disadvantage they suffer. 

74 

 
 
In  the  targeted  online  questionnaire,  the  Commission  asked  stakeholders  to  confirm  how 
much  the  identified  barriers  hinder  the  access  to  services  for  children  in  need.  The  vast 
majority of stakeholders pointed to affordability and availability of services as the two main 
barriers  to  access  the  services  listed  in  the  questionnaire.  Altogether,  70%  of  respondents 
considered  costs  as  the  main  obstacle  to  access  decent  housing.  For  other  services,  the 
percentages of affordability as a main barrier vary between 39% and 58%. Availability was 
identified as a barrier in particular with regard to ECEC services (54%). This reflects that in 
majority of Member States formal childcare services are still in short supply. Decent housing 
also  is  affected  by  the  insufficient  availability,  as  indicated  by  50%  of  respondents. 
Stakeholders  stressed  that  affordability  and  availability  of  services  need  to  be  considered 
jointly  and  not  separately.  Since  affordability  depends  on  the  level  of  income,  it  affects 
mostly  children  in  low-income  families,  and  they  should  constitute  a  priority  group  for 
intervention. 

Regarding  other  barriers,  discrimination  was  also  mentioned  quite  often,  mainly  in  the 
context of access to quality education (44%), adequate housing (34%) and ECEC (29%). The 
lack  of  awareness  or  insufficient  information  were  identified  as  the  third  main  barrier  in 
access to adequate nutrition (33%) and healthcare (33%). In addition, 35% of the responses 
pointed out that education services are not adapted to children’s needs. The physical access to 
services appears as a barrier in participation in play, recreation, sport and cultural activities 
(31%).  

During the entire consultation, stakeholders identified also other barriers, in addition to those 
listed  in  the  targeted  questionnaire.  Limited  budget  and  insufficient  funds  often  lead  to 
limited availability of services and sometimes affect their quality. At the same time, lack of 
transport means (especially in rural areas) and lack of language support affect the access for 
children to services they need. In the first case, children may not have the possibility to reach 
services, which are physically far from where they live. In the case of language, stakeholders 
have identified problems mainly in schools, where children with migrant background find it 
difficult  to  attend  classes  as  they  fall  behind.  The  same  applies  to  deaf  children  who 
experience problem considering that no further language support (sign language) is provided 
for them. 

Recommended actions to be included in the European Child Guarantee 

Stakeholders  asked  for  direct  EU  financial  resources  and  national  budgets  to  strengthen 
national healthcare, education, and social care services and structures, ensuring that children 
in vulnerable situations have access to free health care and to community based mental health 

75 

 
 
and psychosocial support. In addition, it would be important that those children could access 
the European Child Guarantee in all EU Member States with no restrictions. 

Education 

Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, many children are left out of education. Children cannot 
follow  online  classes  due  to  the  insufficient  or  lacking  equipment  and  internet  access. 
Stakeholders  thus  suggested  that  the  EU  invests  in  e-accessibility  and  digital  skills  for 
everyone  through  supporting  and  financing  access  for  all  families  to  broadband  internet  (at 
home or via sufficient public access points). They also proposed to grant free access to school 
in order to facilitate enrolment, as well as equal access to high quality and inclusive education 
to  be  provided  to  all  children  without  distinction.  In  addition,  socio-economically 
disadvantaged  children  including  refugees,  migrants  and  Roma  should  be  provided  with 
effective targeted support. Stakeholders also called on quality educational support structures 
to be in place for all children in residential settings such as hospitals and respite settings, in 
order to help them overcome gaps in their schooling.  

Early childhood education and care (ECEC) 

Regarding ECEC, stakeholders stressed that all children must not only have access, but that 
places  are  fit  for  children  with  special  needs,  disabilities,  traumatic  experiences,  and  other 
unique  challenges  throughout  the  span  of  their  educational  experience.  Furthermore, 
stakeholders  asked  to  ensure  decent  salary  and  fair  working  conditions  for  ECEC  staff,  as 
high quality services for children require highly qualified and well-remunerated professional 
staff. 

Play, recreation, sport and cultural activities 

Stakeholders highlighted that outdoor leisure activities are of vital importance to the physical 
and emotional wellbeing of children. Indeed, they stressed the importance of investments in 
green  spaces,  safe  play  areas,  and  active  mobility  schemes  as  important  determinants  of 
children's health. Stakeholders also asked for play and recreational activities to be inclusive 
and age-appropriate for all children in need.  

Healthcare 

Regarding  healthcare  services,  stakeholders  asked  to  implement  specific  healthcare 
professional  training  to  enhance  the  skills  of  health  professionals  working  in  paediatric 
hospitals. This would help to identify and deal with child abuse in the form of neglect, which 
can  relate  to  health,  education,  emotional  development,  nutrition,  shelter  and  safe  living 
conditions, and provide a clear process to help the child. About three-quarters of respondents 
to the targeted questionnaire consider providing free mental health and rehabilitation services 
both  to  children  in  need  and  to  their  parents  or  guardians  to  be  a  very  effective  policy 
response. 

Nutrition 

Many stakeholders agreed that the European Child Guarantee should call on Member States 
to  provide  healthy  school  meals  and/or  fruit  and  vegetables  free  of  charge  at  all  levels  of 
education (i.e. ECEC to secondary). Four out of five respondents to the targeted questionnaire 
stressed  the  importance  of  promoting  healthy  eating  habits,  including  by  limiting 
advertisement of unhealthy foods and prohibiting their sales on school premises. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
Housing 

The consulted stakeholders tend to agree that well-designed and targeted housing allowances 
is  the  most  effective  policy  to  support  children’s  access  to  adequate  housing.  During  the 
strategic  dialogue,  stakeholders  emphasised  that  housing  and  all  linked  aspects  (housing 
exclusion, overcrowding, housing cost overburden) should have a role in the definition of the 
scope  of  the  initiative.  More  generally,  they  called  for  the  promotion  of  social  housing  in 
non-segregated  areas,  prioritizing  families  with  children.  Stakeholders  asked  to  make  sure 
that parents with children at risk of eviction or already homeless are not placed in homeless 
shelters  but  in  temporary  accommodation  settings  that  will  resemble  a  family  environment, 
until a permanent solution is found.  

EU and national funds to support the European Child Guarantee 

Stakeholders  welcomed  the  use  of  EU  funds  in  relation  to  the  initiative.  Moreover, 
contributions  stressed  the  importance  for  EU  to  focus  on  allocating  funds  to  equalize 
opportunities so that every child is provided with equal access to all services. 

In  this  context,  stakeholders  asked  the  Commission  to  urge  the  Member  States  to  use  EU 
funds strategically, and in line with their European Child Guarantee national action plans, as 
well as to recommend national governments to earmark 5% of the ESF+ resources to tackle 
child poverty at national level. Nevertheless, some stakeholders recognised the allocation of 
5%  of  the  ESF+  would  not  be  sufficient  to  achieve  the  goal  of  the  initiative.  In  general, 
stakeholders  recommended Member States to  complement national  funds with  EU funding. 
In addition, stakeholders call on the EU to include also other funding instruments, such as the 
EU cohesion policy and the Recovery and Resilience Facility. 

Governance and monitoring 

Stakeholders stressed the need for measurable and binding targets through which the Member 
States  and  the  Commission  may  monitor  improvements  achieved  at  national  and 
regional/local level. Stakeholders stressed the importance of the collection of better and more 
reliable  data  about  children  in  need  at  national  level,  as  this  would  allow  easier  and  faster 
identification of these children. Improving the quality of data on child health, wellbeing, and 
social inclusion would help to monitor, compare and assess progress towards reducing child 
health inequalities, child poverty and vulnerability.  Moreover, stakeholders also claimed that 
national governments should report to the EU on how they are progressing to end child and 
family poverty taking into account specific issues. These reports from Member States should 
feed  into  the  European  Semester  process  and  to  the  monitoring  of  the  Action  Plan 
implementing the Pillar for Social Rights. 

Involvement of children, civil society and cities 

Many stakeholders stressed the importance of having children more involved in the decision-
making  process  for  policies  that  affect  them  directly,  both  at  European  and  national  levels. 
This  should  include  the  participation  and  dialogue  with  civil  society  working  on  children 
inclusion at Member State level, to allow civil society organisations and services providers to 
be  able  to  comment  and  discuss  policy  options,  with  direct  involvement  of  disadvantaged 
children  and  young  people.  Children,  especially  those  in  vulnerable  situations,  should  be 
involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the national action plans and the multi-annual 
child poverty strategies.  

In addition, representatives of cities stressed the role cities should play in the shaping of the 
ECG at  all levels  (EU, national,  regional and local) in  order to  adjust the ECG to  the local 
needs and contexts.  Cities should be involved from  the very  beginning in defining national 

77 

 
 
strategies and lines of action to combat child poverty, as cities are closest to people and have 
better knowledge about  children’s needs  and can also share at national level good practices 
for the fight against child poverty. 

Outline of the consultation process: 

Period of consultation 

Stakeholders involved 

Consultation format 

July – September 2020  Cities 

25 September – 2 
November 2020 

Children 

19 August – 30 
November 2020 

General public, 

Civil Society Organisations, 

Public authorities, 

International Organisations, 

Researchers 

Online questionnaire, organised 
by Eurocities 

Online questionnaire and focus 
groups, organised by UNICEF, 
Eurochild, Save the Children, 
World Vision and Child Fund 
Alliance 

Feedback on Roadmap and the 
open Call for input on the Action 
Plan on the Implementation of 
the European Pillar of Social 
Rights 

16 October 2020 

European Social Partners 

Dedicated hearing 

20 October – 10 
November 2020 

Public authorities (national, 
regional and local level) 

Civil Society Organisations,  

International Organisations,   

Academic researchers 

Online, targeted questionnaire 

11 November 2020 

European Economic and Social 
Committee 

Dedicated hearing 

20 November 2020 

Social Protection Committee  

Dedicated hearing  

25 November 2020 

Committee of the Regions 

Dedicated hearing 

25 November 2020 

International Labour Organisation  Ad-hoc contribution  

26 November 2020 

Civil Society Organisations 

Strategic Dialogue Meeting 

78