“ Children’s Experiences with Poverty and Social Exclusion – Challenges for Research and Policies”

1. Children in the National Action Plans for Social Inclusion in the selected EU member statesErika Kvapilova “Children’s Experiences with Poverty and Social Exclusion – Challenges for Research and Policies” Vienna, June 28-29, 2007

2. Structure • Recent trends in focusing on child poverty) at the EU level • Child poverty on the EU social inclusion agenda, focus on V4 countries (NAPs/ Incl 2006-2008) • Linking research and policies – some challenges in V4 countries

3. Child poverty agenda in the EU Member states • child poverty has been on the agenda of some EU Member states for decades • different approach to address the issue depending on the type of the welfare state • children’s well-being has been very often perceived from an adult’s perspective, and • focusing primarily on policies aimed at: • improving family income (paid work and social transfers) • reducing family costs (subsidizing child day care, education, health care) • ensuring inclusiveness (access to educational system, safe neighborhoods, child protection services, housing…)

4. Child poverty on the EU social inclusion agenda • 2001 - NAPs/inclusion 2001 low interest in child poverty • 2004 - thematic study to analyze policies effective in reducing child poverty (P. Hoelscher) • 2006 (March) the European Council “to take necessary measures to rapidly and significantly reduce child poverty, giving all children equal opportunities, regardless of their social background” • 2006 (July) the Commission’s Communication “Towards an EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child”, a comprehensive EU strategy to promote and effectively implement the rights of the child in internal and external EU policies

5. “Towards an EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child” • The Communication gives visibility and puts emphasis on children’s rights as a set of self-standing human rights that merit specific actions (within a framework of UN CRC) • reemphasis on children’s perspective on well-being/ poverty/ social exclusion (important, e.g. when defining child poverty and well-being indicators)

6. Other developments • 2006: The EU and Social Inclusion: Facing the Challenges (Atkinson, Marlier, Cantillon and Nolan) – child mainstreaming • 2007: NAPs/Inclusion – focus on child well-being….

7. Children in NAPs/ Inclusion 2006-2008 in V4 countriescommonalities and differences (Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic)

8. Laeken indicator 1:relative child poverty rate 2003/4. Source: Eurostat 2007

9. Laeken indicator 2:% children 0-17 living in joblesshouseholds 2006. Source: Eurostat 2007

10. Slovakia • Reduction of child poverty and generational transmission of poverty through supporting families with children (an explicit goal) • Intervention areas: • Education • Family (related) benefits • Legal protection (children at risk)

11. Slovakia • Strong focus on education as the prevention to intergenerational transmission of poverty, however, limited number of related measures, focus on conditional benefits and subsidies; • Vague formulations related to “preventing segregated education…Roma children”

12. Slovakia • Family and child benefits: • Universal child benefit (a condition – school attendance) • Parental benefit (non-working and working parents/ conditions for entitlement) • Tax bonus (working parents) • Legal protection and services - limited number of measures

13. Hungary • Fight against child poverty (an explicit goal in the NAP/Inclusion) • Intervention areas: • Employment policy (ALMP) • Education and child day care • Welfare services • Health protection/ prevention

14. Hungary • Promoting employment of parents (various ALMP and incentives) • Prevention against the transmission of poverty between generations • Extending access to child-day care and pre-school facilities (services) • Improving quality of basic education (a new M&E system) • education for children with special needs and focus on minority children (Roma) • prevention against early drop outs,

15. Hungary • Indexation of family and child benefits (reforms in 2006, no radical changes envisaged) • Strengthening welfare services (legal framework, access and quality) • Health protection of children and the youth (improve and access and focus on 0-3 years old)

16. Poland • Support for families with children(demographic argument rather than the rights of the child) • Intervention areas: • Integrated social services for families with children (at a local level) • Social housing (at a local level) • Food support (local level) • Equal access to education (children from rural areas) • Access to child care services (local level) • Flexible working schemes for parents

17. Czech Republic • Strengthen family cohesion and awareness of intergenerational solidarity and the rights of the child • Intervention areas: • Family welfare services • Education (focus on integration of disadvantaged children – minority, disabled)

18. Summary and challenges • Differences in focus: children (HU) vs. families (SK, CZ, POL) • Differences in strategies: • focus on individual activation and financial incentives for parents and children/ students (SK) • Focus on development of (public) social, health and education services (POL, CZ, HU) • Access and coverage (POL, CZ, HU) • Quality (HU)

19. Summary and challenges: differences in areas of intervention (matrix)

20. Summary and challenges • Differences in targets and indicators • Various degree of involvement and capacity of research/ Academia/ NGOs in formulation of policies and measures • Involvement of research and Academia (POL, HU) • Involvement of NGOs (CZ) • No/limited involvement of neither research or NGOs (SK)

21. Summary and challenges • Lack of children’s views/ perceptions on poverty and social exclusion (all countries) • Increased recognition of children’s rights as a framework for shaping the measures and policies, however need for more awareness raising