Particular attention can be paid to the EU-SILC finding of increasing inequality and the risk of poverty in the period between 2006 and 2007 (ie the income years 2005 and 2006), which was a period of economic growth when (long-term) unemployment increased. , one of the main factors of relative income poverty in Germany (see Frick & Grabka 2008), decreased. Poverty risk rate - children (%) Group relative poverty risk Composition of all children (%, total: 100% of children) Composition of poor children (%, total: 100% of poor children).
Finally, an alternative measure of low income among children is the proportion of individuals receiving public transfers under the regulations set out in SGB II (Sozialgesetzbuch II). In the eastern part of Germany, almost 30% of all children were among these recipients compared to 14%. in the western part.
- Trends: interpretation of time-series results (1996-2007) based on SOEP data
- Absolute poverty
- Impact and effectiveness of policies in place
- Overall approach
- Income Support
- Family compensating transfers (Familienlastenausgleich) 46
- Access to the labour market and income from employment
- Access to enabling services
- Conclusions
The number of children in households receiving these transfers was nearly 2 million in December 2006, or 16.6% of the total under the age of 15. Overall, inequality among the overall population is consistently higher than for children – this finding applies regardless of the inequality measure used (of the Gini coefficient as well as the MLD).
Regarding the survey mode, data are collected in the German EU-SILC sample using drop-off questionnaires (without the presence of an interviewer), whereas the SOEP uses a multi-mode approach that is primarily interviewer-based (using both the PAPI and CAPI), but also allows for self-administered interviews. Apart from that, it is important to note the very high proportion of proxy interviews in the German EU-SILC sample (around 20%, see Horneffer & Kuchler 2008).
Child poverty and child-well being in the European Union
Policy overview and policy impact analysis A case study
Estonia
The nature of child poverty and the underlying factors
- The children affected and the underlying factors
- Trends
- Income support
It is also slightly smaller than the risk of the overall Estonian population (19.4%; the EU average is 16.3). As the number of subsistence benefit recipients has fallen, the structure of the remaining households with children receiving subsistence benefits has also changed.
Annex: description of major family benefits as of 1 January 2009
With the birth of each new child, 50% of the loan balance is written off (Ministry of Social Affairs “Social sector in figures 2006”). A study by Ainsaar et al (2004) shows that the majority of municipalities provide family and child benefit-related local benefits.
Ireland
The children affected and their characteristics
These include the inability to afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish every other day (8.4%), the inability to afford a warm waterproof coat. In 2007, 44% of children in Ireland at risk of poverty lived in households where no one worked.
Overall policy approach
However, the CRA argues that existing mechanisms to target payments towards poor families – Family Income Supplement (FIS) and Qualified Child Increase (QCI) – need reform. They suggest that “The primary and overarching goal of such a payment should be to combat child poverty and ensure that all children in low-income families have it.
Access to other enabling services
However, the Children's Rights Alliance has documented how many of these commitments are now being abandoned in light of the economic and financial crisis (CRA, 2009a). The Strategy is currently being reviewed by the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, in collaboration with the HSE. Children's Rights Alliance (CRA), Analysis of the 2009 Supplementary Budget and its Impact on Children, CRA, Dublin, 2009.
Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, State of the Nation's Children Ireland 2008, OMCYA, Dublin, 2008.
Greece
In the EU as a whole, the corresponding figures were 18% (informal), 7% (daycare) and 28% (preschool or centre-based) respectively. In the informal segment of the labor market, workers are also typically paid below the minimum level. Average housing costs in 2006 represented 48% of the disposable income of families with children below the poverty line in Greece, compared to 30.5% in the EU as a whole19.
Social Protection Committee (2008) Child poverty and well-being in the EU: current state and way forward.
Policy overview and policy impact analysis
A case study France
- Child poverty: hardly an issue in France
- The nature of child poverty and the underlying factors
- Child poverty determinants
- A stable trend over the past few years
- Persistent poverty
- From non monetary poverty to child well-being
- Younger populations with specific problems
- Impact and effectiveness of policies in place
- A policy based on transfers and direct assistance
- Poverty reduction objectives, including child poverty: a new approach
- Conclusions
The probability that a child lives with only one parent increases with the age of the child. Very young children tend to live in households where the risk of poverty is relatively low and the risk tends to increase with the age of the child. This indicates that approximately 55% of the children with income below the poverty threshold (set at 60% of the median) in 2006 also had income below this level in at least two of the preceding three years (the measure of persistent poverty used by the EU as part of the indicators for monitoring social inclusion across the Union).
The amount to be paid was from 280 to 306 euros depending on the age of the child.
Italy
Introduction 34
- The dynamics of child poverty
- Absolute poverty
- Early school-leaving and under-age working
- Childcare opportunities: availability and costs
- Impact and effectiveness of policies in place
Data from the EU-SILC introduced to replace the ECHP cannot be compared with data from the latter, especially regarding at-risk-of-poverty levels. According to these data, about 19% of children at risk of poverty in 2006 were also at risk in at least two of the previous three years. Finally, as mentioned above, maternal employment is one of the most important ways to protect children from the risk of poverty in years of recession.
Social spending on children and households in Italy amounts to only 4.4% of total social spending (1.1% of GDP) – the lowest in the EU-15.
Hungary
Absolute and extreme poverty
Although not directly intended for families with children, other social transfers (such as unemployment benefits and various types of benefits) are also present in the household budget of the poor. In the second half of the period, 60% of the minimum wage is paid for everyone. Knowledge Programme” the Hungarian Sure Start program similar to the British model (started in 2007) is inevitably one of the most important initiatives in early education.
Despite these goals, there remains a serious lack of programmatic coherence in related areas.
Poland
Poland has one of the lowest levels of pre-school childcare provision in the EU. Implementation of the Government Program for the Development of Education in Rural Areas in the years should lead to reducing the geographical inequalities in access to, and the quality of, education109. The system of income support should effectively help those from low-income families to continue their education. Wide differences in the quality of education is one of the most important issues to be addressed.
The redistributive effect of the social benefit reforms – the analysis of the simulation effects] Podatkowo-zasiłkowy model.
Slovenia
Indicators of policy impact
On average, all social transfers account for 18% of the income received by families with children, while the subgroup of family/child-related transfers accounts for 8%. For families with children at risk of poverty, all social transfers account for almost half (47%) of their income, while family/child related transfers account for 22%. The relative importance of family/child related transfers is about the same as the EU-25 average.
For families with children where no one of working age is employed, social transfers account for more than two-thirds of their income, while family/child-related transfers account for one-fifth.
Access to the labour market and income from employment
As a result of social transfers, more than half (57%) of children in Slovenia who are at risk of poverty before social transfers take place are lifted out of relative poverty, and more than a quarter (28%) alone through family/child-related transfers. in the rest of the EU. The labor force participation rate is about 80% for women without children, and increases with the age of the youngest child. It is therefore not surprising that Slovenia is one of the Member States with the largest share of children under the age of five living in households where everyone of working age has a full-time job.
Up to 75 days of childcare leave can be taken until the child is eight.
Access to enabling services
These children made up approximately 37% of all pupils in primary schools in the 2008/2009 school year. In the 2006/2007 school year, 32% of upper secondary education students (from underprivileged families) were entitled to subsidized school meals. Parents of children with disabilities have access to support schemes that help them combine family and work commitments and remain in the labor market.
The at-risk-of-poverty rate for children in Slovenia is almost the same as the general population and (significantly) lower compared to children in the EU-25 as a whole.
A case study Finland
- The children affected and their characteristics 135
- Policy impact of transfers
- Overall policy approach
- Income support
- Access to other enabling services
There is no substantial difference between the risk of poverty in urban and rural areas, which is also the case in the rest of the EU. This "excess share" of social transfers is partly due to child-related conditions associated with general social transfers (ie the presence of children results in larger payments) and partly because families with children are more often in a vulnerable position. Transfers in Finland are relatively well targeted to children in families at risk of poverty, who receive more than their share of the population and more than the average in the rest of the EU.
Although transfers are relatively effective in reducing the risk of poverty, they are much lower than in the early 1990s.
United Kingdom
The main national source of data on the incidence and characteristics of child poverty in the UK is the Household Below Average Income (HBAI) series derived from the Family Resources Survey (DWP 2009). This is why the latest child poverty figures show that more than half of children in relative poverty in the UK have at least one parent in work. There is a greater degree of political consensus on the importance of child poverty than there was in the past.
Child poverty and well-being in the EU: current state and way forward, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
