Child Poverty and Social Exclusion in A matter of children’s rights

Save the Children is the world’s leading independent organisation for children. We work in around 120 countries. We save children’s lives. We fight for their rights. We help them fulfil their potential.

Acknowledgements This report was prepared by Save the Children’s EU Advocacy Office in and Europe Group members in , , , Iceland, , Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, , , and . Thanks to Save the Children colleagues and those in European institutions and other partners who contributed to and supported the report. The production of this report was coordinated by Manuela Smolinski. The data analysis was provided by Christian Morabito.

Published by Save the Children Rue du Trône 60 1050 Brussels savethechildren.net

First published 2014 © Save the Children 2014 Registered Charity No. 1076822

This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee or prior permission for teaching purposes, but not for resale. For copying in any other circumstances, prior written permission must be obtained from the publisher, and a fee may be payable.

Cover photo: Francesco Alesi Italy: An adolescent girl living and spending her afternoon in the street in Idroscalo di Ostia, near Rome, one of the poorest and most marginal areas of the city.

Typeset by Grasshopper Design Company contents

Foreword iv

Executive summary v

Introduction 1

1 Children at risk of poverty or social exclusion 3

2 Inequality – a root cause of poverty and social exclusion 10

3 Childcare and education – a right and a route out of poverty 16

4 Inadequate and unaffordable housing – a poverty trap 20

5 Children’s rights – the right approach to tackling child poverty and social exclusion 22

Conclusions and recommendations 26

Appendix: AROPE indicator and research methodology 29

Endnotes 31 foreword

Growing up in poverty can dramatically change In the light of upcoming institutional changes in the children’s chances in life. But when we speak about , we want to push children and their poverty, we tend to think it is something from rights to the forefront of European political agendas another time or somewhere else in the world. to ensure that they are treated as citizens of today Sadly, poverty is the everyday reality for millions of not just tomorrow. The European Union and national children in our European societies. By hitting both governments across Europe need to acknowledge employment and welfare systems, the financial and that children who face poverty are deprived of their economic crisis that started in 2008 has severely fundamental rights as enshrined in the EU Charter affected children and their families across Europe. of Fundamental Rights and in the United Nations Between 2008 and 2012, the number of children at Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted risk of poverty or social exclusion in Europe went up 25 years ago. by almost 1 million – with an increase of around half However, unless backed by adequate resources, a million in only one year between 2011 and 2012. political commitments to children will remain nothing Across Europe, Save the Children is witnessing but empty promises. Adequate allocation of resources the way in which poverty is depriving children of and effective spending are necessary conditions of educational opportunities, access to healthcare realising the rights of children and a just and equal and healthy diets, adequate housing and living society as a whole. Tackling child poverty means environments, family support, and protection from making the right political choices – and these choices violence. Children are telling us that they have been are available to both wealthier and poorer countries. evicted from their homes several times because For children, the negative effects of growing up in their parents cannot afford to pay the rent or the poverty or social exclusion can last for life – making mortgage, some have even lived in tents or squats it even more urgent to act now – when the financial without electricity or drinking water. They tell us and social crisis is putting even more children and that they feel socially excluded, they have lost friends their families at risk. We count on policy makers because they cannot afford to do the same things as and decision makers not to leave behind the most other children of their age. And children tell us that vulnerable in society, but to act and adopt measures poverty is hard because it robs them of their dreams, to fight the unacceptable reality of child poverty hopes and rights. in Europe. By publishing this joint European report, Save the Children wants to inspire a change in the perception of child poverty in Europe. We want to generate an Ester Asin Martínez increased awareness and recognition of the scale and Director and EU Representative impact of this reality. Save the Children EU Advocacy Office

iv E xecutive summary

Almost 27 million children in Europe are at aspects of the impact of poverty on children to be risk of poverty or social exclusion1 and the addressed, as well as enable children to take an active current economic, financial and social crisis part in identifying solutions. is putting them even more at risk. Although Our research looking at the broad causes and the Europe 2020 strategy2 for smart, effects of child poverty and social exclusion found sustainable and inclusive growth aims to lift that redistributive state interventions, along with at least 20 million people out of the risk of employment (salaries and conditions), have the poverty or social exclusion by 2020, at the greatest influence on child poverty. European moment the European Union (EU) is moving countries with high inequality in employment away from achieving this target. conditions and with social transfer systems that are unable to redistribute wealth to benefit the most There are children living in poverty in every disadvantaged children have the highest rates of European country, including the traditionally child poverty or social exclusion. egalitarian Nordic welfare states. In the 28 EU member states, 28% of under-18s are at risk of Equal access to affordable childcare and free, poverty or social exclusion.3 In many countries, the high-quality education is central to securing equal gap between rich and poor is widening. opportunities and breaking poverty cycles. However, less than half of European countries have achieved Household income, both in terms of salary and a target set in 2002 to provide childcare for at least welfare benefits, is one of the main determinants a third of all children under the age of three by of whether a child lives in poverty. Nevertheless, 2010.4 Across the EU, 13% of children leave school poverty is not just about a lack of money. It is after lower secondary level and are not in further multi-dimensional and one of the principal causes education or training programmes. In some countries of children’s rights violations in Europe. It is linked the figure for early school leavers is as high as 25%. to social exclusion and lack of access to services, including childcare, high-quality education and Inadequate and unaffordable housing is another adequate housing. In the case of children, it includes important aspect of poverty and exclusion. In the EU, not being able to participate in social and cultural around 11% of children live in households that spend activities with their peers. more than 40% of disposable income on housing costs. In some countries it is over 30%. There are Inequality is not only one of the root causes of also many children – 17% across the EU – living in poverty, it is also one of the consequences. Children homes with leaking roofs, damp floors or rotten born in economically and socially disadvantaged window frames. regions or neighbourhoods, children with disabilities and those from a migrant or minority background are Child poverty and social exclusion are a matter of more likely to start their lives at a disadvantage. The children’s rights and should be addressed through effects of poverty and exclusion on children are not a child rights approach. According to the United short term. On the contrary, they can last a lifetime Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the and be carried on into future generations. Child, which every European country has signed and ratified, every child has the right to fully develop their For these reasons, Save the Children believes that social, emotional, cognitive and physical potential, no child poverty and social exclusion should be tackled matter what their family circumstances are.5 These from a child rights perspective. This would allow all rights include the right to an adequate standard of

v vi Cildh Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe of disadvantage of cycle the breaking Children: in Investing wellbeing, and poverty child on Recommendation its adopted (EC) 2013, Commission February European 20 the On rights. these eroding further is downturn economic the more, is What poverty. of way out worktheir to them would enable that capabilities and skills acquire the to opportunities their limiting as well as rights, these fromenjoying Europe in children are preventing exclusion and poverty Nevertheless, culture. and play leisure, participation, to and protected, be to education, and like healthcare services to living, efforts to combat child poverty. child combat to efforts of centre at the disadvantaged most for the support and opportunities equal child, the of interests best children’sthe places rights, crucially and Europe in poverty child combating towards, contribution and for, tool acrucial is Recommendation The Package. 6 as part of its Social Investment Investment Social its of part as policy priorities. priorities. policy strategic EU’s post-2020 the within poverty child of the reduction on targets specific to commit to states, member EU with along and, inequality and poverty child measure to indicators broad-based develop to Commission We European the urge regional national, European, and levels. local at principle afiscal be should children in Investment approach. pan-European and across-sectoral with from a children’s perspective poverty child rights at reducing aimed plans and strategies develop to makers policy and institutions EU countries, We European all on calling are also implementation. its measure to process evaluation and monitoring annual an create ECto the and Recommendation the implement to states EU all urges Children Save the photo : aitor lara/save the children risk of poverty or social exclusion. social or poverty of risk at are children of 33.8% Spain, In I ntroduction

Europe’s current economic, financial and people in the EU will be lifted out of the risk of social crisis is creating an increase in relative poverty or social exclusion by the year 2020. and absolute child poverty and social However, the EU is currently moving away from exclusion across the continent. Almost achieving that target, which is based on a composite 27 million children are at risk of poverty indicator, the so-called AROPE (at risk of poverty or social exclusion.7 Even in countries that or social exclusion). The AROPE is the Europe 2020 headline indicator for measuring poverty and have experienced economic growth in social exclusion. It is a measure composed of three recent years, not everyone has a share in sub-indicators: ‘at-risk-of poverty’, ‘severe material the prosperity, especially not children. The deprivation’ and ‘very low work intensity’ – see gap between rich and poor is increasing, Appendix for more detail. However, the AROPE fails including in the traditionally egalitarian to take into account essential factors affecting the Nordic welfare states. non-monetary or ‘non-material’ wellbeing of children. By hitting both employment and welfare systems, On 20 February 2013, the European Commission the financial and economic crisis which started in (EC) adopted its Recommendation on child poverty 2008 has severely affected children across Europe. and wellbeing, Investing in Children: breaking the cycle Between 2008 and 2012, the number of children of disadvantage12 as part of its Social Investment at risk of poverty or social exclusion in Europe Package. The Recommendation is a crucial tool went up by almost 1 million8 – with an increase of for, and contribution towards, combating child around half a million in just one year between 2011 poverty in Europe. Save the Children welcomes and 20129 – making it even more urgent to act now in particular the Commission’s approach, which and to reduce and prevent child poverty through a places children’s rights, the best interests of the rights-based approach. child, equal opportunities, and support for the most disadvantaged at the centre of efforts to combat Growing up in poverty can dramatically affect child poverty. With its three interconnected pillars children’s opportunities and deny them their rights. – ensuring access to adequate resources, access to Not only is child poverty ethically unjust, it also affordable quality services, and child participation represents a social and economic problem. Poverty – the Recommendation serves as an important does not simply mean that children’s basic needs – incentive for concrete and robust action in European such as for food, clothes and housing – are not being states. Save the Children believes that the EC met. It also means not being able to participate in Recommendation should be implemented now and, activities such as sport, culture and other leisure in implementing it, that states must seek universal activities. Moreover, children growing up in poverty solutions that will benefit and involve all children, are less likely to acquire the skills and capabilities that including the most vulnerable and deprived, to will enable them to work their way out of poverty avoid stigmatisation and exclusion. as adults and contribute to the overall wellbeing of society.10 Because monetary measurements provide only a partial picture of the complex nature of poverty and “There’s no point having dreams about exclusion and their impact on children’s lives, this something that costs money.” report gives a broader picture of the causes and 12-year-old boy, Iceland effects of child poverty and goes on to explain why a rights-based approach is essential to tackling and 11 According to the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, preventing it. sustainable and inclusive growth, at least 20 million

1 2 Cildh Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe poverty and, in the long term, reduce and prevent it. prevent and it. reduce term, long the in and, poverty of effects the mitigate to employ can institutions and governments European that measures some suggest We erodes. poverty that –rights uphold to aduty has states, European all including (UNCRC), Child the of Rights the on Convention Nations United the ratified has which state every children’s that the rights outlines It exclusion. social and poverty child addressing to approach rights-based the 5explains Chapter housing. unaffordable and inadequate of effects the at 4we look Chapter in and poor being of probability achild’s on has education and childcare to access of lack that impact the 3we explore Chapter In were born. parents their level where and education parents’ their including risk, at greater children some place that at and factors poverty of at risk children puts how inequality 2examines Chapter crisis. financial current the of impact the or composition household transfers, social of effectiveness the employment, levels of parents’ as such levels poverty of influence that factors at and some are, they who are and they by where poverty, affected Europe in children of numbers at the 1looks Chapter employment (conditionswith and salaries). along theacross continent, child poverty influencing in factor important an represents children) benefit to specifically designed transfers social levels and expenditure of terms in (both interventions state redistributive of effectiveness the that shows research Our Switzerland. and Norway Iceland, plus states member (EU) Union European 28 are the data covered Eurostat by the countries The leaving. school early and childcare early to access on data as well as exclusion, social or poverty of at risk children to relation in data Eurostat available on comments and analyses Children Save the 1–4, Chapters In in the future. the in now – and whole as a to society benefits deliver will today children to allocated resources that recognising levels, local and regional national, at European, principle afiscal be should children in Investment for children. change lasting and positive immediate, achieve to order way in effective an in resources available all of use make They should across Europe. practice and policies on learning exchange and society civil with consultation in approach sectoral across- apply should makers decision and Policy and evaluationimplementation of policies. development, including the them, affecting decisions all in participate to opportunity the given be must Children of children’s situations. and needs understanding an with and perspective rights a child from developed be should poverty child preventing and at reducing aimed actions and plans strategies, All of disadvantage cycle the breaking Children: in Investing Recommendation, EC’s the of long-awaited implementation the support to particular in institutions, and governments European to addressed recommendations make and conclusions of Finally, we anumber draw member of the EU in 2008. in EU the of member a not was Croatia since used is 27’ ‘EU term the 2012, and 2008 between rates exclusion social or poverty of case the In Switzerland). and Iceland Norway, (excluding members EU 28 the to refers 28’ ‘EU The Switzerland. and Norway, Iceland with along members (EU) Union European 28 the to refers ‘Europe’ term the analysis, our In . 1 Children at risk of poverty or social exclusion

In 2012, the latest year for which data are A country’s wealth does not automatically benefit available, almost 27 million children in Europe the most disadvantaged in society, unless it is were at risk of poverty or social exclusion properly (re)distributed either through earnings from (in the 28 EU member states and Iceland, employment or social transfers (direct and indirect Norway and Switzerland).13 In the EU’s 28 child-family benefits and schemes). Child poverty is member states, 28% of the total population strongly associated with inadequate income support from the welfare system, along with parents’ poor of under-18-year-olds were at risk of poverty working conditions (both in terms of time employed or social exclusion, 20.8% of children were and salary levels).16 living in households with disposable income below 60% national median, 9% were in A country’s wealth does not households with very low work intensity, and automatically benefit the most 14 11.8% in materially deprived households. disadvantaged in society, unless it is properly (re)distributed either “Poor for me is when you don’t have through earnings from employment money… you don’t have anything to wear, or social transfers (direct and indirect you don’t have anything to eat.” child-family benefits and schemes). Seven-year-old girl, Romania Poverty in Europe has no passport. There are children living in poverty in every European country P aRTICIPATION in the but, as Figure 1 (overleaf) shows, the percentage of labour market children at risk of poverty or social exclusion varies substantially from country to country – depending on Parents’ levels of employment play a major role in each country’s historical and socio-economic path. In determining a household’s level of child poverty. the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Participation in the labour market and getting an Finland and Iceland) and , the Netherlands, adequate minimum income are essential to guarantee Germany, Switzerland and the Czech Republic, 12–19% adequate household income. In addition, employment of children live at risk of poverty or social exclusion. In “raises parents’ self-esteem by increasing their , and Latvia the figure is 35–41%, and autonomy and self-reliance. It can contribute to in Romania and it is more than half (52%). children’s wellbeing, not only by enhancing the family’s material situation, but also because it helps We tend to assume that children are at greater establish a family routine, strengthens the work ethic risk of poverty or social exclusion in countries with and provides stability in children’s lives.”17 a lower GDP. This perception is not necessarily the reality. Members of the G8, including Italy and In Europe, higher risks of poverty are observed among , which have a GDP per capita of between children living in households with very low work €24,000 and €29,000, have from one-fifth to one- intensity (below 20% of parents’ potential), compared 18 third of their children at risk of poverty or social to those with high work intensity (55–85%). The exclusion. In Ireland, which has one of the highest aggregate difference in the share of children at risk of GDPs per capita in Europe (around €33,000), 34% of poverty between households with high and low work children are at risk of poverty or social exclusion.15 intensity for the 28 EU members (ie, not including

3 Fgurei 1: Children at risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE) (%) 2012

In its Europe 2020 strategy, the European Union has adopted a composite indicator to measure the risk of poverty or social exclusion, Finland the AROPE (at risk of poverty or social exclusion). Iceland 14.9% 16.0% Sweden This Europe 2020 headline indicator is composed of three sub-indicators: 19.4% 1) People living in households with disposable income below the poverty threshold (60% national median). Norway 2) People living in households with very low work intensity, where 11.9% working age members (aged 18–59 years) worked less than 20% Estonia of their potential during the past year. Denmark 22.4% 3) People who are severely materially deprived in terms of economic 15.3% Latvia strain and durables, therefore unable to afford (rather than choose 31.2% 40.0% Netherlands Lithuania not to buy or pay for) at least four of these items: unexpected 16.9% Ireland 31.9% expenses, a one-week annual holiday away from home, a meal 34.1% involving meat, chicken or fish or vegetarian equivalent every second 29.3% Czech Republic 18.8% day, the adequate heating of a dwelling, durable goods like a washing Belgium machine, colour television, telephone or car, or who are confronted Slovakia 23.4% 26.6% with payment arrears (mortgage or rent, utility bills, hire purchase Luxembourg instalments or other loan payments) which they cannot pay. Hungary 24.6% Germany 40.9% France 18.4% AROPE for children is obtained by extrapolating data for individuals Romania 23.2% below the age of 18. Children present in several sub-indicators 52.2% are counted only once.

Bulgaria 52.3% Children at risk of poverty or social exclusion Italy 33.8% 11.9%–16.9% Switzerland 17.0%–22.4% 18.8% 20.9% 22.5%–29.7% Spain Malta Slovenia Croatia Greece 27.5% 29.8%–40.9% 33.8% 29.7% 16.4% 33.8% 35.4% 27.8% 41.0%–52.3%

Source: EU-SILC 2013 (Retrieved January 2014) – Data for Ireland refers to 2011

1ildren Ch at risk of poverty or social exclusion 5 Slovakia

(2012) Slovenia

2) –

Greece

Spain

Bulgaria Italy

household

Poland

In contrast, the Nordic

the Hungary

20 France of

19 y Portugal

Latvia

Croatia

intensit Republic Czech Estonia

k

Romania Malta

wor

However, the persistence of the riskHowever, of child poverty among high work-intensity households – such as in Romania, Lithuania, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Latvia, Slovakia, Poland and Luxembourg (Figure highlights the fact that access to the labour market does not guarantee a basic standard of living for the families, and therefore children. for Moreover, interrelation between employment and state support is the shown by share of children riskat of poverty in households with work intensity, lower which basically reflectsscarce income support‘out of or limited and ineffectivework’, social transfers (social transfers represent one-third of the gross incomefamilies for with children living below the poverty threshold). countries historically have a lesser share of children riskat of poverty as a result of policies favouring, on the one side, employment, particularly women’s employment (and high-quality employment women’s in terms of salaries andtime flexibility) along with generous, and very effective – because they child are Countries with high inequality in employment conditions and with social transfer systems that are unable to redistribute wealth in order to benefit the most disadvantaged the children highest have child poverty rates in Europe. Lithuania

per Germany

%) Belgium

y ( Austria rt e

v

Finland Luxembourg

po

Sweden

of Cyprus k

ris

Ireland Netherlands

at ngdom

i K

ry low

Denmark e

United United ildren 28 EU h v 2: C

High Switzerland

Norway 0 Iceland i Children of parents of withChildren very low intensity work likely 56.7% more are poverty riskto of be at social or exclusion than those whose parents intensely. work 10 70 50 20 30 60 90 40 80 Fgure 100 Source: EU-SILC (Retrieved 2013 January 2014) – Data for Ireland refers to 2011 At risk of poverty refers only to % of children living in households with disposable income below 60% national median Some countries (such as Iceland, Denmark, Norway and Romania) smaller have differences children for at risk of poverty between the lowest and high work- intensity households and 34 percentage (between 11 points). In contrast, countries differences have 21 of more than 50 percentage points, including countries traditionally considered egalitarian or middle to high income (such as Spain, Italy, France, Belgium, AustriaGermany, and Finland). However, mere participation in theHowever, workforce is not necessarily enough to escapepoverty or social exclusion. The quality of employment is also crucial, both in terms of income and the time available for supporting children. Norway, IcelandNorway, and Switzerland) is 56.7percentage points (Figure 2). This meansthat children of parents with very work intensity low 56.7% are more likely to be risk at of poverty or social exclusion than those parentswhose intensely. work 6 Cildh Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe poverty rates. poverty child increased in resulting challenged, have been intervention is among the highest in Europe. in highest the among is intervention state after and before exclusion social or poverty of at risk children of share the are consistent, transfers poverty. child addressing strategies ‘child-centred’ of a lack with levels are associated lower spending Spain, and Poland Italy, Portugal, Greece, In vulnerable. most are who those to and support benefits universal both with care, and education childhood early to and access deductions; tax benefits; unemployment wage; aminimum leave; parental and employment to access housing; social for example: families, target that measures employ countries These poverty. child of causes the root tackle to specifically designed spending consistent with are those Netherlands, the and Slovenia Austria, countries, Nordic the namely have poverty, in fewer that factor. children Countries important an also is systems transfer social of design The children. and families at supporting targeted directly level spending of the on mainly depends children among poverty of risk the are reducing in they how effective But poverty. level child of the on impact have important can an transfers Social ECTI s E centred – social transfers. ocial ff and children. children. and families at supporting targeted directly level the on mainly of spending depends children among of risk poverty the they are in howreducing effective But level the on impact of child poverty. have can important an transfers Social Europe. in rates child highest poverty the children have disadvantaged most the in order benefit to wealth redistribute are to that unable systems transfer conditions and employment social in high inequality with Countries 22 In Ireland, although the effects of social social of effects the although Ireland, In

v transfers eness

of 21

Lately, these policies policies Lately, these up by almost 1million, byup almost went Europe in exclusion social or poverty of risk at 2012, and children of number the 2008 Between acrossEurope. children severely affected has 2008 in started which crisis economic and financial the systems, welfare and employment both hitting By FECT E 18 (around reductions higher much enable transfers social where countries Nordic to compared 8 3to of reduction (a children among poverty of risk the reducing on impact have little Portugal and Bulgaria Romania, Poland, Italy, Spain, Greece, as such countries in policies 3,state Figure in shown As and 2012.and 2008 between exclusion social or poverty of at risk children of share the in have adecrease seen Finland, and Norway Germany, Portugal, Switzerland, Poland, namely countries, six only 4, Figure in shown As from 26.5% to 28% between 2008 and 2012. and 2008 between 28% to from 26.5% increased exclusion or poverty of at risk children of percentage the Croatia), (excluding members EU For Switzerland). and Norway Iceland, and 28 (EU 2011 between year one just in amillion half 2012 and Survey 2014,Survey Growth Commission’s Annual European the in highlighted As leisure. and opportunities educational to health, and fromnutrition development, and children’s in wellbeing overall deterioration immediate an to led has crisis the income, reducing cognitive and socio-emotional skills are forming. skills socio-emotional and cognitive achild’s are when years early the since potential, social and cultural economic, future its of elements

f percentage points before and after social transfers), transfers), social after and before points percentage

percentage points). percentage mortgage. Now wemortgage. can’t do any of that.” and they could the go pay on school trips, my mum and dad. Icould and have books Iused cinema go to the to with “Before, 2011 and 2012. amillion one yearhalf in just between 1 exclusion in Europe went by up almost or social of children at of risk poverty and 2012, 2008 number the Between

million, with an increase of increase an aroundmillion, with

of 26 Europe might be losing important important losing be might Europe

the

23 24 financial with an increase of around around of increase an with Eight-year-old boy, Spain Eight-year-old

crisis 25 By By Fgurei 3: Decrease in risk of poverty among children after social transfers (%) (2012)

Decrease in the risk of poverty among children 23.8 13.2 Netherlands 24.5 10.2 Denmark Finland due to social transfers: 25.5 13.9 18.9% reduction before–after Cyprus Iceland 2.9%–7.9% before 25.8 13.5 Slovenia 21.2% 26 13.9 Czech Republic Sweden 8.0%–12.3% after 27.9 8.3 Norway 17.3% 12.4%–17.3% 28.3 17.7 Switzerland Norway 17.4%–23.2% 28.6 17 Estonia 19.6% 23.3%–32.0% 28.9 21.5 Poland Estonia 29.6 21.7 Portugal Denmark 11.6% 29.8 26.9 Greece 14.3% United Kingdom Latvia 30 11.1 Finland 26.1% 9.7% 30.8 15.2 Germany Netherlands Lithuania 10.6% 31.2 21.9 Slovakia Ireland 14.5% 31.2 10 Iceland 32.0% Poland 7.4% Czech Republic 32.2 16.9 Belgium 12.1% 32.3 15 Sweden Belgium Slovakia 33.1 26 Italy 15.3% 9.3% 33.8 22.3 Croatia Luxembourg Hungary 34.1 22.7 Malta 23.2% Germany 20.5% 34.1 24.4 Latvia 15.6% France 34.1 19 France 15.1% Romania 35.3 20.8 Lithuania 7.6% 35.9 28.2 Bulgaria 36.8 29.9 Spain Bulgaria 37 17.5 Austria 7.7% 42.2 34.6 Romania Italy 7.1% 43.1 22.6 Hungary Switzerland 44.6 18.5 United Kingdom 10.6% Austria 45.8 22.6 Luxembourg 19.5% Cyprus Spain Malta Slovenia Croatia Greece 11.6% 49.1 17.1 Ireland Portugal 6.9% 11.4% 12.3% 11.5% 2.9% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 7.9%

Source: EU-SILC 2013 (Retrieved January 2014) – Data for Ireland refers to 2011 Fgurei 4: Difference in children at risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE) (%) BETWEEN 2008 AND 2012

Differences in children at risk of poverty 11.9 Norway and social exclusion (AROPE) (%) 13 Finland 14.9 Finland between 2008 and 2012 15.1 -0.2% 15.3 12.7 Denmark Iceland -3.6%–0% AROPE 2012 16 Iceland 2.8% 13.2 AROPE 2008 16.4 Sweden 0.1%–1.6% 15.3 Slovenia 16.9 4.8% 1.7%–3.2% 15.5 Netherlands 18.4 3.3%–4.8% 20.1 Germany Norway 18.8 18.6 Czech Republic -1.1% 4.9%–8.1% 18.8 21.7 Switzerland Estonia Decrease 19.4 Sweden United Kingdom 3.0% 14.6 Denmark 20.9 Austria 1.6% Latvia Increase 20.4 2.6% 22.4 7.6% 19.4 Estonia Lithuania 23.2 21.2 France Netherlands 2.5% 23.4 Ireland 21.3 Belgium 1.4% 7.5% Poland 24.6 Luxembourg Czech Republic 20.9 -3.6% 26.6 Slovakia 0.2% 24.3 27.5 Belgium 21.5 Cyprus 27.8 2.1% Slovakia 29.5 Portugal 2.3% 29.3 Luxembourg 32.9 Poland 3.7% Hungary 29.7 23.5 Malta Germany 7.5% 31.2 29.6 United Kingdom -1.7% 31.9 Lithuania France 29.4 33.8 2.0% Romania 29.1 Italy 1.0% 33.8 30.6 Spain 34.1 26.6 Ireland Bulgaria 35.4 28.7 Greece Italy 8.1% 40 32.4 Latvia 4.7% 40.9 33.4 Hungary 52.2 Switzerland Slovenia 51.2 Romania -2.9% Cyprus 52.3 Bulgaria Spain 1.1% 44.2 Greece 6.0% Portugal 3.2% 6.7% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -1.7% Austria Malta 0.5% 6.2%

Source: EU-SILC 2013 (Retrieved January 2014) – Data for Ireland refers to 2011; Croatia excluded (no data available for 2008) 1ildren Ch at risk of poverty or social exclusion 9

P hOTO: Helle Kjærsgaard/Red Barnet This worsening situation arises 28 expenditure and cutting social transfers, including child income support schemes and essential health and childcare. from increasingunemployment, from especially long- term unemployment, deteriorating and employment conditions, with cuts in wage or reductions levels in hours, and a drop in disposable income coupled with rising prices of basic food,energy and services. One of 27

the main reasons is that many Europeancountries, after having embarked on policies to stimulate public spending in 2008, since started have reducing Denmark: A 2-year-old boy playing in a Copenhagen playground Even countries such as Austria, Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Sloveniaand Sweden, which experienced positive GDP growth rates in 2010/11, did not register a decrease in child poverty.

0.5% 6.2%

-1.7%

Malta Austria

6.7%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Portugal 3.2%

6.0% Greece

Spain

44.2

1.1%

-2.9% Bulgaria

Cyprus 52.3

Slovenia Switzerland 51.2

Romania

52.2

33.4

Hungary

4.7% 40.9

32.4

Latvia

Italy

40 8.1%

28.7

Greece

35.4 Bulgaria

26.6

Ireland

34.1

30.6

Spain

1.0% 33.8

2.0% 29.1

Romania Italy

33.8

France

29.4

Lithuania

31.9 -1.7%

29.6

United Kingdom United

Germany 7.5%

31.2

23.5

Malta 3.7% Hungary

29.7

32.9 Luxembourg

Poland

2.3%

29.3

29.5

2.1% Slovakia Portugal

27.8

21.5 Belgium

Cyprus

27.5

0.2%

24.3

Slovakia -3.6%

26.6

Czech Republic Czech

20.9

7.5% Poland

Luxembourg

24.6 1.4%

Ireland

21.3

Belgium

2.5% Netherlands 23.4

21.2

France

Lithuania 23.2

7.6% 19.4

Estonia

2.6% 22.4

Increase

Latvia

1.6%

20.4

Austria

Denmark 20.9 3.0%

United Kingdom United

14.6

Sweden Decrease

Estonia 19.4

21.7

Switzerland

18.8 -1.1% 4.9%–8.1%

18.6

Czech Republic Czech

18.8

Norway

3.3%–4.8%

20.1

Germany

18.4

1.7%–3.2% 15.5

4.8% Netherlands

16.9

Sweden

15.3

Slovenia 0.1%–1.6% AROPE 2008 AROPE

16.4

2.8%

13.2

Iceland

-3.6%–0% AROPE 2012 AROPE

16 Iceland

12.7

Denmark

-0.2%

15.3

between 2008 and 2012 and 2008 between

15.1

Finland Finland

14.9

and social exclusion (AROPE) (%) (%) (AROPE) exclusion social and

13 Norway

Differences in children at risk of poverty poverty of risk at children in Differences 11.9 2 Inequality – a root cause of poverty and social exclusion

Inequality is one of the main causes, and C hILDREN bear the brunt consequences, of child poverty and social of poverty exclusion. European children born in economically and socially disadvantaged The most striking aspect of inequality is the regions or neighbourhoods, with parents discrimination faced by children simply because they who have lower levels of education and are children. Whereas an adult may risk falling into employment, or whose parents are migrants, poverty or social exclusion temporarily without any are more likely to live in families with less major consequences in the long term, for children the negative effects can last for life.31 disposable income or inadequate housing. They are also more likely to have limited As Figure 5 shows, in almost all European countries access to healthcare and early childhood the share of children at risk of poverty or social education and care. These children start their exclusion is higher than for adults. Only in seven lives at a disadvantage and might grow up in countries – Slovenia, Finland, Norway, Denmark, disadvantage. Without support, they are likely Germany, Estonia and Lithuania – is there a bigger to continue the intergenerational transmission risk of poverty or social exclusion as an adult, but differences are small, ranging from 0.7 to around of poverty and social exclusion.29 4.7 percentage points. The greatest differences In its principle of non-discrimination, the UNCRC between children’s and adults’ risk of poverty or states that opportunities for human and social social exclusion (more than 5 percentage points) are development should be equally given to every child, in Romania, Hungary, Malta, Luxembourg, Slovakia, regardless of her or his family background and origin. Spain, Ireland and France. In Romania and Hungary, In general, countries characterised by high levels there is a risk of poverty or social exclusion of more of inequality are also likely to have a high share of than 10 percentage points for a child. children at risk of poverty or social exclusion. Poverty is determined by how (to whom and to what extent) wealth is (re)distributed within a country, rather than to the overall level of wealth of the country itself.30 In general, countries characterised by high levels of inequality are also likely “I’ve never invited any of my classmates to to have a high share of children at risk my house… I think of all the questions I of poverty or social exclusion. Poverty couldn’t answer. ‘Where does your father is determined by how (to whom and to work…?’ What could I say? My dad was what extent) wealth is (re)distributed receiving social benefits at the time and within a country, rather than to so was my mum. I was judged by what my the overall level of wealth of the parents were doing or, in this case, what country itself. they weren’t doing.” 14-year-old boy, Norway

10 2e In quALITy – a root cause of poverty and social exclusion 11 3 1 13

1 1 10

9 9 9 8 (%) (2012)

7 7 7 6 adults

5 5 and 5 5

5 The risk of poverty or social exclusion is higher for children than for adults. Only in seven countries – Lithuania, Estonia, Germany, Norway, Finland, Slovenia and Denmark – is there a bigger risk of poverty or social exclusion as an adult than as a child. 4 4 Children of parents of withChildren lower (pre-primary,educational levels primary to likely secondary) more are lower or poverty risk of be at social exclusion or higher than parents whose those have educational levels. 4

The percentage of children risk at of poverty in EU countries (excluding Croatia) went up from 55.3% children for whose parents level a lower to 61% have of education, whereas it went only up by 0.5% for children with highly educated parents. levels of parents’levels education in some countries: Iceland, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Denmark, Finland those differencesand still Luxembourg. However, range from 30–40 percentage points. In contrast, As shown in Figure 6 (overleaf), there smaller are differences in the share of children risk at of poverty or social exclusion between the lowest and highest 3 3 3 3 3 children 2

2 2 2

1 1 1 between -1

-1 -2 -2 AROPE -3 in

-3

3 - -4 -5 fference

i 5 education - ’ Italy Spain 5: D Malta Latvia EU 28 Poland France ngdom Ireland Iceland Finland Cyprus Estonia Austria i Greece Croatia Sweden Belgium Bulgaria Slovakia Slovenia Norway Portugal Hungary Romania K Lithuania Germany Denmark Switzerland Netherlands Luxembourg gure i Czech Republic United United F ar

Children of parents with educational lower levels (pre-primary, primary secondary) or lower more are likely to be risk at of poverty or social exclusion than those whose parents higher educational have levels (upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary or tertiary). This trend has increased since 2008. P ENTSThe risk of poverty or social exclusion among children in all European countries is strongly associated with their parents’ of education. level These inequalities do not suggest a lack of care by parents with of education, levels lower rather that parents with a higher of education level usually are able to earn more. educational Lower can levels often mean that parents less disposable have income from wages or salaries. circumstances Since children’s almost always depend on their parents’ and family backgrounds, a lack of education can be a major risk factor child for poverty social or exclusion. Source: EU-SILC (Retrieved 2013 January 2014) – Data for Ireland refers to 2011 Fgurei 6: Difference in AROPE (%) high/low level of parents’ education (2012)

Difference in risk of poverty 37.9 7.1 Iceland or social exclusion of children, Finland 39.5 6 Portugal low–high level of education 38.1% 40.1 6.4 Denmark of their parents Iceland 41.6 10.4 Netherlands 30.8%–33.7% Low 30.8% 42.5 8.9 Austria Sweden 44.6 6.5 Finland 45.8% 33.8%–42.3% High 46.6 5.8 Norway 42.4%–48.4% Norway 47.5 8.7 Luxembourg 40.8% 48.5%–61.7% 49.3 3.3 Malta Estonia 61.8%–77.9% 51.5 4.6 Slovenia United Kingdom Denmark 41.8% 53.2 11.4 Estonia 61.7% 33.7% Latvia 55.2 8.3 Switzerland 60.9% Lithuania 57.6 15.3 Spain Netherlands 67.6% 57.7 13.6 Cyprus Ireland 31.2% 58.4 10 Italy 45.9% Poland Czech Republic 59 13.2 Sweden 67.3% 71.7% 60.2 12.5 Belgium Belgium 61.2 8.2 France 47.7% Slovakia 64 18.1 Ireland Luxembourg 77.8% 68.2 8.6 Germany 38.8% Hungary 70.8 15.2 Greece Germany 77.9% 75.3 13.6 United Kingdom 59.6% France 75.4 8.1 Poland 53.0% Romania 76.5 4.8 Czech Republic 72.5% 77.3 16.4 Latvia 77.6 7.7 Croatia Bulgaria 79.2 11.6 Lithuania Italy 71.9% 48.4% 87.1 14.6 Romania Switzerland 88.9 11 Hungary 46.9% Austria 90.2 12.4 Slovakia Slovenia Cyprus 33.6% 46.9% 44.1% 90.2 18.3 Bulgaria Spain Malta Croatia Greece 42.3% Portugal 46.0% 69.9% 55.6% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 33.5%

Source: EU-SILC 2013 (Retrieved January 2014) 2e In quALITy – a root cause of poverty and social exclusion 13 0 3

5 26 2 25 born

origin

21 0 reporting 21

2 20 20 of 19 parents the y

The risk of poverty is higher for children of parents born in a foreign country than those whose parents were born in the reporting country. Positive differences in favour of children with parents born in foreign countries are observed only in Bulgaria, Latvia, Ireland, Malta.Portugal and

in of 16 16 16

5

1 14 14 14 14 14 born

12 12 12

countr 0 11 1 10 ’ children

were Positive differences Positive of children in favour

8 7). In the 28 EU countries, higher rates of 32

6

5 5 Even countries with relatively low countries Even with low relatively poverty child of (andlevels relatively GDPhigh per capita), as such the countries,Nordic the Netherlands, Slovenia, Austria, Switzerland and relation in discriminate also Germany, to parents’ background. a 3 3 P RENTS likelihood of being risk at of povertyChildren’s is also determinedtheir by parents’ country of birth (Figure risk of poverty registered are among children with parents born in foreign countries than those with parents born in reporting countries (32.2% vs. 18.3%). between parents

%)

0 y ( 0 -1 -1 -1 rt -3 whose e

v

5 - po

those of

k 10 - and ris

y in

-15 -17 countr

fference i 20 (2012) - y Italy Spain 7: D 7: Malta Latvia EU 28 Poland France ngdom Ireland Iceland Finland Cyprus Estonia Austria i Greece Croatia Sweden Belgium Bulgaria Slovakia Slovenia Norway Portugal Hungary K foreign Lithuania Germany Denmark Denmark

Switzerland a Netherlands Luxembourg

ountr i percentage points, countries including considered Czech Republic n

United United c Fgure i

Source: EU-SILC (Retrieved 2013 January 2014) – Data not available for Romania/Data for Bulgaria and Ireland refers to 2011 At risk of poverty refers only to % of children living in households with disposable income below 60% national median ‘egalitarian’, such as‘egalitarian’, France, Belgium, Sweden and Furthermore,Norway. nine countries differences show of more than 60 percentage points: including the Czech Republic, Slovakia,Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, Lithuania, Croatia and Latvia. Figure 6 shows that, in most cases, countries where inequalities are less prominent in terms of parents’ educational level characterisedare proportions lower by of children riskat even of poverty or social exclusion. However, countrieswith relatively of child levels low poverty (and relatively high GDP per capita), such as the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Austria, Switzerland also discriminate and Germany, in relation to parents’ background. 24 countries differences24 have of more than 40

33.5%

55.6% 0%8%6%4%2%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

46.0% 69.9% Portugal 42.3%

Greece

Croatia Malta

Spain

44.1%

46.9% Bulgaria 90.2 18.3 33.6%

Cyprus

Slovenia

Slovakia

90.2 12.4 Austria

46.9%

Hungary

88.9 11 Switzerland

48.4%

Romania 87.1 14.6

71.9%

Italy

Lithuania 79.2 11.6

Bulgaria

Croatia 77.6 7.7

Latvia 77.3 16.4

72.5%

Czech Republic Czech 76.5 4.8 53.0% Romania

France Poland 75.4 8.1

59.6%

United Kingdom United

75.3 13.6

Germany 77.9%

Greece 70.8 15.2

38.8% Hungary

Germany 68.2 8.6

Luxembourg

77.8%

Ireland 64 18.1

47.7% Slovakia

France 61.2 8.2

Belgium

Belgium 60.2 12.5 71.7%

67.3%

Sweden

59 13.2

Czech Republic Czech

45.9% Poland

31.2% Italy 58.4 10

Ireland

Netherlands 67.6% Cyprus 57.7 13.6

Lithuania

Spain

57.6 15.3 60.9%

33.7%

Switzerland 55.2 8.3 Latvia

61.7%

Denmark

41.8% Estonia 53.2 11.4

United Kingdom United

Estonia 61.8%–77.9%

Slovenia 51.5 4.6

Malta 49.3 3.3

48.5%–61.7% 40.8%

Luxembourg

47.5 8.7

Norway

42.4%–48.4%

Norway 46.6 5.8

45.8%

High 33.8%–42.3% Finland 44.6 6.5

Sweden

Austria 42.5 8.9

30.8% Low 30.8%–33.7%

Netherlands

41.6 10.4

Iceland

of their parents their of

Denmark 40.1 6.4 38.1%

low–high level of education of level low–high

Finland

Portugal 39.5 6

or social exclusion of children, children, of exclusion social or

Iceland 37.9 7.1 Difference in risk of poverty poverty of risk in Difference 14 Cildh Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe (30% children dependent three at and least adults two with households large or children) dependent with households average of 25.2% vs. (49.8% women mainly parents, single of composed are those exclusion social or poverty of at risk children of numbers higher with correlate which Households exclusion. social or poverty of at risk be to likely are household that in children the not or whether influencing factor afurther is composition Household MPOSITION C care). and education childhood early as (such services and welfare social accessing in difficulty experience to likely more be also might They employment. lower-paid in be to likely more be might countries foreign in born members Family Belgium. and France as such justice, social with concerns by strong characterised culturally and historically even countries in high, relatively are background or family’s origin the on based inequalities indicatingthat countries, high-income to middle- are all These France. and Sweden Slovenia, Greece, Belgium, Spain, arein found differences Higher migration. of types different to due Malta and Portugal Ireland, Latvia, Bulgaria, in only are observed countries foreign in born parents with Source: EU-SILC 2013 (Retrieved January 2014) January 2013 (Retrieved EU-SILC Source: GURE F o 40 30 60 20 25 45 50 65 35 55 10 15 0 5 i

child poverty shares). poverty child

Low 8: Ev 8:

2008 o

lution H

igh of

household AROPE (%) EU 27 EU (%) AROPE 33

20 09

per

parents 20 t +0.5 percentage points). points). percentage +0.5 only is levels education of higher with parents with for children shift the while 27 EU countries, the in points) percentage 5.8 (of lower levels education of with parents with children among a deterioration 8shows Figure children. with families disadvantaged most of income disposable the reduced –has work’ ‘out of support have state that reduced measures with –along crisis the market, job the of bottom at the those particularly salaries, devaluing By work. level limited and have alower educational parents whose for children opportunities and conditions living worsened and inequalities exacerbated also has It acrossEurope. poverty child to relation in children’s situation aggravated has 2008 in started which downturn financial and economic The 2008 10 he

afford it.” it.” afford can’t Ijust Ido! But them. go with out because Ican’t them want hang to with out have enough money. They Idon’t think my all friends lost because we don’t“I’ve ’

gap education downturn

bigger 20

11 le

v e – ls (2008–2012) ma 17-year-old girl, Sweden girl, 17-year-old k i ng 20 12

2e In quALITy – a root cause of poverty and social exclusion 15 12 k 20 wor ’ Again, children with 35 parents

11 per 20 %) EU27 y ( rt The increased trend of children at risk at increased children The trend of povertyof relation in social exclusion or toparents’ education is particularly worrying when its considering potential the intergenerational perpetuate to transmission disadvantage. of

e 10 v social exclusion in relation to parents’ education is particularly worrying when considering its potential perpetuateto the intergenerational transmission of disadvantage. Figure 9 highlightsinequality trends in relation to work intensity from 2008–12. parents working less than 20% of their potential faced an increase in the risk of child poverty from in 200871.4% to 75.5% while those with in 2012, parents working 55–85% of their potential seen have almost no changes. 20 po

of

k 34 ris

at

09 20 ildren h C ry low e lution

o (2008–2012) 2008 y v 9: Ev High i 5 0 disadvantaged families with children. reduced statereduced work’ of support – has ‘out the disposable mostreduced of income By devaluing salaries, devaluing By particularly those theat bottom the of market, job the withcrisis – along measures that have ntensit 15 10 70 55 75 35 50 65 45 25 20 60 30 40 80 i Fgure

Over the same period, where parents had attained tertiary-level education there was a change of less than 4 percentage points. Similar trends present are Malta,in Italy, Greece, Ireland, Cyprus and Latvia. The increased trend of children risk at of poverty or As illustrated inequality earlier, is generally associated with an increase in the risk of poverty or social exclusion. In Sweden, instance, for the risk of poverty or social exclusion among children with parents with of education levels lower from 42.8% rose in percentage2008 (ie, points). 16 to 59% in 2012 Source: EU-SILC (Retrieved 2013 January 2014) At risk of poverty refers only to % of children living in households with disposable income below 60% national median 3 Childcare and education – a right and a route out of poverty

Equal access to affordable and inclusive However, as Figures 10 and 11 illustrate, the childcare and free, high-quality education targets – agreed by the European Council is central to securing equal opportunities in 2002 – to provide childcare for at least 33% of and breaking poverty cycles (UNCRC, children under three years of age and at least 90% of Articles 28 and 29). The early years, from children between three years old and the mandatory birth to compulsory education, are crucial school age by 2010 – are far from being achieved in most European countries. for a child’s development. They are the years when capabilities and skills that will Currently, the European average for provision of last throughout life start to form. Access to 0–3 services is 30%. Only 12 countries have rates formal childcare and education is therefore above the 33% target for children aged under three essential to fulfilling children’s rights36 and years. In these countries, only 5% of children are providing opportunities for income security enrolled in childcare services of 30 hours per week 38 in later life. Access to affordable and inclusive or more, which obviously has an impact on parents’ employment, and therefore, earning possibilities. childcare and free, high-quality education Eleven countries – Romania, Poland, Slovakia, the also enables parents to participate in the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, 37 labour market. Austria, Croatia and Latvia – have not achieved 15% of coverage.

Fgurei 10: Access to early childcare (0–3) (%) 2011 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Italy Malta Spain Poland Latvia Ireland EU 28 ngdom France Slovakia Bulgaria AustriaCroatia EstoniaGreece Cyprus Finland i SloveniaBelgium Iceland Sweden Romania LithuaniaHungary Germany PortugalK Norway Denmark Switzerland LuxembourgNetherlands Czech Republic United

Source: EU-SILC 2013 (Retrieved January 2014)

16 3 ChILDCARE and education – a right and a route out of poverty 17

Roma Iceland

40 Denmark Belgium

Armando, ItalyArmando,

Sweden

Italy

France

ngdom i

K

Slovenia

United United

Estonia

Germany

Netherlands

Norway

Spain Austria

In many EuropeanIn countries, many children least households are poorer likely from toservices.benefit childcare from “Schools don’t even provide basic thingsprovide even “Schools don’t supplies to labs, run like toilet paper heating.” or EU 28 EU

childcare coverage between 2008 and 2011, a periodchildcare coverage between 2008 and 2011, whichfor there is no information available about the quality of childcare being provided. Similarly, increasing coverage does necessarily increasingnot coverage Similarly, make childcare more affordable. In many European countries, children from poorer households least are likely to benefit from childcareservices. These can include those whose parents little have or no work, from migrantare or minority ethnic families (eg, children),or Traveller or those whose parents have only primary secondary or lower education.

Ireland Portugal

(3–6) (%) 2011

Switzerland

Finland

Slovakia y Hungary

lovenia, Estonia Greece childcare , S

y K

Malta

earl Republic Czech

Latvia to Luxembourg

affordabilit

Cyprus

cess c Lithuania

and Bulgaria

y Croatia Romania, Poland, Croatia, Bulgaria and 11: A 11:

39 Poland

5 0 i Romania 15 10 70 55 75 95 35 50 65 45 25 20 60 85 30 90 40 80 Fgure 100 Lithuania the lowest coverage, have less at than 65%. When it comes to services children for from age three to compulsory education, Iceland, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, France, Italy, U Source: EU-SILC (Retrieved 2013 January 2014) and Germany coverage of 90% all have or above, although in Belgium, Sweden, France and Germany, less than 70% of services of 30 are hours per week more.or Qualit The quality of early childhood education and care is as important as coverage, including the number of hours that it is available. Many countries in Europe high coverage rates,have but offer childcare services of between hours one and 29 per week. As as well affecting quality, this alsoaffects parents’ employment possibilities. In general, there is little data available relating to the quality of childcareacross Europe, such as the training and qualifications of staff, child- to-carer ratios or integration with the school system. This is particularly concerning given the rise in 18 Cildh Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe access better jobs and earn higher salaries as adults. as salaries higher earn and jobs better access to them enable will that qualifications gain to likely more and schooling, abandon to likely less generally are schooling compulsory before care and education childhood early in enrolled Children opportunities. ERM employment and educational on impact long-term G a has services childcare of quality and coverage The L into future generations. generations. future into disadvantage perpetuate to potential the with off, well less being children and families to lead to likely is opportunities Conversely, fewer having educational on allocated to a child by the state. by the achild to allocated sum the than higher times one-and-a-half is that asum have spend to parents staff), school of payment the (excluding a child’s education to related cover expenses to order in the that, revealed Romania by Children SaveResearch the to non-enrolment or school drop-out. school or non-enrolment to pay, to afford lead can and cannot families whose for children disadvantage aclear create costs’ ‘hidden These staff. security private or equipment sports buildings, school of maintenance and renovation other transport, teaching materials), and chalk pencils, textbooks, as (such supplies tuition, have pay for to supplementary parents free, theoretically is education compulsory P hOTO: Francesco Alesi / Parallelozero - t

impact 42 Even though though Even 41

RL E not involved in further education or training. not involved education in further is but education lower secondary at most, attained, has 18–24 aged that population the of percentage the 12) outlines (Figure leavers school early of share The 12). (Figure early leave school 25% where Spain, –for example target the reaching from are far countries Many programmes. training or education level further in are and not lower secondary after leave school EU 13% around the in children of years, However, recent in improvements some despite 10%. than less to leaving school early reduce to is strategy 2020 Europe the of targets five the of One a compulsory school age. compulsory after even further decreases Attendance school. (7–15) age school attend not do compulsory at children Roma of more or 10% France and Italy Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, in example, For disadvantage. by educational affected particularly are children marginalised and lnerable V with special needs. with for children and background migrant or a Roma with for children higher are much rates drop-out u y school 45

lea 44 In addition, school school addition, In v in Naples Naples in education activity informal Italy’s Children the Save Children attending i ng 43

Fgurei 12: Early school leavers (%) 2012

Early leavers from education and Regions with highest early leavers from education training (of population aged 18–24) and training (>14.5%) Finland Mediterranee (FR) 14.6 8.9% 0%–5.5% Centro (IT) 14.7 Iceland 5.6%–10.0% 20.1% Nord- Est (IT) 14.7 Sweden 10.1%–14.4% Norge (NO) 14.8 7.5% 14.5%–21.1% Region Wallonne (BE) 14.8 Macroregiunea Patru (RO) 14.9 Norway 21.2%–34.4% Noreste (ES) 15.5 14.8% North East (- UK) 15.6 Estonia Yorkshire and the Humber (England-UK) 15.8 United Kingdom Denmark 10.5% Nord- Ovest (IT) 15.8 13.6% 9.1% Latvia East Midlands (England-UK) 15.9 10.6% Lithuania Macroregiunea Trei (RO) 16 Netherlands 6.5% Nisoi Aigaioi, Kriti (EL) 16 Ireland 8.8% Macroregiunea Unu (RO) 16.8 9.7% Poland Czech Republic 5.7% Wales (UK) 16.9 5.5% West Midlands (England- UK) 16.9 Belgium Severna i Yugoiztochna Balgariya (BG) 17.3 12% Slovakia Sud (IT) 19.3 5.3% Luxembourg Island (IS) 20.1 8.1% Hungary Region de Bruxelles- Capitale (BE) 20.1 Germany 11.5% Continente (PT) 20.2 10.6% France Macroregiunea Doi (RO) 20.3 11.6% Romania Noroeste (ES) 21.1 17.4% Comunidad de Madrid (ES) 22.2 Malta 22.6 Bulgaria Isole (IT) 25 Italy 12.5% Este (ES) 25.7 17.6% Switzerland Centro (ES) 26 5.5% Austria Canarias (ES) 28.3 Cyprus 7.6% Sur (ES) 28.8 Spain Malta Slovenia Croatia Greece 11.4% Regiao Autonoma da Madeira (PT) 29 Portugal 24.9% 22.6% 4.4% 4.2% 11.4% Regiao Autonoma dos Acores* (PT) 34.4 20.8% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% * Not displayed on map Source: LFS 2013 (Retrieved January 2014) 4 Inadequate and unaffordable housing – a poverty trap

Inadequate housing conditions represent “My family doesn’t even have access to another important aspect of poverty and water. We have to collect rain water which exclusion. An adequate living environment is dirty, and sometimes you find frogs in it. that is safe, clean and healthy is crucial to My sister and I can only have a bath at the children’s development, health, education and children’s day care centre, and it makes me social life. Children need a suitable and quiet feel really ashamed.” place to do their homework, play and invite 15-year-old girl, Lithuania friends home. However, families living in or The percentage of children living in households at risk of poverty are more likely to live in affected by housing deprivation – eg, a dwelling with a areas characterised by unhealthy and unsafe leaking roof, damp walls, floors or foundation, or rot living conditions. in window frames or floor – is 17% among the 28 EU members, with 15 countries equal to or above the In the EU (ie, excluding Iceland, Norway and average.47 Slovenia has the highest percentage (31%), Switzerland), the percentage of children living in a closely followed by Latvia, Cyprus and Hungary. In household that spends more than 40% of disposable Italy, Portugal and Denmark, nearly a quarter of income on housing costs (preventing parents from children are living in households affected by housing affording other activities that contribute to their deprivation. Lower percentages are found in Malta, children’s wellbeing, such as cultural and leisure Finland, Sweden, Norway, Slovakia, Croatia, Poland, activities) is around 11%. Greece has the highest Greece, the Czech Republic and Ireland.48 percentage (38%), followed by Spain, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Netherlands, Germany and As highlighted in Figures 13 and 14, the share of Portugal. The lowest rates are in Slovenia, France, children in unaffordable housing and households Malta, Cyprus and Finland, where the percentage is affected by housing deprivation is strongly related between 4% and 2%.46 to low household income (those living below 60%

Romania: A child in

children lives in a house

that has no basic facilities. the

e It is not a legal residence v

sa so the family of six is also : at risk of eviction. Ill health

h prevents her father P OTO from working.

20 4ade In quate and unaffordable housing – a poverty trap 21

per

Greece

49 Hungary

Slovenia

Denmark (%)

Spain Latvia

(2012)

Bulgaria Bulgaria tion

a Cyprus

Belgium

v

Romania status Germany y depri

rt Luxembourg

Romania Italy

e Republic Czech

v Netherlands Portugal

po Slovakia Germany Italy

y

b Portugal

housing

Poland Estonia y

b

(%)

Denmark

Estonia Netherlands Belgium

Latvia

ngdom

i Research in Denmark in that,Research shows due to increased rents, 0.4% families all of being evicted from withare children their homes can and every year be withconfronted homelessness. From the number people of 2002 to 2010, been evicted haswho doubled. have K

houses

Sweden Lithuania

affected United

France Hungary

Slovakia

Lithuania

Spain

Austria

Poland

Slovenia

Austria Croatia Ireland

households unaffordable

ngdom Ireland i K

in in

Republic Czech

Greece

United United

15-year-old girl, Denmark France Luxembourg ng Croatia ng i i

v v

Cyprus Sweden

li li

Malta

Finland

Malta Finland (2012) ot poor ot poor N N

ildren ildren

EU 28 EU EU 28 EU h h status

y Iceland 14: C 14: Iceland 13: C 13:

rt

Poor Poor e Norway

v Switzerland Norway 0 0 o i i “I came home from school and all my all and from my school “I home came packed things had My mum gone. were them all. sad.” so I was 10 10 70 50 50

20 20 30 60 30 60 90 40 40 80

Fgure p Fgure 100 Switzerland Source: EU-SILC (Retrieved 2013 January 2014) – Data for Ireland refers to 2011 All monetary incomes received from any source by each member of a household are added up. These include income from work, investmentsocial benefits and (all social transfers received in cash including old-age pensions). Source: EU-SILC (Retrieved 2013 January 2014) – Data for Ireland and Belgium refer to 2011 of national median disposable income). However, income). median disposable national of However, inadequate housing can also affect children who notwould otherwise be considered poor. 5 Children’s rights – the right approach to tackling child poverty and social exclusion

As we have seen in previous chapters, have experienced economic growth in recent years child poverty is a multidimensional problem. have seen the gap between rich and poor families It stems not just from low income, but widening. Poverty and exclusion deny children their from exclusion and a denial of children’s rights and, in doing so, limit their opportunities rights. According to the UNCRC – which to acquire the skills and capabilities that will every European country has signed and enable them to work their way out of poverty and contribute to the future wellbeing of society.51 ratified – every child has the right to fully develop their social, emotional, cognitive All European governments have a duty to fulfil and physical potential, and to an adequate children’s rights. Save the Children believes that standard of living, no matter what their family promoting children’s rights can mitigate the circumstances are.50 The UNCRC specifically consequences of poverty and, in the long term, reduce guarantees them the right to education, and prevent it. Below are some of the rights that healthcare, housing and protection, to governments and institutions must consider in their attempts to eradicate child poverty across Europe. participate in decisions that affect them, to play and leisure and a balanced diet, and “I thought all children in Norway had equal to be cared for in a family environment. rights, but it’s not so in my world. Some Moreover, in all actions concerning children, children are simply born into a poor family the best interests of the child shall be a and have to live with the poverty for the primary consideration. rest of their lives.” The EU’s Lisbon Treaty has strengthened the EU’s 19-year-old young woman, Norway commitment and provides that protecting the rights of children is an objective of the EU. Moreover, the Teh right to participation Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU guarantees the protection of children’s rights by EU institutions, (UNCRC Article 12) as well as by EU countries when they implement Children have the right to be heard and to participate EU law. in decisions that affect them, and can often provide important insights and expertise about their Poverty and exclusion deny children experiences that adults may not identify or prioritise. their rights and, in doing so, limit their They therefore have an important role to play in opportunities to acquire the skills and informing policy and influencing practical measures capabilities that will enable them to work to tackle child poverty. Children’s ombudsmen and their way out of poverty and contribute similar public and independent bodies that provide to the future wellbeing of society. impartial and independent complaints mechanisms can help in getting children’s voices heard. All European Europe’s economic downturn has led to a further states should also sign and ratify the Optional erosion of children’s rights. Even countries that Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the

22 5ildren Ch ’s rights – the right approach to tackling child poverty and social exclusion 23

and y 31) pla , ticle r 55 leisure

to which states that all children

56 (UNCRC A 31, especially girls, poor children,31, children

right

Participation activities leisure in is self-confidence,crucial to developing skills. civic social and and Governments activities leisure and need to subsidise affordable that are ensure they for all children. ulture h c Child poverty is often to linked socialexclusion, meaning that children and people young poor from or marginalised families cannot affordto take part in many of the leisure and cultural activities that better- off Children living in children remote enjoy. areas, children with disabilities and migrant children might opportunities fewer even have to participate. its At worst, as revealed in a recent Finnish research study, economic inequality can lead to discrimination by peers, exclusion and bullying. theIn February UN Committee 2013, on the Rights of the Child adopted a general comment on UNCRC Article raising concerns about 31 the poor recognition states given by to the rights contained in that Article, Te have the righthave to leisure, and play participation in cultural and artistic activities. The Committee expressed its concern the at “lack of investment non-existent or weak provisions, appropriate in protective legislation and the invisibility of children in national and local-level It was planning”. “particularly concerned about the difficulties by faced particular categories of children in relation to enjoyment and conditions of equality of the rights defined in Article with disabilities, indigenous children and children belonging to minorities, among others”. Participation in leisure activities is crucial to developing self-confidence, social and and civic skills. Governments need to subsidise leisure activities and ensure that they affordable are all for children. There also needs to be more research into the cultural and economic barriers that children prevent disadvantagedfrom socio-economic backgrounds participating in leisure activities that better-off children enjoy.

54

52

53 28, 29) education

ticles to

r right

Access to high-qualityAccess education is central to breaking poverty cycles. In the education years,recent however, and gap between a lower from children socio-economic a higher from those background has beenwidening. h Ensuring that all access children to high-quality, have free education and offering a greater variety of education and training opportunities, both formal and informal as as well after-school programmes, would enable more children from poorer backgrounds to theircontinue education. In recent years, the education gap between children and thosefrom a lower from a higher socio- economic background has been widening (see Chapter 3). Children socio-economic from lower families or who in socially live or economically disadvantaged areas less choice have of school and also are more They likely school toare leave early. more likely to face discrimination, bullying, and a lack of academic support and parental supervision. Access to high-quality education is central to breaking educationpoverty outcomes cycles. However, from both primary and secondary school highly are influencedfamilyby a child’s background, both the kind of education a child gets and whether or not she or he continues school at long enough togain qualifications. Education provides children with the knowledge, skills and qualifications necessaryfor future employment. In addition, high-quality education self-esteem children’s improves and self-confidence and enables them to contribute to a more cohesive stable adults. community as and Te (UNCRC A It is also essential that children and their families affected poverty by better are informed about theirlegal rights access to a child-friendly and have legal system. The EU can an play important role in promoting restorative justice models and child-friendly justice systems implementing by the Council of Europe Guidelines on child-friendly justice systems. Child on a communications procedure (OPCP), which will children give the possibility to complain to the UN if their rights been have violated and there is no solution to be found in their home country. 24 Cildh Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe 35 across the EU. the across institutions in children Roma of overrepresentation the confirm also family. his or from her Studies remove to achild decisions rolein implicit an play often deprivation material and poverty care, alternative in child a placing for justification as poverty exclude states member EU most though living in alternative care in the EU. the in care alternative in living children 1million estimated an are currently There states. member EU in violence domestic and children against violence increased to leading may be crisis financial and economic the countries, European in six and organisations(NGOs) non-governmental women’s provided byevidence helplines, shelters According to risk. at may greater be children cut, are services welfare when and pressure, financial increasing are under families when that suggests Research neglect. and exploitation violence, abuse, from protection to have right children the All E A (UNCRC T future lives”.future well as as current their during exclusion social and poverty of at more risk be to “tend neglect and exploitation violence, abuse, of are victims who children addition, In situation. the exacerbating be might children and for families services protection preventive in and cuts budget particular, current crisis – these numbers are increasing. numbers –these crisis economic the of aconsequence as –partly countries supervised and safe, and must meet agreed standards. standards. agreed meet must and safe, and supervised alternative, institutions must be regulated, closely no is there Where care. in children of numbers the in increase an to leading not is poverty that ensure to monitored closely be must care alternative entering for and referred children of numbers Europe, Across resort. alast is care residential that and option first the as family the within support provide governments that vital therefore is It exclusion. social and poverty of at risk are particularly life independent for an institutions h and

right 36) 58 61 r

ung people leaving care care leaving people ung Y to ticles o

protection 19, 34, 59 In a number of of anumber In 60 Even Even

57 In In at 350,000. higher much it puts research independent although 22,993, figure at the put statistics official Romania, to upper-secondary school. school. upper-secondary to have right not do the migrants irregular and childcare to have right not do Norway, in they the example, For education. to access them by denying children discriminateSome states against asylum-seeking accommodation. inadequate and temporary in housed be to likely more are also children migrant arrived Newly poverty. in living those among overrepresented being children migrant to lead and destitution cause seekers for asylum systems support of alack and migrants longer-settled some among and communities refugee among levels unemployment of High jobs. paid to access well- difficult more it make that barriers, language as such households, migrant to specific are more that factors are some there population, the of members by other faced those are also causes the of many Although 2). Chapter (see poverty of at risk most those are among background migrant However, a with children shows, research our as any of kind. discrimination without jurisdiction their within children all of rights the ensure to states on aduty places UNCRC the 2of Article A (UNCRC E d T 500,000 to 1 million children are affected. children 1million to 500,000 for example, Poland, and Bulgaria like Romania, states member EU in that estimate NGOs find work. to country European have moved another to parents their when ‘Euro-orphans’) or ‘EU-orphans’ called (so- parents fromtheir separated being children some to led also has acrossEurope mobility Labour another country.another in find work to order in them have left parents whose children and caregivers) or primary families their with or (alone children asylum-seeking including children, migrant facing issues specific the address and account into take therefore must exclusion social and poverty child address to Measures behind. left are who communities disadvantaged most and poorest fromthe children often is it country, whole h iscriminated

right 63 Although the phenomenon affects the the affects phenomenon the Although r

not ticle

against to 2) 2)

be

62 In In 5ildren Ch ’s rights – the right approach to tackling child poverty and social exclusion 25

P hoto: Francesco Alesi/Parallelozero In 67

ate u q

ade ng

i Children suffer the from 27) v 66 li an

of ticle to

r right

h tandard s stress, which can lead to a rise in suicide, depression abuse. psychological and turn, reducing poverty is a catalyst improving for health equality. Measures should, in particular, target marginalised and vulnerable children, suchas Roma children, migrant children and children with disabilities. More research is needed into the causes of health inequality and unequal access to healthcare. Te (UNCRC A the children right have Finally, to a standard of living that meets their physical and mental needs. Poor families more likely unsafe to are in unhealthy, live earnings, of Loss conditions. living crowded and increasing rents and rising fuel prices placing are many families Europe across in this position, leading to stress, ill-health family and even breakdown. It is the duty of all states to support parents and guardians who cannot afford to their provide children with an adequate standard of living – in particular with regards to food, clothing and housing. effects of the crisis on their parents. Studies shownthat have reducing health inequalities per 1% yearby could increase a country’s annual GDPgrowth rate 0.15%,by which means that investing in health can help reduce poverty.

65 24)

64 healthcare

ticle to

r right

h Naples: These children live in a very poor and difficult suburb of the city, called Soccavo. In the afternoon, they attend educational and run activities recreational by Save the Children Italy. Children living in poverty opportunities fewer have and resources to benefit from disease prevention and health promotion. Even if universal access to healthcare is guaranteed they find may it law, by difficult accessto general a practitioner or dentist because health of fewer services in disadvantaged areas, discriminatory practices, or thecost of medication other and fees. Increasing unemployment and poverty rates putting are parents under great (UNCRC A Inequalities health in and children’s access to healthcare remain high Europe, across and increasing are due to the economic crisis. Inequalities often start during childhood, last and widen during life, and can be passed on to the next generation. Children born into poverty higher at are risk of chronic diseases, and poor health can lead to the transmission of poverty across generations, which is strongly correlated to the social determinants health. of Te Health inequalities existboth between and within European countries. example, In for Norway, research shows that children from low-income families eat less regular meals less and exercise than their better-off peers, and 34% people of young from symptoms. depressive familieslow-income show There is also a correlation between financial problems within the family and risk factors related to drug use, crime, bullying and violence. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Measuring poverty solely in terms of “Those who don’t have any money mostly money provides only a partial picture of stay at home. We should start a youth the disadvantage and exclusion facing a centre in every suburb and every area, and growing number of children in Europe. organise activities and cheap travel.” Children are poor as the result of a variety 13-year-old boy, Sweden of circumstances – often a combination of A children’s rights approach entails addressing several. Their parents may not have enough every aspect of children’s wellbeing and a change disposable income to pay the rent or keep up in social policies. In practice, it means providing with mortgage repayments. They may live in more resources to expand and improve the quality inadequate housing, or be unable to access of affordable childcare and education. It means high-quality public services like healthcare, stimulating employment opportunities and improving childcare and education. They may not be working conditions, both in financial terms and in able to participate in their community or relation to enabling parents to achieve a work-family in social and cultural events. They may be balance. Social transfers targeting children must be physically unsafe or denied the security of increased in size and effectiveness. Their primary living in a stable and supportive family. aim should be to reduce inequalities and break the intergenerational transmission of disadvantage. Different socio-economic circumstances and Universal provision should therefore be accompanied histories make comparisons between countries by resources specifically for the most disadvantaged difficult. But what is certain is that there are children children. It is also important to ensure that social, living in poverty in all European countries, regardless cultural and leisure activities are affordable and of each country’s overall economic wealth – and the accessible for all children, regardless of their number is growing. The financial and economic crisis economic background. of 2008 has increased child poverty and children’s vulnerability to poverty in most countries across European institutions have a crucial role to play and Europe. Between 2008 and 2012, the number of can promote the timely collection of data, which children at risk of poverty or social exclusion in should include all dimensions of poverty such as Europe went up by almost 1 million, with an increase access to education, health and protection systems, of around half a million in just one year between 2011 and general living conditions. It should also include and 2012. the possibility for children to participate in decisions that affect them, their ability to access culture The poorest and most marginalised children have and leisure activities, and information concerning been hardest hit, which has widened the gap between risk factors for inequalities, such as being part of a rich and poor. Tackling child poverty means making minority group or having a migration background the right political choices, and these choices are or disability. available to both wealthy and poorer countries. As evidence provided in this report shows, tackling A paradigm shift is needed across Europe towards inequalities is one of the most effective ways to considering investment in children as a cost-effective reduce poverty and exclusion, as is adopting a fiscal policy at European, national, regional and children’s rights approach. local levels. Child poverty and social exclusion are a matter of children’s rights and should be addressed through a child rights approach.

26 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 27

P hOTO: Francesca Leonardi

towards

available Fund

all

of

Social

use

Commission’s

make

European

the

European

should

of

the

use

makers full

ecommendation Investing in Children: breaking esources in an effective in way order to achieve ocial inclusion and combating child poverty immediate positive and lasting change children. for the cycle disadvantage of developing by and implementing national action plans to combat and childprevent poverty and tackle inequalities s inequality. and r R today will deliver benefits society to as a whole and in– now the future. This means that many resources allocated to children should be viewed as an investment hence in society, as a part of the long-term structural deficit, rather than as a short-term cost. This implies that these costs are not counted as part of the stability pact. In order to promote this approach, budget transparency is needed, spending so on children should be visible and traceable in all budgets. We urge all EU memberWe states to: • implement • make • Policy

reducing principle

at

fiscal

a

aimed

be

cross-sectoral

a

actions

should

apply

and

should plans children

in

makers

strategies,

pproach in consultation with civil This society. nd preventingnd child poverty shouldbe developed t European, national, regional and local levels, a a approach needs to promote measures in all relevant policy exchange and sectors. Moreover, learning on policies and practice across Europe should be further deepened. a rights perspectivefrom a children’s and with an understanding needs and situations. of children’s Children must be given the opportunity to participate in all decisions affecting them, including the development, implementation evaluation and of policies. recognising that resources allocated to children e • Investment • Policy • All R COMMENDATIONS In order to reduce and child prevent poverty, urgewe the EU member states and Iceland, Norway and Switzerland and the European Union to take the following actions: Italy:Child playing at La Buona Tavola, a Save the Children’s project to tackle food poverty in Naples 28 Cildh Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe develop • prepare • develop • to: Commission We European the urge guarantee • strengthen • ensure • to: Switzerland and Norway Iceland, and states We member EU all urge ensure • create • the amount of spending on/for children. on/for spending of amount the p disadvantage of cycle the –Breaking Children in Investing ECRecommendation the of implementation the and inequality and poverty child on plans action p m justice. child-friendly on Guidelines Europe of Council i children marginalised and/or w children marginalised and/or for vulnerable particular in a ( and marginalised children marginalised and for vulnerable including inequality, and poverty ncluding for migrant children, as indicated in the the in indicated as children, for migrant ncluding above the relative poverty threshold) poverty relative above the nd support early childhood education and care, care, and education childhood early nd support rogress monitoring rogress governments’ European measure to rocess ith direct interventions towards vulnerable vulnerable towards interventions direct ith easurement of the multi-dimensions of child child of multi-dimensions the of easurement

an free adequate

and broad-based joint

annual equal

universal

high-quality disseminate

reports

access monitoring minimum

welfare

indicators on

to

education

information best

justice

income

and systems,

practices

to

evaluation for

for enable for

all regarding

coupled all families

children, and

children

a

full

commit • make • apply • to: states member EU and Commission We European the urge • to: Parliament We European the urge • exercise • organise • the Europe 2020 governance governance 2020 Europe the a and inequality poverty child combating towards instruments ECfunding relevant all of use full ensure and i post-2020 strategic policy priorities. EU’s the within inequality and poverty child of w m Commission’s Recommendation. children’s sectors across policy all rights promoting and for protecting responsibility explicit with Parliament European the in mechanism apermanent creating and initiatives parliamentary all in focus achild integrating systematically children’s of by rights protection the ensure poverty and inequality and poverty child of reduction the prioritise to governments European and Commission European the reminding – year each autumn in process 2020 Europe for the Recommendations Specific Country the on opinion annual their in poverty child of issue the recall n order to achieve the Europe 2020 objectives, objectives, 2020 achieveEurope to n order the n explicit priority in the European Semester and and Semester European the in priority n explicit ork in the best interests of children of interests best the in ork onitor progress on implementation of the the of implementation on progress onitor

a children

holistic

to

its an

specific

budgetary annual

and and

the hearing targets multidimensional

control reduction

on on

the child to

of

ensure reduction

poverty child

approach

EU poverty

to

funds

Appendix: AROPE indicator and research methodology

Poverty can be absolute or relative. Child Poverty and Disparities, launched in 2007, Absolute poverty relates to the basic needs explores the relations between child deprivations for survival. In Europe, poverty is usually in eight critical dimensions: education, health, measured in terms of relative poverty, nutrition, water, sanitation, shelter, information and 70 ie, against a general standard of living in income. In addition, the OECD has proposed a a given country, below which people are Better Life Index, linking poverty with the broader concept of ‘wellbeing’ in advanced economies, considered as unable to conduct a normal including alongside the usual measurements of civil life and to participate in ordinary economic, engagement, safety and life satisfaction.71 social and cultural activities.68 In its Europe 2020 strategy, the European Union has In most European countries, relative poverty is adopted a composite indicator to measure the risk measured in monetary terms, taking as a reference of poverty or social exclusion, the AROPE (at risk of point either the mean or median disposable income poverty or social exclusion). This seeks to integrate of households in a specific country and setting the other dimensions with monetary measurements ‘poverty’ line as a percentage of that average. The of poverty, highlighting ‘social exclusion’, namely choice of the threshold is often subjective. European deprivation and work intensity, and disaggregated by Union members and the European Commission gender, age, ethnicity, geography, and socio-economic generally use the 60% threshold to describe ‘risk status of the family. However, the AROPE still fails of poverty’. The OECD, on the other hand, adopts to take into account essential factors affecting the 69 the 50% of median disposable income threshold. non-monetary or ‘non-material’ wellbeing of children. However, relative income poverty lines have As a result, for this report it has been necessary to significant limitations. First, since they are based on integrate AROPE with other existing indicators of specific countries’ standards of living, it is difficult children’s multidimensional poverty, such as housing to make comparisons between countries. More conditions and access to early childhood education importantly, they can change over time as a result and care.72 Moreover, analysis of AROPE trends has of national economic development patterns. been enriched with data on GDP and inequalities in order to make comparisons across countries Second, although income might be considered as more relevant. a proxy of material wellbeing, it fails to capture the complexity of poverty. Other factors – such Finally, the effects of the crisis in child poverty as environment and housing conditions, education, and changes in AROPE from 2008 to 2012 have health status, access to public services, culture and been compared with outcomes deriving from the leisure, physical security, family and social relations – indicator measuring the percentage of children in define basic needs and standards of adequate living households with disposable income below 60% of to fulfil individuals’ human rights. the national median value anchored at 2008 (adjusted for inflation for all consecutive years). This has been In this respect, since the , other measurements done in order to consider the potential influence of such as the UNDP Human Development Index time (and socio-economic development) changes in have emerged, focusing on multi-dimensional median threshold (eg, not excluding children living in aspects of poverty. UNICEF’s Global Study on households with a low but stable income).

29 30 Cildh Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe Parents’ • Children • by: Disaggregated once. only are counted sub-indicators several in 18. of present age Children the below for individuals data by extrapolating obtained is for children AROPE 3) 2) 1) sub-indicators: three of composed is exclusion social or poverty of at risk people of EU’s measurement AROPE The o A AROPE: Work • Parents’ •

r

f used. is median) national (60% threshold poverty the below income disposable with households in living 1) people sub-indicator only case, this In 85%). and 55% (between intensity high potential the of 20% below is work intensity years. from0–59 aged those among household the in years) (18–59 age working of p t a pay.cannot they which payments) loan or other instalments hire purchase bills, utility rent, or (mortgage arrears car, payment with are confronted who or or telephone television, colour machine, a washing like goods durable adwelling, of heating adequate day, second every the fish or chicken meat, involving ameal away holiday fromhome, annual aone-week expenses, payor for) unexpected buy to not choose than (rather afford to unable therefore durables, and strain economic of terms P year past the during potential their of 20% than worked less years) 18–59 intensity, where working-age (aged members P national median) (60% threshold poverty the below income P first and second stage of tertiary). of stage and second first level 6to 5to non-tertiary; and post-secondary and upper-secondary level 4to 3to secondary; oreign country vs. reporting country). reporting vs. country oreign o pre-primary education, primary, and lower and primary, education, o pre-primary nd above). nd eople who are severely materially deprived in in deprived are severely materially who eople low work very with households in living eople disposable with households in living eople ast year compared to the potential for members for members potential the to compared year ast

social

intensity

education country (below t

ris

e

x (percentage

18 k of c

level

lusion of birth years)

(level po

(parents

vs.

of v

adults 0

e work

to rt

born 2

y

V (18 done refers e

ry low ry

in years

a in

the

old

ILDHOOD e C Indicators • Poverty • by: Disaggregated 2) ATE 1) report: the in are used Two datasets separate c I 2) 1) Two are used: indicators separate nade ducation

onditions h below the age of 18. of age the below o disposable income above the threshold have ‘not poor’ while median), national of (60% d floor) or frames window or in rot or foundation, floors walls, roof, damp H costs) housing on income disposable of 40% than more spend H to education and training’). and education to ‘participation and attained’ or training education level of ‘highest questions the answered not have who respondents the excluding group, age same the of consists population total the in survey. the denominator preceding The weeks four the in training or any received education not have they (b) and 1, 0, 3c 2or short; (ISCED) of Classification Standard EducationInternational is have they attained training or education of level highest the (a) conditions: two following the 18–24meet aged who people to refers indicator the of numerator The training. or education involved further being in not and education lower secondary at most, 18–24 attained, having aged population the of apercentage as leavers E compulsory education for age the 3to aged for children other the 3years, 0to from aged for children one used, Two are indicators separate structure). private by or aby public organised/controlled centre at daycare childcare 4) and hours; school outside services centre-based at childcare 3) education; at compulsory education 2) equivalent; or school at pre- 1) education to: refer services Formal above week. and per hours 30 and 29 hours C isposable income below the poverty threshold threshold poverty the below income isposable arly school leavers – the share of early school school early of share –the leavers school arly btained by extrapolating data for individuals for individuals data by extrapolating btained hildcare – access to childcare services of 1 to 1to of services childcare to –access hildcare ousing deprivation (a dwelling with a leaking aleaking with dwelling (a deprivation ousing that (households overburden costs ousing q

status u

of

housing

–

care ‘poor housing

conditions

households’

and

for

are children

those

are

with

endnotes

1 EU 28 members 26.506 (million) + Norway 140.000 + Iceland 12.000 + 18 EU-SILC (2013) European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions. Switzerland 268.000 = 26.926 million. Eurostat, EU-SILC 2013 (Retrieved http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/microdata/eu_silc January 2014) Real GDP Growth Rate. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/ [January 2014]. Low work intensity refers to the ratio between the tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00115 number of months that household members of working age (18–59 years) [December 2013] who are not a student (aged 18–24) worked during the income reference 2 European Commission Europe 2020. http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/ year. Low work intensity is below 20% of the potential, high intensity index_en.htm [November 2013]. In 2010 the EU set five targets on between 55% and 85%. Child poverty in this case refers only to the share employment, innovation, education, fighting poverty and social exclusion of children in households with disposable income below the threshold of and climate/energy to be reached by 2020. Each member state has 60% national median. adopted its own national targets in each of these areas. 19 Social Protection Committee (2012) Tackling and preventing child poverty, 3 EU-SILC (2013) European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions. promoting child well-being. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/microdata/eu_silc 20 EU-SILC (2013) European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions. [January 2014] http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/microdata/eu_silc 4 Targets agreed by the European Commission in Barcelona (2002). [January 2014] 21 5 Save the Children Europe Group (2013) Position Paper: Investment in Eurochild and EAPN Towards children’s well-being in Europe explainer on Children 2014–2020 – Reducing and preventing child poverty in Europe child poverty in the EU. http://issuu.com/eurochild_org/docs/2013_child_ through a rights-based approach; United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) poverty_eu?e=5569316/2300156 [November 2013] Convention on the Rights of the Child webpage. http://www.unicef.org/crc/ 22 European Commission (2008) Thematic study on policy measures [January 2014] concerning child poverty. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ 6 European Commission (2013) Investing in children: breaking the cycle of search?q=cache:0z83cluB8FcJ:ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet%3FdocI disadvantage, Recommendation (2013/112/EU). http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ d%3D2042%26langId%3Den+&cd=1&hl=it&ct=clnk&gl=it [November fundamental-rights/files/c_2013_778_en.pdf [November 2013]. Also see 2013]; Social Protection Committee (2012) Tackling and preventing child http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1060&langId=en poverty, promoting child well-being. 23 7 See note 1. EU-SILC (2013) European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/microdata/ 8 See note 3. eu_silc [January 2014]. Risk of poverty before social transfers (pensions 9 All 28 EU members (including Croatia) plus Norway, Switzerland and excluded) and after refers only to the share of children in households with Iceland. equivalised disposable income below threshold of 60% national median. 10 Social Protection Committee (2012) Tackling and preventing child poverty, 24 EU-SILC (2013) European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions. promoting child well-being. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/microdata/eu_silc 11 European Commission Europe 2020. http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/ [January 2014] index_en.htm [November 2013]. In 2010 the EU set five targets on 25 The indicator ‘children in households with disposable income below 60% employment, innovation, education, fighting poverty and social exclusion national median anchored at 2008’ outlines similar differences, a shift of and climate/energy to be reached by 2020. Each member state has around 1 million children at risk of poverty from 2008 to 2012 in Europe adopted its own national targets in each of these areas. (excluding Croatia, and including Norway, Switzerland and Iceland), 12 European Commission (2013) Investing in children: breaking the cycle of with 2 percentage points increase by looking only at the 27 EU members disadvantage, Recommendation (2013/112/EU). http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ (excluding Croatia). fundamental-rights/files/c_2013_778_en.pdf 26 European Commission (2013) Annual Growth Survey 2014. http:// 13 EU-SILC (2013) European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions. ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/2014/ags2014_en.pdf [November 2013] http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/microdata/eu_silc 27 Eurostat Real GDP Growth Rate. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/ [January 2014]. The indicator used is the AROPE composed of three table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00115 sub-indicators. Children who are present in several sub-indicators are [December 2013] counted once. 28 Eurochild (2012) How the economic and financial crisis is affecting 14 Idem. children & young people in Europe. http://www.eurochild.org/fileadmin/ 15 GDP per capita in US$ ($30,000, $40,000 and $45,000 respectively) ThematicPriorities/Crisis/Eurochild%20updates/Eurochild_Crisis_ from World Bank (2013) World Development Indicators. http://data. Update_Report_2012.pdf [November 2013] worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD [December 2013] 29 Eurochild and EAPN (2013) Towards children’s well-being in Europe 16 Save the Children Europe Group (2013) Position Paper: Investment in explainer on child poverty in the EU. http://issuu.com/eurochild_org/ Children 2014–2020 – Reducing and preventing child poverty in Europe through docs/2013_child_poverty_eu?e=5569316/2300156 [November 2013]; a rights-based approach; European Commission (2013) Investing in children: European Commission (2013) Investing in children: breaking the cycle of breaking the cycle of disadvantage, Recommendation (2013/112/EU). disadvantage, Recommendation (2013/112/EU), http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/c_2013_778_en.pdf fundamental-rights/files/c_2013_778_en.pdf [November 2013]; Save the [November 2013]; Eurochild and EAPN (2013) Towards children’s well-being Children (2012) Born Equal. How reducing inequality could give our children in Europe explainer on child poverty in the EU. http://issuu.com/eurochild_ a better future, Save the Children, ; United Nations (2006) UN org/docs/2013_child_poverty_eu?e=5569316/2300156 [November 2013] General Comment 7: Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood, General 17 Assembly 40th session 2005, UN Doc. CRC/C/GC/7/Rev.1. http://www1. Social Protection Committee (2012) Tackling and preventing child poverty, umn.edu/humanrts/crc/crc_general_comments.htm [November 2013] promoting child well-being. 30 United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) (2012) Child Poverty and Inequality. New Perspectives, UNICEF, New York; Save the Children (2012) Born Equal. How reducing inequality could give our children a better future, Save the Children, London

31 32 Cildh Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe [January 2014] [January http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/microdata/eu_silc ‘participation to education and training’. and education to ‘participation and attained’ training or education of level ‘highest questions the answered not have who respondents the excluding group, age same the of consists population total the in denominator The survey. the preceding weeks four the in training or education any received not have they (b) and short 1, 3c 2or 0, ISCED is attained have they training or education of level highest the (a) conditions: two following the meet 18 24 who to aged persons to refers indicator the of numerator The 2014] [January http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/microdata/eu_silc promoting child well-being child promoting http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/c_2013_778_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/c_2013_778_en.pdf disadvantage of cycle the breaking well-being child promoting fundamental-rights/files/c_2013_778_en.pdf disadvantage gratuit%20costa.pdf [June 2013] [June gratuit%20costa.pdf ro/upload/p000600010001_Raport%20cercetare%20invatamantul%20 glance [March 2014] 2014] [March glance publication/2012/situation-roma-11-eu-member-states-survey-results- aglance at results –Survey 11 States Member EU 38 37 36 35 34 2013] [November docs/2013_child_poverty_eu?e=5569316/2300156 EU the in poverty child on explainer 33 32 Perspectives New Inequality. 31 40 39 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 fundamental-rights/files/c_2013_778_en.pdf [November2013] fundamental-rights/files/c_2013_778_en.pdf disadvantage do?dataset=ilc_lvho07a&lang=en do?dataset=ilc_lvho07a&lang=en comments.htm [November 2013] http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/crc/crc_general_ CRC/C/GC/7/Rev. Childhood Early in Rights [January 2014] [January http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/microdata/eu_silc http://www.unicef.org/crc/ [November 2013] http://www.unicef.org/crc/ approach rights-based a through Europe in poverty child preventing and 2014–2020 –Reducing [January 2014] [January http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/microdata/eu_silc Filer/SFI/Pdf/Rapporter/2013/1303_Udsatte-boernefamilier.pdf Filer/SFI/Pdf/Rapporter/2013/1303_Udsatte-boernefamilier.pdf do?uri=CELE Agenda 2020 European the to contribution Akey leaving: school early Tackling [January 2014] [January http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/microdata/eu_silc Investing in children: breaking the cycle of of cycle the breaking children: in Investing (2013) Commission European Child Poverty and and Poverty Child (2012) (UNICEF) Fund Children’s Nations United Tackling and preventing child poverty, poverty, child preventing and Tackling (2012) Committee Protection Social European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions Living and Income on Statistics Union European (2013) EU-SILC Investing in children: breaking the cycle of of cycle the breaking children: in Investing (2013) Commission European Towards children’s well-being in Europe Europe in well-being children’s Towards (2013) EAPN and Eurochild European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions Living and Income on Statistics Union European (2013) EU-SILC European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions Living and Income on Statistics Union European (2013) EU-SILC Idem. Når børnefamilier sættes ud af deres lejebolig deres af ud sættes børnefamilier Når (2013) SFI Idem. Salvati Copiii http://salvaticopiii. (2010), Invatamantul gratuit costa!. UN General Comment 7: Implementing Child Child Implementing 7: Comment General UN (2006) (UN) Nations United Position Paper: Investment in Children Children in Investment Paper: Position (2013) Europe Children the Save European Commission Communication COM (2011) final, (2011) COM final, Communication Commission European European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions Living and Income on Statistics Union European (2013) EU-SILC European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions Living and Income on Statistics Union European (2013) EU-SILC EUROSTAT, http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show. Idem. Tackling and preventing child poverty, poverty, child preventing and Tackling (2012) Committee Protection Social The situation of Roma in in Roma of situation The (2012), Commission European UNDP, FRA, , Recommendation (2013/112/EU). http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ , Recommendation (2013/112/EU). http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ . http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. X : 52011DC0018:EN:NOT 2014] [March Convention on the Rights of the Child webpage Child the of Rights the on Convention ; UNICEF , General Assembly 40th session 2005, UN Doc. Doc. UN 2005, session 40th Assembly , General . Investing in children: children: in Investing (2013) Commission ; European , UNICEF, New New , UNICEF, , Recommendation (2013/112/EU). (2013/112/EU). , Recommendation . http://issuu.com/eurochild_org/ Y o rk . http://fra.europa.eu/en/ . http://sfi.dk/Files/

...... 10/13. Oslo, NO Oslo, 10/13. 2014]; and this report. this and 2014]; [March childpoverty/report/child_poverty_final%20report_jan2010.pdf Union European the in well-being child and S cms/upload/file/life-sentence-20-june-2011.pdf cms/upload/file/life-sentence-20-june-2011.pdf Care Institutional in Children Romani Sentence: Life promoting child well-being child promoting the Council on Social Inclusion and Inequality. New Perspectives New Inequality. and New Development Human to Pathways Nations: of Wealth 2010. Real The Report Development Human (2010) (UNDP) Programme Development future abetter children our work abroad for left who parents their by home at left children of phenomenon the of analysis March2013.pdf [December 2013] [December March2013.pdf Family Database fi/handle/10138/37848?locale-attribute=en [in June 2013] June [in fi/handle/10138/37848?locale-attribute=en 124. https://helda.helsinki. health and security social in Studies life’, everyday promoting child well-being child promoting 54 53 52 EU countries. countries. EU six in NGOs and shelters, women’s helplines, by others among provided Women’sInternational/European Lobby. The study highlights evidence recession of atime at Union European the in exclusion social and 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 determinants/en/ http://www.who.int/social_ expectancy.” life and illness of risk his/her healthy, be to opportunity person’s a influence conditions These age. and live up, grow born, are people which in conditions “the as health 64 63 62 eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/098EN.pdf [March 2014]; TAR 2014]; [March eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/098EN.pdf Inequalities Cultural and Social Tackling 6:1096:FIN:EN:HTML 6:1096:FIN:EN:HTML systems training and education European in equity and Efficiency Parliament, European the to Council the to Commission from Communication the to document 2014] [March Alternative%20Care%20-%202nd%20Edition%20January2010.pdf Eurochild_Reports/Eurochild%20Publication%20-%20Children%20in%20 edition. http://www.eurochild.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/ Better Life Index Life Better Europe: an empirical analysis’, The Lancet analysis’, empirical an Europe: in responses policy alternative and crises economic of effect health public Erasmus University University Erasmus of Studies Social of Institute 501, International Series General Papers, Child poverty poverty Child (2010) Belgium Applica and Hungary Institute Research ocial Organization for Economic and Development Cooperation (2013) OECD (2013) Cooperation Development and Economic for Organization European Roma Rights Center and Bulgaria Helsinki Committee (2011) Committee Helsinki Bulgaria and Center Rights Roma European Does inequality in health impede growth? impede health in inequality Does (2010) MGrimm Children in Alternative Care – National Surveys –National Care Alternative in Eurochild (2010), Children An Invisible Crisis? Women’s poverty poverty Women’s Crisis? Invisible An (2010) OPietruchova and SRuxton https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/signature/2012/CTC_4-11d.pdf Organization for Economic and Development Cooperation (2013) OECD (2013) Cooperation Development and Economic for Organization http://www.dw.de/the-plight-of-europes-euro-orphans/a-17268091 Commission Staff Working Document, SEC (2006) 1096, Accompanying 1096, (2006) SEC Document, Working Staff Commission Born Equal. How reducing inequality could give give could inequality reducing How Equal. Born (2012) Children the Save M Hakovirta and M Rantalaiho (2012) ‘Economic inequality in children’s children’s in inequality ‘Economic (2012) MRantalaiho and MHakovirta http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/comments.htm http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/comments.htm National National (2008) Romania UNICEF Romania, Gallup Sociale, Alternative Tackling and preventing child poverty, poverty, child preventing and Tackling (2012) Committee Protection Social 2013) Ungdata. Nasjonale resultater 2010-2012. NO 2010-2012. resultater Nasjonale 2013) Ungdata. NO D Stuckler, S Basu, M Suhrcke, A Coutts and MMc and ACoutts MSuhrcke, SBasu, DStuckler, Tackling and preventing child poverty, poverty, child preventing and Tackling (2012) Committee Protection Social Idem. Europe: in Care and Education Childhood Early (2009) Eurydice P9 EACEA Joint report by the Commission and and Commission the by report Joint (2004) Union European the of Council The World Health Organization defines the social determinants of determinants social the defines Organization Health World The Y V o . http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:200 A ( Child Poverty Poverty Child (2012) (UNICEF) Fund Children’s Nations United rk; . http://www.crin.org/docs/Parents%20Migration.pdf . http://www.crin.org/docs/Parents%20Migration.pdf . http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/ [December 2013] [December . http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/ . http://www.oecd.org/els/family/CO2_2_ChildPoverty_ V A . . , Save the Children, London; United Nations Nations United London; Children, the , Save , Council of EU, Bruxelles EU, of , Council , UNICEF, New New , UNICEF, . http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/ . http://www.tarki.hu/en/research/ , 374(9686), 315–323 , 374(9686), Y . http://www.errc.org/ o rk rk K e e (2009) ‘The ‘The e (2009) , ISS Working Working , ISS , Oxfam , Oxfam V , 2nd , 2nd A R , UNDP, , UNDP, apport apport K I Child Poverty and Social Exclusion in Europe A matter of children’s rights

In Europe, almost 27 million children are at risk of poverty or social exclusion. Growing up in poverty can negatively affect children for the rest of their lives. It does not simply mean that their basic needs – such as food, clothes and housing – might not be met; it also means lack of equal access to quality services and care, and experiencing exclusion from activities with peers. Poverty is a multi-dimensional problem and inequality is not only one of the root causes of poverty, it is also one of its consequences. Child poverty and social exclusion are a matter of children’s rights and should be addressed through a child rights approach. With appropriate support, the current generation of children who are growing up in deprivation and exclusion in Europe will be enabled to reach their full potential. Therefore, investment in children makes sense – morally, economically, socially and politically. It is the only sustainable way of overcoming inequalities in the long term and of achieving a just and equal society as a whole. By publishing this joint European report, Save the Children wants to inspire a change in the perception of child poverty in Europe. We want to generate awareness of the scale and impact of child poverty – one of the principal sources of child rights violations in Europe. hildren photo: cover

savethechildren.net