EU Network of Investing in children: Independent Experts Breaking the cycle of disadvantage on Social Inclusion A Study of National Policies
Slovenia
This publication has been prepared for the European Commission by
© Cover illustration: European Union
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission may be held responsible for use of any information contained in this publication.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and should not be considered as representative of the European Commission’s or Member States’ official position.
Further information on the Network of independent experts is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1025&langId=en
© European Union, 2014 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Investing in children:
Breaking the cycle of disadvantage
A Study of National Policies
NADA STROPNIK INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH, LJUBLJANA
COUNTRY REPORT - SLOVENIA
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
Table of Contents Add title 2
Summary ...... 7 1. Overall approach and governance ...... 9 1.1. Policy framework, governance and monitoring ...... 9 1.2. Children's rights and involvement ...... 10 1.3. Policies for children and families ...... 10 1.4. Impact of policies introduced in response to the crisis on children ...... 11 2. Access to adequate resources ...... 12 2.1. Policies to support parents’ participation in the labour market ...... 12 2.1.1. The mothers' labour market participation ...... 12 2.1.2. Leave provisions ...... 13 2.1.3. Other labour market related provisions aimed at balancing work and parenting roles ...... 14 2.1.4. Early childhood education and care ...... 16 2.2. Policies to provide adequate living standards ...... 17 2.2.1. Child poverty risk and material deprivation ...... 17 2.2.2. Policies ...... 18 3. Access to affordable quality services ...... 20 3.1. Early childhood education and care and further education ...... 20 3.2. Health care ...... 23 3.3. Housing ...... 24 3.4. Alternative care ...... 25 4. Addressing child poverty and social exclusion in the European Semester ...... 26 5. Mobilising relevant EU financial instruments ...... 26 References...... 30
2013 5
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
2013 6
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
Summary1 The overall approach to the social inclusion of children in Slovenia and governance are satisfactory. For decades, Slovenia has had a well-developed family policy, aimed at a horizontal redistribution of income in favour of families with children, enabling the reconciliation of professional and family obligations, and providing equal opportunities to both sexes. The regulation of the parental leave and the early childhood education and care (ECEC) enables parents to balance their work and parenting roles on an equal footing. Policies supporting parents’ participation in the labour market ensure that work 'pays' for parents. They also support the employability and participation of single parents and second earners in paid work, supporting their reintegration after parental leave. A working environment is generally supportive as well. The female employment rate is high in Slovenia, so there are usually two incomes per family. Women remain attached to the labour market also when there are small children in the family. They usually work full-time, which is enabled by various family policy- and labour market policy measures. During more than one year of parental leave the earnings are fully compensated. Consequently, families do not suffer a decrease in income after the birth of a child. In addition to that, direct and indirect public transfers compensate for a considerable part of child costs. Cash benefits for families with children range from cash social assistance to birth grant, parental allowance (for parents not entitled to the parental leave and benefit), child allowance, and a large family allowance. A number of benefits are related to education (free textbooks, subsidised transport to school, subsidised school meals, scholarships, etc.). There are elements of family policy in the tax policy and the housing policy, too. Some family policy measures are designed or adapted for families with disabled children (the allowance for nursing a child, partial payment for lost income, etc.). There are also policies focused on children at increased risk because of multiple disadvantages (like the Roma children). The austerity measures, implemented since June 2012, have not affected families already experiencing poverty and social exclusion or at a high risk of becoming poor or excluded. The most vulnerable children (families with children) have been exempt from cuts in entitlements (family benefits, ECEC subsidies and state educational grants). The bulk of negative impact has been born by individuals and families with a medium (but in absolute terms hardly sufficient) income. The austerity measures will be in force until the year that will follow the year in which the economic growth will exceed 2.5% of the GDP, which may be a decade-or-so. Consequently, this may have a long-term impact on families’ budgets and their material deprivation in particular. Family policy provisions have kept the risk of child poverty in Slovenia at one of the lowest levels in the European Union. The impact of the household work intensity on the risk of poverty is considerable. Child poverty was not an issue in Slovenia because, until 2011, the risk of poverty was lower for children than for the total population. Consequently, there is no mentioning of child poverty in the National Reform Programmes (NRP) 2012-2013 (GRS 2012) and 2013-2014 (GRS 2013). These documents include austerity measures that are not aimed at achieving the national 2020 poverty and social inclusion target but will rather have an opposite/unfavourable impact on social inclusion.
1 Readers should note that the drafting of this report was completed in September 2013 thus it does not include an analysis of data or policy developments that became available after this date.
2013 7
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
The most recent data have shown that in 2011, for the first time, the at-risk-of- poverty rate for children in Slovenia (14.7%) (Eurostat) exceeded the one for the total population (13.6%) (Intihar 2012). An increase in the risk of poverty for children in 2010 and 2011 is indicating that the regulation of social benefits should be revised. In fact, two acts regulating social benefits were implemented in January 2012. The Social Assistance Benefits Act (2010) increased the minimum income, while the Exercise of Rights to Public Funds Act (2010), regulating the non-contributory social benefits, had made social benefits and subsidies more targeted and has resulted in a smaller number of family benefits recipients. The draft revisions of these two acts (Draft Act Amending the Exercise… 2013; Draft Act Amending the Social Assistance Benefits Act 2013) were under public debate until 19 August 2013, but will only have a limited positive impact. The ECEC is well regulated and organised in Slovenia. It is also widely available and affordable due to very high public subsidies. On the one hand, this enables the employment of mothers while, on the other hand, parent fees are not a heavy burden for family budgets. All children in Slovenia up to age 18, and up to age 26 if in regular schooling, are covered by compulsory (basic) and complementary health insurance. Basic and hospital-level health care capacities are geographically evenly distributed and accessible to everybody in Slovenia (MoLFSA, 2008: 74). Still, there are a small number of children who are not covered by health insurance. According to the 2011 Population Census, 81% of the Slovenian population was living in the housing owned by themselves or their household members (Dolenc et al. 2013: 44). This significantly alleviates the housing problem in Slovenia. Families with children have to wait for insufficient social housing and favourable housing loans are scarce. Due to a shortage of non-profit housing, means-tested rent subsidies are available also to those renting at market prices. Foster care has a long tradition in Slovenia. However, the number of foster families does not meet the needs for this form of alternative care in Slovenia. The most important project in the area of Roma education - the inclusion of Roma assistants into elementary schools – has been co-financed by the European Social Fund. The European Fund for Aid to the Most Deprived has been allocating food and funds to the most deprived in Slovenia since 2006. The European School Milk Scheme has been implemented in Slovenia since the school year 2004/2005. However, the implementation has been facing serious obstacles: a) administrative costs related to the scheme outreach by far the benefit resulting in a lower cost of the school meal, and b) the limitation of purposes for with the co-financed milk and dairy products may be used in school meals. The European School Fruit Scheme was introduced in Slovenia in the school year 2009/2010. Comparing the situation at the beginning and at the end of the school year, the independent evaluators (Lesnik et al. 2011) found significant improvements in the attitudes towards fruit consumption, knowledge about healthy eating behaviour, and the frequency of fruit consumption, and even more so regarding vegetables consumption. The most urgent recommendations for implementing the European Commission Recommendation on investing in children (EC 2013) in Slovenia are: . Inclusion of the issue of child poverty and social inclusion into relevant strategic documents and action plans; . Considerable improvement of an access of families with children to adequate social housing; . Considerable increase in the share of Roma children attending the ECEC programmes.
2013 8
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
1. Overall approach and governance2
1.1. Policy framework, governance and monitoring The overall policy framework for tackling child poverty and social exclusion and for promoting child well-being has been relatively good in Slovenia. In 1991, an independent ministerial department for family affairs was established, and in 1993 the Resolution on Foundations of the Family Policy (Resolucija o temeljih… 1993) was adopted. The Programme for Children and Youth 2006-2016 was adopted in 2006 with the objective “to use a broad public debate (…) to define the vision of the future of Slovenian children and youth and formulate the guidelines and measures for the vision's implementation” (Programme... 2006: 3). It includes ten programming areas that cover the following policies: health-, family-, education-, social-, special social care-, protection against neglect, violence and abuse-, illegal drugs protection-, free time activities-, spatial- and culture policy. The Child Observatory (a unit of the Social Protection Institute of the Republic of Slovenia) is in charge of monitoring of the implementation of the Programme's objective as a basis for its updating. Two-year action plans have been foreseen, but only one was adopted, and namely for the period 2009-2010 (Eurydice 2009),3 and it was evaluated by the Social Protection Institute of the Republic of Slovenia (SPIRS 2012).4 The draft Resolution on the National Programme for Youth5 2013-2020 (Resolucija o nacionalnem programu za mladino… 2013) has been in the Parliamentary procedure. It covers various areas, like education, employment and entrepreneurship, living conditions, health, etc. The National Programme of Social Protection for the Period 2013-2020 (Resolucija o nacionalnem programu socialnega varstva... 2013), adopted in April 2013, includes programmes for children and youth deprived of a suitable family life, programmes for children and youth with behavioural problems, as well as specialised programmes for psychosocial assistance to children and families. Among the Programme's aims one can find the prevention of inter-generational transfer of poverty, alleviation of poverty among families with dependent children, and enabling of a social inclusion of children. Currently, the Family Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities is responsible for the creation, implementation and coordination of family policy, including mainstreaming of children’s policies and rights. There are two consultative bodies to the Ministry: the Expert Council for the Family and the Expert Council for Social Protection. Both bodies include various profiles of experts (researchers, NGO's representatives, professionals, etc.) who discuss the Ministry's documents prior to and during public discussion and the Parliamentary procedure for their adoption. They also provide their expert opinion on issues raised by the Ministry. The children's and families' perspective is always carefully considered.
2 Readers should note that the drafting of this report was completed in September 2013 thus it does not include an analysis of data or policy developments that became available after this date. 3 The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is “concerned about the lack of an updated action plan to implement the Programme” (UN 2013: 3) that would enable its effective implementation. “The Programme and its action plan should be supported with sufficient human, technical and financial resources” (UN 2013: 3). 4 However, no report is available on their website. 5 The youth is defined as persons aged 15-29 years.
2013 9
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
A Child Observatory was established in 2004 to monitor the situation of children in Slovenia. An on-line database focused on children has been developed.6 The Government collaborates with the NGOs on a regular basis. Annually there are public calls for tenders for the financing of the NGOs' programmes. The NGOs are important providers of services and professional staff, both in terms of the implementation of programmes for families and children and the preparation of important documents, such as the National Programme for Children and Youth (MoLFSAEO 2013).
1.2. Children's rights and involvement A Deputy Ombudsman was appointed at the Human Rights Ombudsman’s Office in 2002 to protect the rights of children and youth (HRO 2013). However, by now, only a small number of applications were sent by children to the Deputy Ombudsman. The "Advocate - a Child's Voice" was established in 2007 as a two-year pilot project with the goal to develop a model of the programme for a Children's Rights Advocate that could be included in the formal legal system, thus ensuring its implementation at the national level (HRO). The head of the project and the main coordinator comes from the Ombudsman’s office. Following the discussion on the Deputy Ombudsman's Special Report in May 2013, the Parliament adopted a Recommendation to the Government of Slovenia on a separate act that would institutionalise child advocacy with an autonomous and independent legal entity (Recommendation related to… 2013).7 The Parliament also recommended to extend the “Advocate - a Child's Voice” project in the meantime (Recommendation related to… 2013). The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child was “concerned that the right of the child to be heard in legal proceedings and in the Social Work Centres is not adequately implemented in practice”, so it recommended Slovenia to "ensure that courts attach due weight to the views of the children concerned" (UN 2013: 7). In Slovenia there exist the Child Parliaments “aimed at encouraging children to express their own views through a democratic process” (UN 2013: 7). The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child “is, however, concerned that the child parliament project is run by civil society and therefore is not provided with adequate support, especially financial support to enable the programme to be sustainable” (UN 2013: 7).
1.3. Policies for children and families Slovenia has a relatively well-developed family policy, aimed at a horizontal redistribution of income in favour of families with children, enabling the reconciliation of professional and family obligations, and providing equal opportunities to both sexes. There is a relatively good balance between universal and targeted policies (see Section 2.2.2). Progressive universalism is applied in the case of early childhood education and care (ECEC) subsidies. Cash benefits for families with children range from cash social
6 The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child finds the data insufficiently disaggregated as regards the areas covered by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but also by age, sex, geographic location, socio-economic background, etc., "to facilitate the determination of the overall situation of children and provide guidance for the formulation of programmes" (UN 2013: 4). 7 The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended that Slovenia provides “the Deputy Ombudsman with adequate human, technical, and the necessary financial resources required for the effective implementation of the planned functions” (UN 2013: 4). Further recommendations are to “improve access for children and deal with complaints from children in a child-sensitive and expeditious manner (...), to launch awareness raising programmes among children on their right to file complaints directly to the Deputy Ombudsman, and to ensure that procedures are accessible, simple and child-friendly” (UN 2013: 4).
2013 10
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
assistance to birth grant, parental allowance (for parents not entitled to the parental leave and benefit), child allowance, and a large family allowance. Main measures that enable reconciliation of professional and family obligations and provide equal opportunities to both sexes include parental leave and parental benefit (earnings compensation), labour market policies that enable employment of parents with young children, and subsidised ECEC. The maximum period of continuous paid post-natal leave available in Slovenia is around 14 months, and a fully compensated leave runs for just over 11 months. There is an entitlement to ECEC from the end of parental leave available on a full-time basis in pre-school day-care centres, so there is no gap between the end of leave and an ECEC entitlement. A number of benefits are related to education (free textbooks, subsidised transport to school, subsidised school meals, scholarships, etc.). There are elements of family policy in the tax policy and the housing policy, too. Some family policy measures are designed or adapted for families with disabled children (the allowance for nursing a child, partial payment for lost income, etc.). Slovenia is one of five European Union (EU) countries with “constitutions which contain an anti-discrimination rules or equal treatment provisions that cover persons with disabilities” (Latimier and Šiška 2011: 28). There are also policies focused on children at increased risk because of multiple disadvantages. Policies focusing on the Roma children are mainly in the area of education. The Strategy on Education of Roma was adopted in 2004 and amended in 2011 (MES 2004 and 2011).8
1.4. Impact of policies introduced in response to the crisis on children By the mid-2012 in Slovenia, social consequences of the crisis were almost exclusively experienced by the unemployed and their families. The intervention measures had been very mild, particularly considering the extent of the crisis. Important austerity measures with mostly immediate impact and non-evaluated social impact have been implemented since June 2012 (Public Finance Balance Act 2012). The levels of most family cash benefits, subsidies and paternity/parental leave wage compensation, as well as income ceiling for entitlement, were lowered. However, the Exercise of Rights to Public Funds Act (2010), implemented in January 2012 and regulating the non-contributory social benefits had already made social benefits and subsidies more targeted.9 It introduced the same definitions of a family household and income to be applied when assessing the entitlement to and the level of various benefits. It also set the order in which benefits are being claimed: child allowance first, then cash social assistance, followed by other benefits. Some families do not qualify for cash social assistance after child allowances are added to their income. The fact that children from the most deprived families - those receiving cash social assistance - do not necessarily qualify for child allowances is particularly unacceptable and unjust. The shifts in the Slovenian policies, including austerity measures, generally have not affected persons already experiencing poverty and social exclusion or at a high risk of becoming poor or excluded. Family benefits and paternity/parental leave wage compensations have not changed for those with a per capita income at or below
8 Two projects focused on the Roma deserve special attention as well: "Successful integration of Roma children into education" (in 2008-2011 and 2011-2014) and "Increasing the Social and Cultural Capital in Areas populated by members of the Roma Community" (in 2010) (UN 2013: 2). 9 For more on the impact of both acts see Section 2.2.2.
2013 11
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
42%/53%/64%10, depending on the kind of benefit, of the average wage in Slovenia. The bulk of negative impact has been born by families with a medium income. A comprehensive evaluation of individual and joint impact of the social benefits reform and the austerity measures, particularly for families with children, has not been performed. A rough evaluation, mostly based on the change in the number of beneficiaries, induced revisions of the regulation. In the Draft Act Amending the Exercise of Rights to Public Funds Act (2013) that was in public debate until 19 August 2013, the income and property criteria for entitlement are proposed to be somewhat loosened and the minimum income for children in single parent families increased. Consequently, more persons will be entitled to cash social assistance and family benefits, and some will be entitled to higher benefits. Further improvements are promised to follow in 2014, based on the rough estimate of unintended consequences of the current act. The overall approach to the social inclusion of children in Slovenia and governance are satisfactory. The Slovenian approach and governance generally match those advocated in the European Commission Recommendation on investing in children (EC 2013). Regular and systematic links have been developed between policy areas of high relevance to the social inclusion of children. Children’s policies and rights have been mainstreamed into key policies and strategic documents (for instance, the National Programme for Children and Youth and the National Programme of Social Protection). Through mechanisms adapted to their age, children are consulted on relevant policies that affect their lives. The Exercise to Public Funds Act (2010) has caused some problems in the exercising of the right to social benefits, particularly through the order in which the benefits have to be claimed and the definition of household income and property, but some revisions have been proposed and the others are promised to follow in 2014.
2. Access to adequate resources
2.1. Policies to support parents’ participation in the labour market
2.1.1. The mothers' labour market participation For almost sixty years, Slovenia has been a country with a high female employment rate. This has not been only due to professional aspirations of women, but has also to do with the need arising from the relation between wages and the costs of living. Two wages are still needed for a decent standard of living of a three- or a four-member family, so women are stimulated to enter the labour market and not to leave it after childbirth (Stropnik and Šircelj, 2008: 1034). After parental leave, a great majority of women continue to work full-time. Only 8.5% of the employed women aged 25-49 years worked part-time in 2012 (Eurostat 2013a).11 In 2009, three quarters of single parents were employed full time, and only 5 per cent of lone parents did not participate in the labour market (Chzhen and Bradshaw 2012: 491). In 2012, the employment rate for women aged 15-64 years with a child aged 0-6 years was 82.4% (Eurostat 2013b). The employment impact of parenthood – defined as the difference in percentage points in employment rates (age group 20-49) without the presence of any children and with presence of a child aged 0-6 – is even negative for women in Slovenia, which was the only such case in the EU in 2008 and 2009. In 2009, the employment rate of women aged 20-49 with a child aged 0-6 was by 3.7
10 In absolute terms, this was € 414.70/€ 523.32/€ 631.93 in 2012 (SI-Stat Data Portal). 11 In 2011 and 2012, 12.2% of all employed women aged 15-64 worked part-time (Eurostat 2013b).
2013 12
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
percentage points higher than the employment rate of women aged 20-49 without any child (EC 2010a: 62). Apart from the aforementioned reasons, this is, in our view, the consequence of two more facts: (1) the tendency to prolong studies until the late twenties, which keeps young childless women out of the labour market, and (2) available and affordable ECEC services for children from the age of 11 months (Stropnik 2011a). The impact of the household work intensity on the risk of poverty is very high. For instance, in 2011 in Slovenia, the poverty risk for households with at least one dependent child was at 3.5% for households with very high work intensity (0.85-1), 34.0% for households with a medium work intensity (0.45-0.55) and as high as 78.6% for households with a very low work intensity (0-0.2) (Eurostat).
2.1.2. Leave provisions Since 1986 there have been 105 days of maternity leave and 260 days of parental leave,12 to which 90 days of paternity leave were gradually added in 2003-2005. Up to 75 days of the parental leave may be taken while the child is below eight years of age. Fathers are obliged to use at least 15 days of the paternity leave in the child's first six months, while the remaining 75 days can be used until the child is three years old. To be entitled to income compensation, the person must be insured just prior to the first day of the leave, or for at least 12 months in the last three years before the start of the individual part of the leave. During maternity leave, parental leave, and the first 15 days of paternity leave, income compensation amounts to 100% of the average monthly gross wage of the entitled person during the 12 months prior to the leave, or the average basis from which the parental leave contributions were paid. The minimum wage compensation is set at 55% of the minimum wage and the maximum one at 2.5 times the average wage in Slovenia (the upper limit is not applied to the compensation during maternity leave). The rest of 75 days of the paternity leave are without net earnings compensation but with social security contributions (based on the minimum wage) paid from the state budget. Since June 2012 and until the year that will follow the year in which the economic growth will exceed 2.5% of the GDP, the parental leave- and the paternity leave wage compensations are decreased to 90% of the basis if that basis is € 763.06 and over. The ceiling is also lowered from 2.5 times to 2 times the average wage in Slovenia (Public Finance Balance Act 2012). About 80% of fathers took up to 15 days of fully compensated paternity leave in 2009-2010 and about 78% in 2011, but only 21% of leave takers took more than 15 days in 2010 and 2011 (Stropnik 2013: 5). The 2010 survey (Rakar et al. 2010) has shown that about a fifth of the fathers had not taken more days of the paternity leave because of the risk of losing their jobs (employees) or work (the self-employed). If the employers, particularly those in the private sector, were not in favour of their male employee’s absence, fathers tended to deprive themselves - and indirectly their children as well - of that entitlement; about 27% of fathers in the sample acted so. This is a particularly sensitive issue during the economic recession or crisis. The father's entitlement to the parental leave is effective from 1975, but the fathers hold an individual right only from 2002: the parental leave is the right of either of the parents who have to agree in written on how to take it. In 2008-2010 about 6% of fathers took a part of the parental leave, 6.8 in 2011 (Stropnik 2013: 6) and 5% in
12 The parental leave is extended by 30 days if – at the birth of a child – the parents involved are already bringing up at least two children below the age of eight; by 60 days if they are bringing up three children; and by 90 days if they are bringing up four or more children.
2013 13
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
201213, as compared to only 0.6% in 1999. This shift may be attributed to a higher awareness of the fathers’ rights following the introduction of paternity leave in 2003. Considering the full wage compensation during the parental leave, the reasons for a participation of fathers as low as this may be found in the traditional division of tasks within the family, attitudes in the society, the absence of a positive image attributed to the father who assumes more family responsibilities, and employers' expectations and demands as concerns their male employees (Rener et al. 2005; Stropnik 2005; Stropnik and Šircelj 2008: 1043). A Draft Parental Protection and Family Benefits Act (2013) - that was under public debate till 2 August 2013 - foresees a non-transferrable father's month (30 days) within the current parental leave. This is aimed at encouraging the fathers' more active involvement in family life. Paternity leave would be limited to 15 fully compensated calendar days, while the rest of 75 days would be cancelled. However, there has been an opposition to these revisions in the public and even within the coalition government. According to the same draft act, adoptive parents should enjoy the same rights regarding the maternity-, paternity- and parental leave as other parents. Currently, the adoption leave is shorter (150 calendar days for a child aged 1-4 years) (Parental Protection… 2001).
2.1.3. Other labour market related provisions aimed at balancing work and parenting roles There are flexible working provisions for parents of young children. Breastfeeding mothers who work full time have the right to a break during working time lasting not less than one hour a day (Employment Relationships Act 2013: Article 188). According to the Draft Parental Protection and Family Benefits Act (2013: Article 49), a breastfeeding allowance would be introduced in Slovenia for the first time. In the first nine months after childbirth it would amount to a proportional part of the minimum wage. After that, up to the child's age of 18 months, the mother would only be entitled to the social security contributions payment based on the minimum wage for a proportional part of the working time. According to the Parental Protection and Family Benefits Act (2001), a parent who is taking care of a child below the age of three years, or of a child below the age of 18 years with a severe physical disability or a moderate or severe mental disability, has the right to work part time (at least half of full-time working hours). There is no payment, but social security contributions based on the minimum wage are paid for the hours not worked. A parent who is taking care of two children may extend this right until the younger child reaches the age of six years. The total number of persons combining part-time employment with care of a child accounted for 3.6% of all employed women aged 25-49 (Eurostat; MoLFSA 2013a).14 The new Pension and Disability Insurance Act (2012: Article 157) has introduced incentives for employers to employ mothers with children younger than three years. In the case of first permanent employment of such person, if that person remains with the same employer for an uninterrupted period of at least two years, the social security contributions will be refunded, amounting to 50% of the contributions paid by the employer for the first year and 30% for the second year.
13 Informal information provided by the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. 14 Of course, persons combining work and childcare were not necessarily women aged 25-49.
2013 14
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
According to the Employment Relationships Act (2013: Article 182), employed parents enjoy special protection and the employer must enable the employees to easily reconcile their family and employment duties. Parents of school-age children have a right to take at least a week of annual leave during school holidays (Article 163). The employee may propose a change in the work schedule in order to reconcile professional and family life, and the employer has to provide his arguments in written, taking into account the needs of the work process (Article 148). There is an explicit definition of telework as a special category of homeworking (Article 68). Tele(home)workers are guaranteed the same rights as those enjoyed by the company- based employees (Article 69). According to the results of the 2010 LFS ad-hoc module on reconciliation between work and family life, 63% of employees aged 15-64 had a possibility to vary start and/or stop of the working day for family reasons, and 47% could take a whole day off for family reasons (Eurostat 2013b). Employment and labour market, and reconciliation of work and family responsibilities, were chapters of the Social Agreement for the Period 2007-2009 (2007: 16-18 and 30-31).15 In the chapter on employment and labour market, the government's tasks included: opening of possibilities and stimulating a greater use of available flexible employment arrangements (part-time work, flexi-workplace, working from home and telework) while ensuring an appropriate balance between the flexibility and the security of employment; promoting equal opportunities of women and men in employment, education and training and the reconciliation of work and family life; and promoting of different forms of work, including the flexible working hours, which allow for career development, balance between work and family and balance between flexibility and security. The employer associations’ tasks included: enforcing the gender equality at work, in employment, training and reconciliation of the family and work responsibilities; and pursuing employment that is friendly to young mothers/families. The trade unions’ tasks include requesting all that. In the chapter on reconciliation of work and family responsibilities, the government's tasks included encouraging of flexible working hours, providing conditions for care of dependant family members, encouraging fathers to take parental and paternity leave, encouraging the introduction of pre-school child-care centres' flexible opening hours, etc. All partners had the tasks related to the implementation of the Family-Friendly Employer certificate. The Slovenia’s Development Strategy for the period 2006-2013 (Šušteršič, Rojec and Korenika 2005) foresees a more flexible labour market as a characteristic of a new social development model. This is to be achieved also through: (1) a more flexible employment and employment relationships “(annual calculation of hours worked, part- time work, flexi-space, working at home, telework and other atypical types of work)”, and (2) facilitating the balancing of work and family (family-friendly policies, adjustment of the patterns related to workplace and work culture, allowing the distribution of hours worked over one’s total active life, etc.) (pp. 38-39). The Resolution on the National Programme for Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, 2005-2013 (2005), includes equal opportunities for women and men in matters of employment and work, and reconciliation of professional and private life and family responsibilities of employed women and men, among the strategic objectives of the gender equality policy. “Reconciliation of professional and private life is one of the most important conditions for the implementation of equal opportunities for women and men in the society, particularly in the employment and labour market”. The »mechanisms facilitating the reconciliation of family and professional responsibilities (…) should be established at the level of employers…«.
15 This is the last Social Agreement concluded so far.
2013 15
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
There are 51 Collective Labour Agreements in Slovenia, and they differ according to the space devoted to work arrangements. A general wording is characteristic for all these Agreements. They do not specify new forms of flexible work arrangements, like telework, but are rather limited to standard forms of work arrangements, including flexi-time. There are also Collective Labour Agreements, like the one for the public sector, that focus on pay and in-work benefits only, and do not include any article on work arrangements or working time (Stropnik 2011b). The “Family-Friendly Enterprise” certificate was introduced in Slovenia in 2007 as the result of the Development Partnership established under the Community Initiative Project EQUAL (Stropnik 2010b). In the first round, the “Family-Friendly Enterprise” basic certificates were awarded to 32 enterprises16 employing over 20,000 persons. A total of 305 measures for easier reconciliation of work and family were selected for implementation, i.e. an average of 9.5 measures per enterprise, thus far exceeding the minimum of 3 measures required to obtain the certificate. The most popular measures belonged to the area of information and communication policy. The second most popular group of measures was related to the working time (a child time bonus, flexible time of arrival to work, etc.). Telework or part-time work from home prevailed among the measures related to the workplace. Frequently selected measures from the other (four) areas included holiday bonus for annual leave dependant also on the number of children, and children in enterprise,17 etc. In the following years, the number of enterprises with a basic certificate was increasing, while some enterprises fulfilled the criterion of continuity that qualified them for a permanent certificate. Since 2010, the project has been co-financed in the framework of the PROGRESS Programme of the European Union. Over € 1 million were allotted to it for the period 2010-2015, of which the EU will contribute 85% and Slovenia 15%. It has been planned that 190 additional enterprises would obtain the certificate in that period (Turk 2011). The “Family-Friendly Enterprise” certificate was a significant novelty in the Slovenian business environment. The project launched a discussion in the Slovenian society about the corporate social responsibility towards the employees. It increased awareness of the need for solving the problem of reconciliation of professional and family duties of employees with (small) children in the context of the corporate responsibility towards the employees. The “Family-Friendly Enterprise” certificate has been included in Slovenia’s strategic documents and regulation. For instance, the implementation of the certificate is one of the measures of the Resolution on the National Programme for Equal Opportunities for women and men in 2005-2013 (adopted by the Slovenian Parliament in October 2005). It was also present in the Social Agreement for the Period 2007-2009 (2007) and in the mid-term programme of the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs.
2.1.4. Early childhood education and care From the end of parental leave (when the child is just over 11 months old) there is an entitlement to ECEC available on a full-time basis in pre-school day-care centres that comprise nursery and kindergarten classes. So there is no gap between the end of leave and an ECEC entitlement. ECEC is both available and affordable. ECEC is the subject of Section 3.1.
16 Among them there were large companies, multinationals and SMEs representing different industries, as well as public sector organisations. Their size was in the range between 10 and 9,458 employees. 17 Exceptionally and for a short-term, the employees may bring their children to work. For these cases, a separate and adequately equipped working area is available.
2013 16
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
As regards the reconciliation of work and family, the issue of childcare centres’ working hours has been raised. They are not sufficiently adapted to those of the parents: most centres close between 4.00 and 4.30 p.m. (some in urban centres close at 5.00 p.m.), while parents tend to work ever longer in the afternoon. Consequently, the parents are under continuous stress, particularly if there is no other person to collect the child in the afternoon. In the 2005 survey conducted among the population aged 22-35 years, 65% of the respondents opted for childcare centres to remain open till 5 or 6 p.m. About a third wished to have childcare centres open also over week- ends (Kanjuo Mrčela and Černigoj Sadar 2007).
2.2. Policies to provide adequate living standards
2.2.1. Child poverty risk and material deprivation Family policy provisions have enabled a continuous full-time employment of mothers and (together with other transfers to families with children) have kept the risk of child poverty in Slovenia at one of the lowest levels in the European Union. The data show an increase in the risk of poverty among children in 2010 and 2011 (based on the 2009 and 2010 income): from 11.2% in 2009 to 12.6% in 2010 and 14.7% in 2011. In 2011, for the first time, the at-risk-of-poverty rate for children in Slovenia exceeded the one for the total population (13.6%) (Intihar 2012).18 However, the at- risk-of-poverty rate still remains lower for households with dependent children (12.1% in 2011) than for those without dependent children (15.5%) (Eurostat). The at-risk-of- poverty rate is considerably higher for households of single persons with dependent children (30.8% in 2011) than for households of two adults with two, and three or more dependent children (10.7% and 18.2%, respectively), and particularly compared to households of two adults with one dependent child (9.3%) (Eurostat). An aggravation of the situation of families with children is also evident from the Europe 2020 indicator. The proportion of persons below 18 years of age who are at risk of poverty and social exclusion has increased from just over 15% in the years 2008-2010 to 17.3% in 2011. However, the same indicator for the total population has been by several percentage points higher (e.g., 19.3% in 2011) (SI-Stat Data Portal 2013). The relative position of children (families with children) has been aggravating because of a high unemployment among people in active age. An increase in the risk of poverty for children is an important signal that should be taken seriously. The regulation of social benefits should be revised accordingly and the burden of austerity measures reallocated. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, too, has recommended that resources for children are secured particularly during a time of financial crisis (UN 2013). An efficient targeting and a relatively high level of benefits redistributing income in Slovenia significantly reduce poverty and income inequality (Kump and Stropnik 2009; Stropnik 2010a). The effectiveness of social transfers in Slovenia is evident from a considerable difference between pre-transfer and post-transfer risk of poverty. The impact of social transfers on the alleviation of the poverty risk has been higher for children (12-13 percentage points in the years 2008-2011) than for the total population (around 11 percentage points) (SI-Stat Data Portal). Research has shown that, because of social transfers, more than half (57%) of children in Slovenia at risk of poverty before social transfers were pulled out of relative poverty in 2007 - more
18 Data on the number of Roma children at risk of poverty and material deprivation is not available because information on ethnicity is not collected in Slovenia (GRS 2010).
2013 17
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
than a quarter (28%) due to child-related (family policy) transfers alone (Stropnik 2010a: 8). The material deprivation rate has been lower for children (14.6% in 2011) than for the total population (17.2%) (Eurostat). The Roma settlements are generally kept below minimum living standards and unregulated, and Roma population’s homes are in a very poor condition (UN 2013: 14). Consequently, many Roma children lack access to adequate housing (particularly sanitation) and safe drinking water (see Stropnik 2011c for more information). Their situation has been improving very slowly.
2.2.2. Policies There is a comprehensive set of policies that provide adequate living standards in Slovenia, like cash social assistance, family policy, education policy, health care policy, housing policy, income tax policy, etc. The minimum income was increased with the implementation of the Social Assistance Benefits Act (2010) in January 2012. The weights differ for the first and further children (0.7 and 0.6, respectively), and also include an additional weight of 0.19 for upper secondary school students to compensate for their education-related costs.19 There is also an additional weight of 0.1 per child in a single parent family.20 Universal family policy measures include a birth grant, parental allowance (granted to persons who are not eligible for the insurance-based earnings compensation during parental leave) and a large family allowance. Prior to the temporary austerity measures implemented in June 2012, child allowance was almost universal (received by families with a per capita income below an average wage in Slovenia, that is, by over 85% of children below 18 years of age and over 70% of older children). At the same time, child allowances are efficiently targeted since they differ by income group and child birth order. It should be noted that child allowances are particularly high for lowest income brackets, both in absolute terms and relative to other social transfers and the minimum wage – and thus may cause an inactivity trap. From June 2012 until the year that will follow the year in which the economic growth will exceed 2.5% of the GDP, child allowances are 10% lower for beneficiaries with a per capita income over 42% of the average wage, and not received by those with a per capita income of 64% or more of the average. Childbirth allowance and a large family allowance are limited to beneficiaries with a per capita income below 64% of the average wage in Slovenia. All families are entitled to subsidised ECEC services. The subsidy is in the range from 23% to 100% of the programme costs for the first child included in ECEC. For the second child the parents pay only 30% of the normal fee for their income bracket, while the services are free for subsequent children from the same family co-currently included in ECEC.21 Since 2003, a partial payment for lost income has been received by one of the parents who had terminated employment or started working part-time in order to care for a child below 18 years of age with seriously disturbed mental development or serious
19 According to the Exercise of Rights to Public Funds Act (2010), implemented in January 2012, too, these students, if below 18 years of age, are no more eligible for the national educational grant. The Scholarship Act (2013) reintroduced educational grants for these students starting with January 2014, so the Draft Act Amending the Social Assistance Benefits Act (2013) consequently equalises the minimum income weights for children regardless of their status. 20 The Draft Act Amending the Social Assistance Benefits Act (2013) that was under public debate till 19 August 2013 foresees a doubling of this additional weight. 21 From September 2008 to May 2012 the ECEC was free of charge for the second child, too.
2013 18
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
motor handicap. The full benefit is equal to the minimum wage (or a proportion of it according to hours worked) (Parental Protection... 2001: Article 84). The Exercise of Rights to Public Funds Act (2010), aimed at aimed at achieving a more efficient management and use of public sources through a better regulation of social and family benefits and the introduction of a simpler (one-stop shop concept), transparent and a more just and targeted (based on incomes and property) social transfer system, was implemented in January 2012 and had an immediate effect. Due to a wider definition of own income, inclusion of child allowances into one’s own income (i.e. the basis for calculation of entitlement to cash social assistance) and taking the property and savings into account, the number of cash social assistance beneficiaries was 10% lower in January 2012 compared to December 2011 (Dremelj et al 2013: 15). The amount of cash social assistance decreased for roughly two-thirds of single-parent families. Around 28% of two-parent families with one and two children are no more entitled to cash social assistance, and more than half of those with three and more children are entitled to lower amounts (Dremelj et al 2013: 51). In half of all cases, a decrease in the amount of cash social assistance was (also) due to child allowances counted in the family income (Dremelj et al 2013: Table 17). This was true for around 92% of single parent families and around 98% of all families with three or more children (Dremelj et al 2013: Tables 20 and 26, respectively). Inclusion of child allowance in the family’s own income results in the situation where child allowance is used for covering the basic costs of living. Dremelj et al (2013: 29 and 43) argue that the current regulation leads to a problematic situation where children - through child allowance (that has its own purpose), and particularly in large families - maintain their parents. New regulation has also resulted in a smaller number of family benefits recipients. Both the Red Cross and Caritas blame the new regulation of social benefits for the aggravated economic situation of many families, particularly families with children, and a consequent increase in the demand for material support. We thus argue that cash social assistance should be the first benefit to apply for, and that child allowance - being a family policy measure - should be the second in order. It is the most urgent area for policy improvement. The austerity measures (Public Finance Balance Act 2012) have had an additional negative impact on the income of families with children through lowering the salaries and in-work benefits in the public sector, shrinking the social benefits entitlement, and decreasing the benefits- and wage compensation levels. The austerity measures have not affected families already experiencing poverty and social exclusion or at a high risk of becoming poor or excluded. However, without child allowances and a full ECEC subsidy for the second child22 the medium income families have suffered a considerable decrease in their disposable income and the risk of poverty and social exclusion has increased for them. The negative impact of individual measures summed up, these families are not (much) better off than the low-income families. The number of childbirth allowance beneficiaries decreased by 29% in 2012 compared to 2011, and the number of child allowance beneficiaries by 23% (Draft Parental Protection… 2013). The number of child allowance beneficiaries has decreased by about 20% after the implementation of the Exercise of Rights to Public Funds Act (2010) in January 2012 (MoLFSA 2012). The rest of the decrease is due to the additional impact of the Public Finance Balance Act (2012) that decreased the income ceiling for entitlement from 99% to 64% of a per capita net average wage in Slovenia23 starting from June 2012.
22 For more on the ECEC subsidy, see Section 3.1. 23 This meant a decrease in the income ceiling from € 977.52 to € 631.93 per month per family member.
2013 19
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
As to our knowledge, the (non-)take-up of cash social assistance and family benefits has never been the subject of serous research in Slovenia. The non-take-up of means- tested child allowance was a by-result of the research on the child allowance targeting efficacy (Edmonds 2005). It appeared that non-take-up was closely related to the size of the predicted child allowance. Households that anticipated a greater benefit from applying for the child allowance were more apt to participate. In the absence of empirical evidence there are many guesses about the Slovenians preferring to live in shortage rather than apply for social assistance. It seems that people are more likely to apply for in-kind support offered by NGOs, particularly Caritas and the Red Cross, than provide information about their financial situation and property to the Social Work Centres (Stropnik 2011b). In health care and education the children from disadvantaged families enjoy special attention (see Section 3). There are tax allowances (reduction of taxable base) for dependent children (Personal Income Tax Act 2011). For income earned in 2012 they amounted to € 2,436.92 per year for the first dependent child and € 8,830.00 for a dependent child requiring special care. These amounts were increased for each subsequent dependent child, and namely by € 212.32 for the second child, € 1,981.62 for the third child, € 3,750.93 for the fourth child, € 5,520.22 for the fifth child, etc. (Rules on determination of tax allowances… 2012). It is clearly evident from Chapter 2 that Slovenia matches the European Commission Recommendation on investing in children (EC 2013: 5-6) to a very high extent. The area for improvement is the adaptation of the ECEC services to increasingly diverse working patterns of parents. Otherwise, the most urgent areas for policy improvements are: 1. Revision of the Exercise of Rights to Public Funds Act (2010): cash social assistance should be the first benefit to apply for; 2. Inclusion of the issue of child poverty and social inclusion into relevant strategic documents and action plans.
3. Access to affordable quality services
3.1. Early childhood education and care and further education The ECEC is well regulated and organised in Slovenia. It is also available and affordable. The act regulating ECEC (Kindergarten Act 2005) requires that services should be available to all children and directs the municipalities to open additional classes or units, or to grant a concession, if the number of parents who have expressed interest to enrol their children into ECEC programmes is high enough to open at least one pre-school class. From the mid-1980s till 2008 the supply of ECEC was almost completely meeting the demand. In the school year 2012/2013 as much as 77% of all children of the proper age were included in nurseries/kindergartens: 56% of children up to age of 3 years and 90% of older pre-school children (Ložar 2013). Slovenia achieved the EU 2020 target in the school year 2011/2012 (Čelebič 2012). The majority of children enrolled in ECEC attend all-day programmes (98% in the school year 2012/2013) (Si_Stat Portal). The number of children from socially disadvantaged families included in the ECEC has been increasing (Čelebič 2012). All approved ECEC programmes provided by public and private pre-school day-care centres/providers are entitled to a public subsidy. On average, this amounted to 68% of the costs per child in 2011. The parent fee amounting to 80% of the costs was the maximum, paid by the parents of about 4-5% of children (these were families with a per capita income exceeding 110% of an average wage). Until 2012, families on social
2013 20
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
assistance were exempt from paying fees altogether. From 2008 to 2012, the ECEC programmes were free of charge for the second and subsequent child from the same family co-currently included in subsidised ECEC; parents paid only for the older/oldest child (and namely the rate for one lower income bracket). Income brackets for parent fees for ECEC services were revised by the Exercise of Rights to Public Funds Act (2010), implemented in January 2012. A maximum parent fee amounting to 77% of the total costs has been paid by families with a per capita income equal or higher than the average wage. Families with a per capita income below 18% of the (net) average wage in Slovenia are exempt from paying parent fees. Interventions on the expenditure side of the state budget include a permanent decrease in the ECEC subsidy from June 2012 (Public Finance Balance Act 2012). Services for the second (younger) child from the same family co-currently included in the subsidised ECEC are no longer free of charge. Parents have to pay 30% of the parent fee for their income bracket. However, the services remain free of charge for each subsequent child. The introduction of free ECEC services for the second and subsequent child in September 2008 increased the demand considerably and almost overnight, forcing municipalities to ensure additional vacancies as soon as possible. Since then, the facilities have been increasing because the municipalities are obliged to meet the demand. A higher number of births in the 2000s also contributed to an increase in demand, so that it exceeded the number of available places by 3,278 in 2008, 5,173 in 2009 and 4,882 in 2010 (SI-Stat Data Portal). School lunches are free of charge for elementary school pupils from families with a per capita income not higher than 18% of the average wage. School snacks are provided free of charge or at a highly subsidised price to children from low-income families (Exercise of Rights to Public Funds Act 2010; School Meals Act 2013). Transport to school is subsidised as well. All elementary school pupils are entitled to a subsidy for public transport financed by the local communities. If their school is located more than 4 km from their place of residence, the pupils are entitled to free school transportation. All upper secondary school students living at least five kilometres away from their schools have been provided with a monthly pass for public transport at a unified subsidised price (MESS 2012). For children from families that cannot afford the payment, the municipalities (co)finance some (compulsory) school activities that are normally paid by parents, like school trips, sports days, and a week of “school in nature” (in the mountains, skiing resorts, or sea coast resorts). Free textbooks are available to the elementary school pupils and (most of) upper secondary school students (upper secondary students pay up to one-third of the textbooks price). Elementary schools provide/organise educational assistance for children with special needs, remedial classes, additional classes, after-school care and other forms of care for pupils, interest activities and out-of-school classes (GCO 2009). The Exercise of Rights to Public Funds Act (2010) caused a significant decrease in the number of state educational grant beneficiaries (by more than 28%; MoLFSA 2012) by limiting the entitlement to students older than 18 years (at the same time, child allowances were increased for under-aged upper secondary school students). This is likely to be cancelled in 2014 with the implementation of amendments to this act that were under public debate until 19 August 2013 (Draft Act Amending the Exercise of Rights to Public Funds Act 2013). Due to the additional impact of the Public Finance Balance Act (2012) that had lowered the income ceiling for entitlement from 64% to 53% of the average wage per capita until the year that will follow the year in which the economic growth will exceed 2.5% of the GDP, the number of state educational grants was 60% lower in 2012 compared to 2011 (TI. KR. 2012).
2013 21
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
The education of Roma children enjoys special attention (see Stropnik 2011c and Kump and Stropnik 2009). There are more favourable norms and standards for the formation of classes. Schools are paid additional hours of work with the Roma pupils. Some after-school classes are intended for the Roma pupils only, but most of the Roma are integrated into regular after-school care classes. Higher lunch subsidies are granted to schools with Roma pupils. Additional funds are granted for each Roma pupil as assistance to covering the costs of school appliances, transport, and entrance fees for cultural and sports events. In 2011 the Ministry of Education - in cooperation with the Roma, experts and NGOs - amended the 2004 Strategy of Education of the Roma Children in the Republic of Slovenia (MES 2004 and 2011). In recent years there have been a number of projects and successful policy measures to integrate Roma children in mainstream education, for instance, the Roma assistants and the Roma pre-school educational projects. Nevertheless, the attendance of pre-school programmes by Roma children remains irregular, and there are regional variations in the elementary school attendance. Also due to low attendance of the ECEC programmes the Roma children lack proper knowledge of the Slovenian language, which is the main obstacle for their integration and progress in elementary education. Approximately 30 per cent of the Roma children who reach school age are estimated to have a very limited command of the Slovenian language (AI 2006:71). School performance by Roma children is low even at elementary level, and there is a high rate of school drop-out at all school levels (UN 2013: 15). The share of Roma children who successfully progress in the educational vertical is much lower than that of the rest of the Slovenia's population. Actually, a high proportion of children conclude their education with the 5th or 6th grade of the 9- year elementary school (Lük, Brejc and Vonta 2005: 5; Žagar et al., 2006: 8; EUMC 2006: 39-40). Drop-out rates are particularly high among Roma girls (EC 2010b). Evaluation of the results of the 2004 Strategy for Education of Roma has shown a minimum, if any, progress in the educational achievements of the Roma children until 2010. Even the cases of aggravation of the situation in recent years were reported. The main findings of that evaluation are as follows: . The Roma children are frequently absent from school; . Roma children have a poor command of the Slovenian language; . Due to continuous failure of Roma children to achieve minimum standards, the difference between them and the non-Roma children (who attend school regularly) increases; . A great gap in knowledge increases the feeling of non-success with the Roma children; . The drop-off is greatest at the middle of elementary education, when teaching by one teacher in one single classroom changes to teaching by subject teachers; . Roma children enjoy a low stimulation to learn by their parents who do not present them knowledge as a value and a way to increase their living standard (MES 2011: 11-12; CVŽU). There are still relatively many Roma children attending elementary schools with an adapted curriculum, which may be a consequence of abuse of the category of children with special needs. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child pointed to that, too (UN 2013: 5 and 15). Namely, the pupils with very low educational attainment due to poor command of the Slovenian language or the specific features of the Romani culture do not belong to the category of children with special needs (MES 2011: 24; AI 2006: 66). “Negative stereotypes and expectations about the potential of educational achievement of Roma also appear to be factors in the over-representation of Romani children in Slovenian special schools” (AI 2006: 66-67). A further problem is that children attending such schools have little chance of continuing their education
2013 22
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
in mainstream secondary schools. According to the Open Society Institute data base, in 2008 only 40 Roma were enrolled in secondary education in Slovenia, and only 5 were enrolled in tertiary education (OSI).24 Following the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2008 Slovenia introduced a section on education of children with special needs into the Elementary School Act in 2011 (Amendments to the Elementary… 2011). It also elaborated an Action Programme for Persons with Disabilities 2007-2013 (2006). However, according to the Ombudsman's 2011 annual report, the implementation of the that programme has not resulted in greatly improved access for children with disabilities to basic social services, especially in the fields of health and education (UN 2013: 12).
3.2. Health care Basic and hospital-level health care capacities are geographically evenly distributed and accessible to everybody in Slovenia (MoLFSA, 2008: 74). All children up to age 18, and up to age 26 if in regular schooling, are covered by compulsory (basic) and complementary health insurance. This means that they are exempt from payment for health services and medicaments. Preventive activities in primary health care include preventive examinations of new-borns, pre-school and school children, youth and students. The children undergo regular annual preventive systematic examinations with a dentist and are provided health education in this area. (MoLFSA 2008: 80-81). However, a universal coverage of children by health care insurance has not yet been achieved. The Slovenian Association of Friends of Youth has pointed to the fact that children with parents or guardians who are not covered by health insurance because of not having a status of an employed person or a citizen, and are thus entitled only to emergency medical services, still do not have access to health care services (A. R. 2012).25 These are around 60 Roma children and children of the so-called “deleted” persons (i.e., non-Slovenians who lived at the territory of Slovenia when an independent state was proclaimed in 1991, but for whatever reason failed to apply for the Slovenian citizenship). In fact, these children enjoy free basic health care in the "Pro bono" infirmary in Ljubljana (Zabukovec 2013). The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child was “concerned about the ethnic disparity in access to and provision of health services whereby children belonging to minority groups enjoy lesser access, despite the elaboration of the Strategy for enhancing health and the development of an action plan for reducing inequalities in health in the Pomurje region” (UN 2013: 12). Supposedly, this concern is (primarily) related to the Roma children whose parents are not covered by health insurance. Persons covered by the social security insurance are entitled to take leave to care for an immediate co-resident family member (spouse and children, own or adopted) who is ill. Generally, seven working days of leave may be taken for each episode of illness per family, but 15 working days may be taken for a child of up to seven years of age or a moderately, severely or very severely mentally and physically disabled child. Exceptionally, if required due to the health condition of the sick family member, the period may be extended to 14 and 30 working days, respectively, or longer in extreme cases (up to six months) (Health Care and Health Insurance Act 1992: Article 30).
24 See Stropnik (2011c) for more details on the education of Roma children. 25 In September 2012 the Association sent an initiative to the Minister of Health requesting that children become independent beneficiaries of the compulsory health care insurance. The Human Rights Ombudsman supported that initiative, adding that they, too, had included this issue in their annual reports (see, for instance, HRO 2011: 16), but had never been provided with data on the number of children without access to health care.
2013 23
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
Leave is paid at 80 per cent of average earnings in the previous calendar year. It cannot be lower than the so-called guaranteed wage (approximately € 238) or higher than the wage which the person would receive if he/she were working. Providing all Roma children (also those in poor Romany settlements) with regular health examinations and vaccinations (usually organised by the schools) is one of the basic goals of the Programme for Children and Youth 2006-2016 (2006). In the past decade-or-so a number of projects and activities were focused on healthcare of the Roma in Slovenia, like collecting data on vaccination of Roma children and use of healthcare services by Roma children, and promotion of healthy nutrition and healthy way of living. In 2009-2010 the project “Innovative approach to enhancing health in the Roma Community – Roma” was conducted. The national conference on “Health in Roma Children” was organised in 2010 (Stropnik 2011c). Children with developmental disorders undergo preventive health examinations that are adjusted to their disability. In the interim period, if necessary, the so-called intentional examinations are carried out systematically and are adjusted to children’s problems (Stropnik 2010a). “Special attention to the health and well-being of children has been paid in the new proposal of the Resolution on the Mental Health Protection Programme. This establishes a national strategy to eliminate the limitations of the existing system of mental health promotion and protection. An analysis of existing preventive health services for children and adolescents has also been performed. Gaps have been identified. On the basis of these results a project for upgrading these services will be launched from 2014 to 2017 within the framework of the Norwegian Financial Mechanism” (MoLFSAEO 2013).
3.3. Housing The situation in the housing market in Slovenia has not improved in the recent decade. When trying to solve their housing problem, young people are faced with long waiting lists for social housing, insufficient availability of favourable housing loans, poor development of the private rental sector, insufficient availability of student housing, and absence of a co-operative sector. House purchase is usually possible only through intra-family transfers. According to the 2011 Population Census, 81% of the Slovenian population was living in the housing owned by themselves or their household members (Dolenc et al. 2013: 44). This significantly alleviates the housing problem in Slovenia. There is, however, a shortage of social housing.26 The same is true for non-profit housing, where up to 80% of the rent may be subsidised. Due to that, the Act Amending the Housing Act (2008) made rent subsidies available also to those renting at market prices and having applied for non-profit housing if they fulfil income and means conditions applicable to the recipients of subsidised rent in non-profit housing. The Human Rights Ombudsman (HRO 2011) has been warning of inappropriate income threshold that should be raised in order to enable more people to apply for a rent subsidy. The Public Finance Balance Act (2012) abolished the national housing savings scheme27 and subsidies for young families solving their housing problem for the first
26 Unfortunately, there is very little evidence, data and reporting in general on the developments in social housing in Slovenia. The demand for social housing is exercised and observable only when public tenders for allocation of social housing are open. Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive data for all local authorities in Slovenia (Mandič 2010). 27 It constituted the basis for stimulating long-term housing savings, an increase in the amount of favourable long-term housing credits, as well as subsidising young families solving their housing problem for the first time.
2013 24
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
time. This will most probably decrease or slow down the solving of a housing problem of young families although, according to Minister of Infrastructure and Spatial Planning, the two programmes cost a lot without having any proper impact. In the future the Government intends to increase accessibility by providing more apartments for rent and subsidising housing costs of persons will low income (Križnik 2012). The National Reform Programme 2012-2013 promised to improve the housing conditions of the Roma people. The Government “will update the current incentives addressed to municipalities to purchase land and provide basic public utility services in Roma settlements, and link them with the incentives to expedite the spatial planning of Roma settlements. This will also speed up the legalisation of Roma settlements, a prerequisite for improving their living conditions” (GRS 2012: 21).
3.4. Alternative care Foster care has a long tradition in Slovenia. However, the number of foster families does not meet the needs for this form of alternative care in Slovenia. Due to that, the National Programme of Social Protection for the period 2013-2020 (Resolucija o nacionalnem programu socialnega varstva... 2013) has set as its aim to provide a sufficient number of foster families and places in those families, as well as to stimulate an introduction of new forms of community housing. The Act Amending the Provision of Foster Care Act (2012) was adopted with the aim to enhance “the mechanism of reviewing and monitoring the placement of fostered children” (UN 2013: 12). However, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is concerned about the limited discretion foster parents enjoy in the everyday life of the child, and about their inability to enjoy socio-economic benefits, such as tax deduction and sickness leave" (UN 2013: 12). It is clearly evident from Chapter 3 that Slovenia matches the European Commission Recommendation on investing in children (EC 2013: 6-9) to a very high extent. The most urgent areas for policy improvements are: 1. Considerable improvement of an access of families with children to adequate social housing; 2. Considerable increase in the share of Roma children attending the ECEC programmes; and 3. Achieving of a universal coverage of children by health care insurance.
2013 25
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
4. Addressing child poverty and social exclusion in the European Semester There is no mentioning of child poverty in the National Reform Programmes (NRP) 2012-2013 (GRS 2012) and 2013-2014 (GRS 2013). These documents include some austerity measures that are not aimed at achieving the national 2020 poverty and social inclusion target but will rather have an opposite/unfavourable impact on social inclusion. They are likely to result in a higher child poverty and social exclusion. The most probable reason for the absence of child poverty and social exclusion in the National Reform Programmes are the relatively satisfactory indicators up to the latest ones available. The risk of poverty used to be relatively low for children as compared to the risk of both the total population of Slovenia and children in other European countries. The recent change in the situation of children requests the child poverty to be addressed in the next National Reform Programme as part of the overall effort to reduce poverty and social exclusion, as recommended by the European Commission (EC 2013: 11). Also, Slovenia has not fully exploited the tools provided by the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Social Open Method of Coordination to improve monitoring and evaluation of policies addressing child poverty and well-being.
5. Mobilising relevant EU financial instruments The most important project in the area of Roma education, co-financed by the European Social Fund, focuses on “the inclusion of Roma assistants into elementary schools, where the assistants have created ‘a bridge’ between the school, and the Roma pupils and their parents. They support Roma pupils and students with the aim of improving the quality of their study, while providing learning support, motivation for attending classes, thus decreasing the number of drop-outs” (MoLFSAEO 2013). In the period 2012-2014, the ESF has been co-financing “Successful inclusion of Roma in education processes II”, under which the Roma assistants have been employed in schools (MoLFSA 2013b). Since 2006, the European Fund for Aid to the Most Deprived has been allocating food and funds to the most deprived in Slovenia (Začetek... 2013). From that fund, Slovenia received goods and funds amounting to: € 2.62 million in 2010 (GRS 2009), € 2.44 million in 2011, € 2.53 million in 2012 (MAE 2012a) and € 2.59 million in 2013 (EC 2012). In 2013, around € 2.4 million will be allocated for the purchase of goods, while the rest of around € 0.2 million will be used for the refund of transport, warehouse and administrative costs (MAE 2012b). More than 300 thousand beneficiaries will receive flour, rice, oil, macaroni and groats (MAE 2012b), 4.25 thousand tons of food altogether (Začetek... 2013). In retail, that food would cost about € 6.7 million (24ur.com). Food has been distributed in cooperation with charities (the Red Cross and Caritas) and local social services. This is the joint programme of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Environment, and the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (MAE 2012a). The target group are: cash social assistance beneficiaries; individuals and families identified by the Caritas, Red Cross and Social Work Centres as those needing aid; employed persons not receiving salaries (due to insolvency/bankruptcy, for instance); unemployed persons who completed public works and are not entitled to neither unemployment benefit nor cash social assistance; individuals and families who unexpectedly face hardship due to circumstances that they cannot influence, but are causing them additional costs; those who were affected by natural or other disasters; those without any status or permanent residence, aliens and the so-called “deleted”; those receiving aid at shelters, public kitchens, maternal homes and similar social institutions, and addicts; persons participating in camps, vacation organised for the
2013 26
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
socially threatened, or preventive camps and workshops for children and youth; and homeless (MAE 2012a: 4-5). The European School Milk Scheme has been implemented in Slovenia since the school year 2004/2005. Its objectives are: to promote balanced and healthy eating habits in order to prevent excess weight and chronic diseases; change children’s eating habits and increase the consumption of milk and some dairy products made of cow milk; and provide milk and dairy products at a lower price. The target group are children and youth in pre-school day-care centres, elementary schools and upper secondary schools. However, the implementation has been facing a serious obstacle: administrative costs related to the scheme (implying additional obligation, workload and responsibility) outreach by far the benefit resulting in a lower cost of the school meal (OŠ Gradec 2013; MAFF 2010). In order to spare administrative costs to the schools, the 2010 revision of the regulation allowed also suppliers, dairies and organisations representing one or more pre-school day-care centres or schools to apply for the EU co-financing. Another obstacle for the schools’ participation in the scheme is the limitation of purposes for with the co-financed milk and dairy products may be used in school meals (OŠ Gradec 2013). Consequently, one school was included in the scheme per school year in a half of its implementation period, and these schools received relatively small annual amounts (see Table 1). Per child, this has been around € 1 per month in recent years,28 or around 5 cents per day (MAFF 2010), which is the value of 0.25 l of milk or its equivalent (3 dg of cheese or 8 dg of cottage cheese) per day. Table 1: Implementation of the School Milk Scheme in Slovenia School year Total budget (€) Number of schools 2004/2005 73.70 1 2005/2006 3.146,40 7 2006/2007 2.542,70 2 2007/2008 2.732,00 2 2008/2009 1.903,10 1 2009/2010 2.007,10 1 2010/2011 1.009,76 1 2011/2012 6.449,70 9 Source: Agency for Agricultural Markets and Rural Development, Ministry of Agriculture and the Environment (informal information). The European School Fruit Scheme was introduced in Slovenia in the school year 2009/2010, i.e. at the beginning of its implementation in the EU. It focuses on the development of healthy eating habits by promoting fruit and vegetables consumption through subsidisation of free distribution of fruit and vegetables at schools. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food is a holder of the activity and the coordinator. Slovenia’s priorities are: decentralised supply of fruit and vegetables, promotion of local supply, and the delivery focus on organic production and seasonal supply (also in order to minimise the transport costs, protect the environment and co- ordinate the accompanying measures with local agricultural producers). An important
28 According to another calculation, the parents would save only € 0.30 per month (OŠ Gradec 2013).
2013 27
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
factor contributing to a smooth performance of the School Fruit Scheme in Slovenia is a well-organised system of school meals, providing fruit and vegetables on a daily basis (Lesnik et al. 2011; MAFF 2009). The target population are elementary school pupils (age 6-16 years). Entire schools are included in the scheme. The frequency of distribution is mainly once to twice per week, mainly during the morning break at 9 a.m., and continuously throughout the school year. Alternatively, fruit is at hand throughout the whole school day, or is delivered once a week during the so-called “class hour” (MAFF 2011b). Average consumption per child is based on the National guidelines for healthy nutrition in kindergartens, elementary schools and upper secondary schools. Portions are set according to the age of children and the type of fruit and vegetables: in the school year 20012/2013 they were 130-140 g per child on average. The total quantity distributed in the school year 2012/2013 was around 500 tons, of which 99% was planned to be fresh and 1% processed. The products of higher quality (organic, integrated) have been preferred. Other relevant information is provided in Table 2. Table 2: Implementation of the School Fruit Scheme in Slovenia School year 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 (plan) Total budget (€) 600,562 593,526 756,600 824,300 Total budget 585,562 578,526 741,600 809,30029 without accompanying measures (€) - EU funding 439,168 422,642 556,22 606,975 (75%) (€) Participating 345 277 343 376 elementary schools Participating 124,388 103,154 120,600 132,000 pupils Percentage of 75% 63% 75% 83% total Aid per child per 4.83 5.75 6.27 6.24 year (€) Source: MAFF 2011b. An independent evaluation of the implementation of the School Fruit Scheme in Slovenia in the school year 2010/2011 was positive (Lesnik et al. 2011). Two out of three schools reported to have completely achieved their planned objectives. The schools named a wide range of accompanying educational activities in which pupils, teachers, parents and suppliers were included. Comparing the situation at the beginning and at the end of the school year, the independent evaluators found significant improvements in the attitudes towards fruit consumption, knowledge about healthy eating behaviour, and the frequency of fruit consumption, and even more so regarding vegetables consumption. They concluded that “the school environment
29 Out of € 809,300, up to € 800,000 will be used for reimbursing the costs of fruit and vegetables, up to € 4,300 for reimbursing the costs of the Scheme evaluation, and up to € 5,000 for reimbursing communication costs (website) (MAFF 2011a).
2013 28
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
carrying out the SFS may have an important influence on the quantity of the vegetables intake if it systematically offers vegetables” (Lesnik et al. 2011: 28). Particularly inappropriate attitudes towards eating fruit and vegetables, a low frequency of eating fruit and vegetables and a lack of knowledge about healthy behaviour was registered among boys, younger pupils and children from more socio- economically deprived families in particular. However, these groups were proven to be most susceptible for change in their attitudes and behaviour, which is a positive, though so far short-term, impact. A measurable positive impact on the consumed quantities of fruit and vegetables was indicated in the evaluation, too. The evaluators proposed: an increase in the purchase from local suppliers; enhancing of the diversity of the offer, primarily of vegetables and organic fruit and vegetables; search for alternative effective methods of distribution; accompanying activities that would have an effect on vulnerable groups in particular, etc. (Lesnik et al. 2011: 29). The priorities for the use of Structural Funds in the upcoming programming period to promote the well-being of children: . Financing of Roma assistants in pre-school day-care centres and schools, because this has been a great success with measurable positive outcomes; . The European Fund for Aid to the Most Deprived, because the programme reaches those in greatest need of food; . The European School Fruit Scheme, because of proven significant improvements in the attitudes towards fruit and vegetables consumption, knowledge about healthy eating behaviour, and the frequency of fruit and vegetables consumption.
2013 29
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
References AI (2006). False starts: The exclusion of Romani children from primary education in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia. London: Amnesty International, November 2006. Available at: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR05/002/2006/en/de46d8ad-d3e1-11dd- 8743-d305bea2b2c7/eur050022006en.pdf (accessed 9 July 2013). Chzhen, Yekaterina, and Jonathan Bradshaw (2012). Lone parents, poverty and policy in the European Union. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(5): 487-506. Čelebič, Tanja (2012). Pre-school education in Slovenia and its international comparison with the EU countries. Summary. IMAD Working Paper Series, Vol. XXI, Working Paper No. 4/2012. Ljubljana: Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development. Available at: http://www.umar.gov.si/fileadmin/user_upload/publikacije/dz/2012/DZ_04- 2012_Summary.pdf (accessed 1 June 2012). Dolenc, Danilo, Ema Miklič, Barica Razpotnik, Darja Šter, and Tina Žnidaršič (2013). Ljudje, družine, stanovanja: registrski popis 2011 [People, families, dwellings: 2011 Population Census]. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Available at: http://www.stat.si/doc/pub/Ljudje_druzine_stanovanja.pdf (accessed 23 August 2013). Dremelj, Polona, Simona Smolej, Ružica Boškić, Tamara Narat, Liljana Rihter, Nadja Kovač, and Barbara Kobal Tomc (2013). Ocena učinkov izvajanja nove socialne zakonodaje [Evaluation of the Impact of the New Social Transfers Legislation]. Ljubljana: Social Protection Institute of the Republic of Slovenia. EC (2010b). Roma in Europe: The Implementation of European Union Instruments and Policies for Roma Inclusion - Progress Report 2008-2010. Commission Staff Working Document. Brussels: European Commission, 7 April 2010. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=518 (accessed 28 February 2011). Edmonds, Eric V. (2005). Targeting child benefits in a transition economy. The Economics of Transition, 13(1): 187-210. EUMC (2006). Roma and Travellers in Public Education; An overview of the situation in the EU Member States. Vienna: European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/roma/pub_tr_romaeducation_en.htm (accessed 1 June 2011). GRS (2010). Poročilo o položaju romske skupnosti v Sloveniji [Report on the Situation of the Roma Community in Slovenia]. Available at: http://www.mnz.gov.si/fileadmin/mnz.gov.si/pageuploads/SOJ/word/7-10- POROCILO_o_polozaju_romske_skupnosti_v_RS.pdf (accessed 9 July 2013). HRO (2011). Letno poročilo Varuha človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije za leto 2010 [Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia Annual Report 2010]. Ljubljana: Varuh človekovih pravic. Available at: http://www.varuh- rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/LP10.pdf (accessed 29 June 2012). Kanjuo Mrčela, Aleksandra, and Nevenka Černigoj Sadar (eds.) (2007). Delo in družina - s partnerstvom do družini prijaznega delovnega okolja [Work and Family - With partnership towards a family-friendly work environment]. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences.
2013 30
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
Kump, Nataša, and Nada Stropnik (2009). Reducing and preventing child poverty and social exclusion in Slovenia – Lessons learned from transition countries. Report for UNICEF. Ljubljana: Institute for Economic Research. Latimier, Camille, and Jan Šiška (2011). Children's rights for all! Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child for children with intellectual disabilities. Brussels: Inclusion Europe. Available at: http://www.eurochild.org/fileadmin/ThematicPriorities/CIAC/Eurochild/Childrens_Right s_for_All.pdf (accessed 7 June 2013). Lük, Albina Neca, Mateja Brejc, and Tatjana Vonta (2005). Integration of Roma Children into Mainstream Education in Slovenia: Annual research and evaluation report, Slovenia, 2005. Ljubljana: Roma Education Initiative. Available at: http://www.osi.hu/esp/rei/Documents/SLovenia%20REI%20Evaluation%20report%20 2005%20Final.pdf (accessed 28 February 2011). Mandič, Srna (2010). The Impact of the Economic and Financial Crisis on Social Housing. Manuscript. MoLFSA (2012). Pregled izvajanja nove socialne zakonodaje [Overview of the implementation of the new social transfers legislation]. Presentation at the Economic and Social Council, 12 October 2012. Ljubljana: Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs. Rakar, Tatjana, Nada Stropnik, Ružica Boškić, Polona Dremelj, Mateja Nagode, and Nadja Kovač (2010). Raziskava o vplivih veljavnih ukrepov družinske politike na odločanje za otroke [Research on the Impact of Family Policy Measures on Deciding to Have Children]. Ljubljana: Inštitut Republike Slovenije za socialno varstvo [Social Protection Institute of the Republic of Slovenia]. Available at: http://www.irssv.si/publikacije/leto-2010/index.html (accessed 28 February 2012). Rener, Tanja, Alenka Švab, Tjaša Žakelj, and Živa Humer (2005). Perspektive novega očetovstva v Sloveniji: vpliv mehanizma očetovskega dopusta na aktivno očetovanje [Perspectives of new fatherhood in Slovenia: influence of the paternity leave mechanism on active fathering]. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences. Stropnik, Nada (2005), Stališča prebivalstva kot odraz novih trendov v starševstvu in podlaga za preoblikovanje družinske politike v Sloveniji [People's Attitudes as a Reflection of New Trends in Parenthood and the Basis for Reshaping of Family Policy in Slovenia]. Ljubljana: Institute for Economic Research. Stropnik, Nada (2010a), Policy overview and policy impact analysis - A case study: Slovenia. In Child poverty and child well-being in the European Union. Volume IV: Country case studies. Report prepared for the DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (Unit E.2) of the European Commission. Budapest: TÁRKI. Available at: http://www.tarki.hu/en/research/childpoverty/case_studies/childpoverty_slovenia.pdf (accessed 15 November 2011). Stropnik, Nada (2010b). How Can Corporate Social Responsibility Contribute to Gender Equality and Work-Life Balance: Example of the "Family-Friendly Enterprise" Certificate in Slovenia. Naše gospodarstvo, 56 (5-6): 11-20. Stropnik, Nada (2011a). Flexible Working and Gender Equality: The Case of Slovenia. Comments paper, Exchange of good practices on gender equality, “New forms of work”, The Hague, 24-25 October 2011. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender- equality/files/exchange_of_good_practice_nl/si_comments_paper_nl_2011_en.pdf (accessed 9 July 2013).
2013 31
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
Stropnik, Nada (2011b). Improving the efficiency of social protection. Peer Review: Improving the efficiency of social protection. Lisbon, 29-30 November 2011. Available at: http://www.peer-review-social-inclusion.eu/peer-reviews/2011/improving-the- efficiency-of-social-protection (accessed 23 April 2012). Stropnik, Nada, and Milivoja Šircelj (2008). Slovenia: Generous family policy without evidence of any fertility impact. In: T. Frejka, T. Sobotka, J. M. Hoem and L. Toulemon (eds.), Childbearing Trends and Policies in Europe. Demographic Research, vol. 19, Special Collection 7, pp. 1019-58. Available at: www.demographic- research.org/volumes/vol19/26/19-26.pdf (accessed 9 July 2013). TI. KR. (2012). Študenti povabljeni na torkov ESS [Students invited to the ESC on Thursday]. Delo, 13 October 2012, p. 3. Zabukovec, Mojca: V brezplačni ambulanti vse več espejevcev [Ever more self- employed persons in the gratis infirmary]. Delo, 30 May 2013, p. 10. Žagar, M., M. Komac, M. Medvešek, and R. Bešter (2006). The Aspect of Culture in the Social Inclusion of Ethnic Minorities. Evaluation of the Impact of Inclusion Policies under the Open Method of Co-ordination in the European Union: Assessing the Cultural Policies of Six Member States. ECMI Working Paper # 32. Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI). Available at: http://www.google.si/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFjAA&url=http %3A%2F%2Fwww.inv.si%2FDocDir%2Fprojekti%2F2006%2FFinal%2520Report_Slov enia.doc&ei=9xkiS8j2B5jAmgPbrajVBw&usg=AFQjCNGX- OyLbzsdJwaeTOQ2Kc8egdBFNQ&sig2=sdYQaw0Xuxq36alODSGuMQ (accessed 9 July 2013). Legislative and similar acts Act Amending the Housing Act (2008). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 57/2008. Act Amending the Provision of Foster Care Act [Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o izvajanju rejniške dejavnosti] (2012). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 109/2012. Available at: http://www.uradni- list.si/1/content?id=111449#!/Zakon-o-spremembah-in-dopolnitvah-Zakona-o- izvajanju-rejniske-dejavnosti-%28ZIRD-A%29 (accessed 9 July 2013). Action Programme for Persons with Disabilities 2007-2013 (2006). Ljubljana: Government of the Republic of Slovenia, 30 November 2006. Available at: http://www.mddsz.gov.si/fileadmin/mddsz.gov.si/pageuploads/dokumenti__pdf/api_0 7_13_en.pdf (accessed 9 July 2013). Amendments to the Elementary School Act [Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o osnovni šoli] (2011). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 87/2011. Available at: http://www.uradni- list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlid=201187&stevilka=3727 (accessed 9 July 2013). Draft Act Amending the Exercise of Rights to Public Funds Act [Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah zakona o uveljavljanju pravic iz javnih sredstev - predlog] (2013). Draft for public debate. Ljubljana: Ministry of Labour Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. Available at: http://www.mddsz.gov.si/si/zakonodaja_in_dokumenti/predpisi_v_pripravi/ (accessed 20 August 2013).
2013 32
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
Draft Act Amending the Social Assistance Benefits Act [Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvi Zakona o socialno varstvenih prejemkih – predlog za obravnavo] (2013). Draft for public debate. Ljubljana: Ministry of Labour Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. Available at: http://www.mddsz.gov.si/si/zakonodaja_in_dokumenti/predpisi_v_pripravi/ (accessed 20 August 2013). Draft Parental Protection and Family Benefits Act [Predlog Zakona o starševskem varstvu in družinskih prejemkih] (2013). Draft for public debate. Ljubljana: Ministry of Labour Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. Available at: http://www.mddsz.gov.si/si/zakonodaja_in_dokumenti/predpisi_v_pripravi/ (accessed 1 July 2013). Employment Relationships Act [Zakon o delovnih razmerjih] (2013). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 21/2013. Available at: http://zakonodaja.gov.si/rpsi/r00/predpis_ZAKO1420.html (accessed 9 July 2013). Exercise of Rights to Public Funds Act (2010). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 62/10. Available at: http://www.uradni-list.si/1/content?id=99290 (accessed 12 May 2011). GRS (2012). National Reform Programme 2012-2013. Ljubljana: Government of the Republic of Slovenia, 13 April 2012. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/nd/nrp2012_slovenia_en.pdf (accessed 9 July 2013). GRS (2013). National Reform Programme 2013-2014. Ljubljana: Government of the Republic of Slovenia, May 2013. Available at: http://www.mf.gov.si/en/media_room/news/article/3/1647/28a32fd2bd8ccb04208663 271f745887/ (accessed 9 July 2013). Health Care and Health Insurance Act [Zakon o zdravstvenem varstvu in zdravstvenem zavarovanju] (1992). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 9/1992 (later revised many times). Available at: http://zakonodaja.gov.si/rpsi/r03/predpis_ZAKO213.html (accessed 9 July 2013). Kindergarten Act [Zakon o vrtcih] (1996). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 100/2005 (second official consolidated text). Available at: http://www.uradni- list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlid=2005100&stevilka=4349 (accessed 9 July 2013), revisions in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, nos. 25/2008 and 36/2010. MES (2004). Strategija vzgoje in izobraževanja Romov v Republiki Sloveniji [Strategy for Education of Roma in the Republic of Slovenia]. Ljubljana: Ministry of Education and Sport. Available at: http://www.mnz.gov.si/si/o_ministrstvu/manjsine/romska_skupnost/ (accessed 9 July 2013). MES (2011). Strategija vzgoje in izobraževanja Romov v Republiki Sloveniji (Dopolnilo k Strategiji 2004) [Strategy for Education of Roma in the Republic of Slovenia (Supplement to the 2004 Strategy)]. Ljubljana: Ministry of Education and Sport. Available at: http://www.mss.gov.si/fileadmin/mss.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocje/razvoj_solstva/pro jekti/Strategija_Romi_dopolnitev_2011.pdf (accessed 9 July 2013). MoLFSA (2008). National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion in the Period 2008-2010. Ljubljana: Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs. Available at: http://www.mddsz.gov.si/fileadmin/mddsz.gov.si/pageuploads/dokumenti__pdf/npssz sv08_10_en.pdf (accessed 23 August 2013).
2013 33
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
Parental Protection and Family Benefits Act (2001). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 97/2001 (revised in 76/2003, 47/2006 and 10/2008). Official consolidated text available at: http://www.mddsz.gov.si/fileadmin/mddsz.gov.si/pageuploads/dokumenti__pdf/zsdp_ upb2_en.pdf (accessed 9 July 2013), later revisions in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 10/2008. Pension and Disability Insurance Act [Zakon o pokojninskem in invalidskem zavarovanju] (2012). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 96/2012. Available at: http://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlid=201296&stevilka=3693 (accessed 16 May 2013). Personal Income Tax Act [Zakon o dohodnini] (2006). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 13/2011 (official consolidated text, later revised several times). Programme for Children and Youth 2006-2016 (2006). Ljubljana: Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs. Available at: http://www.mddsz.gov.si/fileadmin/mddsz.gov.si/pageuploads/dokumenti__pdf/pom2 006_2016_en.pdf (accessed 1 July 2013). Public Finance Balance Act [Zakon za uravnoteženje javnih financ] (2012). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 40/2012. Recommendation related to the Human Rights Ombudsman's Special Report on the Advocate – a Child's Voice [Priporočilo] (2013). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 46/2013, 29 May 2013. Resolucija o nacionalnem programu socialnega varstva za obdobje 2013-2020 [Resolution on the National Programme of Social Protection for the Period 2013-2020] (2013). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 39/2013, 6 May 2013. Resolucija o nacionalnem programu za mladino 2013-2022 (predlog) [Resolution on the National Programme for Youth 2013-2022 (draft)] (2013). Ljubljana: Government of the Republic of Slovenia, 17 June 2013. Available at: http://imss.dz- rs.si/imis/39ae1eabe4f78df9ecac.pdf (accessed 20 June 2013). Resolucija o temeljih oblikovanja družinske politike v Republiki Sloveniji [Resolution on Foundations of the Family Policy in the Republic of Slovenia] (1993). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 40/1993, 17 July 1993. Available at: http://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlid=199340&stevilka=1660 (accessed 1 July 2013). Resolution on the National Programme for Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, 2005-2013 (2005). Available at: http://www.uem.gov.si/fileadmin/uem.gov.si/pageuploads/ReNPEMZM_EN.pdf (accessed 7 October 2010). Rules on determination of tax allowances and the tax scale for assessment of personal income tax for 2013 [Pravilnik o določitvi olajšav in lestvice za odmero dohodnine za leto 2013] (2012). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 102/2012. Available at: http://zakonodaja.gov.si/rpsi/r06/predpis_PRAV11506.html (accessed 22 August 2013). Scholarship Act [Zakon o štipendiranju] (2013). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 56/2013. Available at: http://www.uradni- list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlid=201356&stevilka=2139 (accessed 21 August 2013). School Meals Act [Zakon o šolski prehrani] (2013). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 3/2013. Available at: http://www.uradni- list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlid=20133&stevilka=58 (accessed 14 May 2013).
2013 34
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
Social Agreement for the Period 2007-2009 (2007). Available at: http://www.mddsz.gov.si/fileadmin/mddsz.gov.si/pageuploads/dokumenti__pdf/social _agreement_07_09.pdf (accessed 9 July 2013). Social Assistance Benefits Act (2010). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 61/2010. Šušteršič, Janez, Matija Rojec, and Klavdija Korenika (eds.) (2005). Slovenia’s Development Strategy. Ljubljana: Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development. Available at: http://www.umar.gov.si/fileadmin/user_upload/projects/slovenia_development_strate gy.pdf (accessed 5 October 2011). Internet sources A. R. (2012). Nekateri otroci nimajo dostopa do osnovnih zdravstvenih storitev [Some children do not have access to health care services]. Planet Siol.net, 1 October 2012. Available at: http://www.siol.net/novice/slovenija/2012/10/tedenotroka.aspx (accessed 1 October 2012). CVŽU. Model svetovanja za Rome PISR [Model for counselling to Roma]. Maribor: Center vseživljenjskega učenja Zgornje Podravske regije. Available at: http://www.cvzu-zgornjepodravje.si/ucna-gradiva/21-andragoski-zavod-maribor/51- model-svetovanja-za-rome.html (accessed 15 June 2011). EC (2010a). Indicators for monitoring the Employment Guidelines including indicators for additional employment analysis: 2010 compendium. Brussels: European Commission, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, 20 July 2010. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=750 (accessed 4 October 2011). EC (2012). Europe approves allocations of € 500 million of Food for the Most Deprived programme for 2013. EUROPA Press Releases, IP/12/1093, 11 October 2012. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-12-1093_en.htm (accessed 26 June 2013). EC (2013). Commission Recommendation of 20 2. 2013 - Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:059:0005:0016:EN:PDF (accessed 11 June 2013). Eurostat. Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database (accessed 3 October 2011, 6 June 2013 and 28 June 2013). Eurostat (2013a). Almost a third of women and 5% of men having a young child worked part-time in 2011. Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-07032013-AP/EN/3-07032013- AP-EN.PDF (accessed 5 July 2013). Eurostat (2013b): Employment and unemployment (Labour Force Survey). Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/employment_unemployment_lfs/ data/database (accessed 5 July 2013).
2013 35
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
Eurydice (2009). Vlada sprejela Akcijski načrt za izvajanje programa za otroke in mladino v RS 2009 - 2010 [Government adopted an Action Plan for Implementation of the Programme for Children and Youth in the RS 2009-2010]. Ljubljana: Eurydice Slovenia, 11 September 2009. Available at: http://www.eurydice.si/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1834&Itemi d=342 (accessed 9 July 2013). GCO (2009). Educational system in Slovenia Ljubljana: Government Communication Office. Available at: http://www.ukom.gov.si/en/media_relations/background_information/education/educ ational_system_in_slovenia/ (accessed 22 August 2013). GRS (2009). Bruselj sprejel program pomoči v hrani za leto 2010 [Brussels adopted the food aid programme for 2010]. Slovenija, Novica, 20 November 2009. Ljubljana: Government of the Republic of Slovenia. Available at: http://www.evropa.gov.si/si/vsebina/novica/news/bruselj-sprejel-program-pomoci-v- hrani-za-leto- 2010/f55969a75056a8397a1113a354ebb994/?tx_ttnews%5Byear%5D=2009&tx_ttne ws%5Bmonth%5D=11 (accessed 26 June 2013). HRO. Advocate – a child’s voice. Ljubljana: Human Rights Ombudsman. Available at: http://www.varuh-rs.si/index.php?id=1251&L=6 (accessed 23 August 2013). HRO (2013). Otrokove pravice [Child’s rights]. Ljubljana: Human Rights Ombudsman. Available at: http://www.pravice-otrok.si/index.php?id=125 (accessed 23 August 2013). Intihar, Stanka (2012). Income and poverty indicators, Slovenia, 2011 – provisional data. First Release, Demography and social statistics - Level of living, 28 June 2012. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Available at: http://www.stat.si/eng/novica_prikazi.aspx?id=4818 (accessed 1 July 2013). Križnik, Božena (2012), Poseg države na nepremičninski trg spet aktualen [The State's intervention in the real estate market topical again]. Delo, 16 April 2012. Available at: http://www.delo.si/gospodarstvo/posel-in-denar/poseg-drzave-na-nepremicninski-trg- spet-aktualen.html (accessed 11 June 2012). Lesnik, Tina, Mojca Gabrijelčič Blenkuš, Matej Gregorič, Vida Fajdiga Turk, and Tina Zupanič (2011). School Fruit Scheme Evaluation Report for the 2010/2011 School Year. Ljubljana: National Institute of Public Health. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sfs/documents/si_summary_evaluation_report_- _2010-2011_en.pdf (accessed 26 June 2013). Ložar, Breda (2013). Kindergartens, Slovenia, school year 2012/13 – final data. First Release, Demography and social statistics, Education, 26 March 2013. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Available at: http://www.stat.si/eng/novica_prikazi.aspx?id=5386 (accessed 9 July 2013). MAE (2012a). Evropski ukrep pomoči v hrani iz intervencijskih zalog za ogrožene osebe v Uniji [European food aid from the intervention stock for the most threatened]. Ljubljana: Ministry of Agriculture and the Environment, 10 July 2012. Available at: http://www.mko.gov.si/si/medijsko_sredisce/novica/browse/80/article/4/5852/ca5adb 745d4f6f100831faab59206f45/ (accessed 26 June 2013).
2013 36
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
MAE (2012b). Slovenija bo tudi v letu 2013 razdeljevala evropsko pomoč v hrani najbolj ogroženim v Sloveniji [In 2013, too, Slovenia is going to distribute the European aid in food to the most threatened in Slovenia]. Novica, 12 October 2012. Ljubljana: Ministry of Agriculture and the Environment. Available at: http://www.mko.gov.si/si/medijsko_sredisce/novica/browse/5/select/sporocilo_za_jav nost/article/12447/6014/3ef3061d59cbfc7bcd5af6543c5e4707/?tx_ttnews%5Byear% 5D=2012&tx_ttnews%5Bmonth%5D=10 (accessed 26 June 2013). MAFF (2009). Strategy for the implementation of the School Fruit Scheme in Slovenia. Ljubljana: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food, Agricultural Directorate, 11 May 2009. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sfs/documents/si_national_strategy_-_2009- 2010_en.pdf (accessed 26 June 2013). MAFF (2010). 113. redna seja Vlade RS [113th regular session of the Government of the RS]. Ljubljana: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food, 23 December 2010. Available at: http://www.arhiv.mkgp.gov.si/nc/si/medijsko_sredisce/novica/article/12541/6441/ (accessed 26 June 2013). MAFF (2011a). Strategy for the Implementation of the School Fruit Scheme in Slovenia – 1 August 2012 to 31 July 2013. Ljubljana: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sfs/documents/si_national_strategy_-_2012- 2013_en.pdf (accessed 26 June 2013). MAFF (2011b). Annex IV: Summary report “Strategy”. Ljubljana: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. Available at: Summary report: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sfs/documents/si_summary_report_-_2012- 2013_en.pdf (accessed 26 June 2013). MESS (2012). Subvencionirani prevozi [Subsidised transport]. Ljubljana: Ministry of Education, Science and Sport. Available at: http://www.mizs.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/direktorat_za_srednje_in_visje_solstvo_t er_izobrazevanje_odraslih/srednjesolsko_izobrazevanje/prevozi_v_ss/ (accessed 21 August 2013). MoLFSA (2013a). Družinski prejemki [Family benefits]. Available at: http://www.mddsz.gov.si/si/uveljavljanje_pravic/statistika/druzinski_prejemki/ (accessed 28 June 2013). MoLFSA (2013b). Izvajanje aktivnosti Evropskega socialnega sklada v letu 2012 [Implementation of the European Social Fund activities in 2012]. Ljubljana: Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs. Available at: http://www.mddsz.gov.si/fileadmin/mddsz.gov.si/pageuploads/dokumenti__pdf/zapos lovanje/ess/Letni_opomnik_ESS_2012.pdf (accessed 17 May 2013). MoLFSAEO (2013). Delegation of Slovenia today in Geneva at the meeting of the Committee for the Rights of the Child: Address by the Head of the Delegation of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia. News, 6 June 2013. Ljubljana: Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. Available at: http://www.mddsz.gov.si/en/newsroom/news/article/1939/7121/108e67a40b168918d 9182a5786c4fe45/ (accessed 26 June 2013). OŠ Gradec (2013). Zapisnik 1. seje sveta staršev OŠ Gradec v šolskem letu 2012/2013 [Minutes of the 1st session of the Parents' Council of the Elementary School Gradec]. Available at: http://www.osgradec.si/attachments/article/71/ZAPISNIK%20SEJE%20SVETA%20ST ARSEV_05-03-2013.pdf (accessed 26 June 2013).
2013 37
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Slovenia
OSI. International Comparative Data Set on Roma Education — 2008. New York: Open Society Institute. Available at: http://www.romadecade.org/files/downloads/Education%20Resources/table_2008.pdf (accessed 1 June 2011). SI-Stat Data Portal (2013). Demography and social statistics. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Available at: http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Dialog/Saveshow.asp (accessed 16 May 2013). SPIRS (2012). Poročilo o izvedenih nalogah IRSSV za leto 2011 [Report on the completed tasks of the SPIRS for the year 2011]. Ljubljana: Social Protection Institute of the Republic of Slovenia. Available at: http://www.irssv.si/letni-program/letna- poroila/index.html (accessed 23 August 2013). Stropnik, Nada (2011c). Slovenia: Promoting Social Inclusion of Roma. A Study of National Policies. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1025&langId=en&newsId=1407&moreDoc uments=yes&tableName=news (accessed 9 July 2013). Stropnik, Nada (2013). Slovenia. In Peter Moss (ed.): International Review of Leave Policies and Related Research 2013. International Network on Leave Policies and Research, pp. 240-245. Available at: http://www.leavenetwork.org/fileadmin/Leavenetwork/Country_notes/2013/Slovenia. FINALcitation.pdf (accessed 23 August 2013). Turk, Dunja (2011). Ukrepi, prijazni do družine, bodo spet sofinancirani [Family- friendly measures will be co-financed again]. Finance, 49/2011, 11 March 2011. Available at: http://www.finance.si/305411/Ukrepi-prijazni-do-dru%BEine-bodo-spet- sofinancirani?src=rad110311 (accessed 5 April 2011). UN (2013). Concluding observations on the combined third and fourth periodic reports of the Republic of Slovenia, adopted by the Committee at its sixty-third session (27 May – 14 June 2013). CRC/C/SVN/CO/3-4, 14 June 2013 (advance unedited version). Geneva: United Nations, Committee on the Rights of the Child. Available at: http://www.childrights4all.eu/ (accessed 7 June 2013). Začetek razdeljevanja evropske pomoči v hrani za leto 2013 [A start of the 2013 European food aid distribution]. Penzionist.info, 22 March 2013. Available at: http://www.penzionist.info/novice/item/238-za%C4%8Detek-razdeljevanja-evropske- pomo%C4%8Di-v-hrani-za-leto-2013 (accessed 26 June 2013). 24ur.com (2012). Sloveniji EU namenja za 2,5 milijona evrov hrane za najbolj ogrožene [The EU allocates to Slovenia food for the most threatened, worth € 2.5 million]. 24ur.com, 1 July 2012. Available at: http://www.24ur.com/novice/slovenija/sloveniji-eu-namenja-za-2-5-milijona-evrov- hrana-za-najbolj-ogrozene.html (accessed 26 June 2013).
2013 38