Barcelona y sus servicios 3.1 Introducción
3.2. Los servicios al ciudadano
Given the multi-dimensional nature of the phenomena at stake, no single policy is sufficient to ensure the social inclusion and well-being of children and their families.
I.3.1 Need for regular reporting on progress made by Member States in the field of child poverty risk and well-being
The increased attention being given to child poverty and well-being at EU level has contributed to an increased political momentum on these issues63. For this to be maintained and enhanced, regular reporting is needed on the progress that countries are making in the fight against child poverty and social exclusion. This reporting should be organised as part of the existing reporting framework under the Social Protection and Social Inclusion Process. It should be multi-dimensional (i.e., it should cover a range of risks beyond income poverty) and it should help identify more clearly the areas in which individual countries need to improve their performances. It should link with and feed into the monitoring processes arising from the implementation process of the July 2006 Commission Communication on the Rights of the Child64 and could usefully inform the shaping of an EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child.
I.3.2 Monitoring child poverty risk
In Part I of the present report, we have grouped countries from highest to lowest performances according to the national values of an indicator on “relative child poverty risk outcome”. For each country, this indicator is calculated on the basis of a score summarising the relative situation of children in that country with regard to: a) the poverty risk for the overall population in that country, b) the average intensity of poverty risk for children (poverty gap) at EU level, and c) the average child poverty risk for the EU as a whole. We have then analysed the relationship between these national performances and three other indicators: proportion of children living in jobless households, proportion of children living in households at risk of “in-work poverty”, and impact of social transfers. And we have completed the national pictures with some information on the key characteristics of the households with children for individual countries.
Our analytical review has emphasised that child poverty risk outcomes result from complex interactions between these different factors and that the countries achieving the best relative child poverty risk outcomes are those that are performing well on all fronts, notably by combining strategies aimed at facilitating access to employment and enabling services (child care, etc) with income support. This analysis in Part I provides a base line
against which future progress should be measured as well as an analytical framework for the assessment of EU and countries’ progress in fighting child poverty and social exclusion.
The analysis in Part I has highlighted the need to complement the existing EU indicators with derived indicators and statistics that better reflect the situation of households with children – for instance, the labour market participation of parents and the breakdown of poverty risk by an amended version of the household’s “work intensity” variable.
63 See, for instance, the 2006-2008 National Reports on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion and their analysis in the 2007 Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion.
64 European Commission (2006), “Towards an EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child”, Communication from the Commission, COM(2006) 367 final, Brussels.
129 The regular EU progress report on child poverty and social exclusion, to be implemented in connection with the EU Social Protection and Social Inclusion Process, should make full use of the analytical framework put forward in the Task-Force report.
I.3.3 Monitoring child well-being
The regular EU progress report on child poverty and social exclusion should cover not only child poverty risk but also other aspects of the situation of children. For this, it is not enough to rely on a breakdown by age group (children vs. other age groups) of the existing commonly agreed EU indicators.
The review of Member States’ monitoring systems presented in Part II of this report shows that children mainstreaming requires that we move beyond the existing set of EU indicators and complement these indicators to reflect other aspects of child well-being (primarily material deprivation, housing, local environment, health, education, social participation and family environment, and exposure to risk and risk behaviour). The importance of complementing EU indicators was already stressed by the SPC in the streamlined list of EU indicators for social inclusion that it adopted in June 200665. Indeed, this list includes:
• a slot for at least one indicator on material deprivation (with an explicit breakdown for children);
• a slot for at least one indicator on housing (with an explicit breakdown for children);
• a slot for at least one indicator on “child well-being”.
To better assess children’s material deprivation (including some aspects of housing conditions), specific questions on this topic will be included in the 2009 wave of the
Community statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC). The first results of this thematic module should become available by the end of 2010, i.e. in time for being taken into account by the European Statistical System when EU-SILC will be revised in 2011. (See also point I.5.1 below.)
Member States and the Commission are encouraged to make full use of the review of indicators presented in Part II of this report. Even though it is certainly not exhaustive, this review provides a wealth of information on indicators that are already used by one or several Member States and that draw on a variety of data sources (including EU and other trans-national data-sources66).
Through the SPC Indicators Sub-Group, Member States should also jointly examine how to better cover not only children’s material deprivation and housing conditions, but also the important dimensions of child well-being that are still missing or not satisfactorily covered in the EU set of indicators (health, education, social participation and family environment, exposure to risk and risk behaviour, and local environment). They should also explore the possibility of complementing the EU framework with information collected through specific data sources on children in vulnerable situation. Special
65 http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_inclusion/docs/2006/indicators_en.pdf
66 Data sources used by Member States for constructing their indicators include EU-SILC and the Labour Force Survey, as well as administrative data and population register data, family budget surveys, household budget surveys, national household panel surveys, specific surveys on children, national demographic statistics, living conditions surveys of the Roma population, health surveys, national education statistics and PISA survey (see also point 1.5 below).
surveys on children (including children's own experience and perceptions of poverty and social exclusion) should also be carefully investigated (see points I.5.3 and I.5.4 below).
Î See Recommendations 3-5