A ‘child audit’ of the National Action Plans for social inclusion

Fran Bennett and Sandy Ruxton were commissioned by Euronet, the European Children’s Network of organisations campaigning for children’s rights and interests, to write a report exploring how to develop a coherent approach to child poverty and social exclusion across Europe.[Footnote 1] As part of this project, they carried out a ‘child audit’ of the National Action Plans against poverty and social exclusion developed recently by the UK and other member states.

A ‘child audit’ - the starting point
How visible are child poverty and social exclusion?
Children’s rights and seeing poverty through children’s eyes
Promising signs
Have children helped shape the National Action Plans?
Recommendations

There seem to be very few social policy initiatives involving new European Union level legislation these days. Instead, member states are now co-operating on social policy issues through what is known as the ‘open method of co-ordination’. This means that some progress can still be made by countries setting shared objectives, exchanging best practice and learning from one another. The first experiment using this new method was the development of National Action Plans against poverty and social exclusion. These became known as the National Action Plans on social inclusion (and therefore NAPs/incl). The first versions of the NAPs/incl, covering 2001 to 2003, were produced by all member states in 2001.[Footnote 2] The next NAPs/incl, for the period from 2003 to 2005, are being developed now.

The NAPs/incl stem from the Amsterdam Treaty signed in 1997, which for the first time recognised the ‘combating of social exclusion’ as a goal for the European Union (EU), and provided for measures to encourage co-operation between member states to help achieve this. At the Lisbon European Council in 2000, this goal was refined and specified in more detail. Later in 2000, the broad objectives to combat social exclusion were agreed. A subgroup was also set up to develop common indicators to measure countries’ progress.[Footnote 3]

Priority actions should be developed by member states for defined target groups (‘for example, minority groups, children, the elderly and the disabled’).
Presidency Conclusions, Lisbon European Council, 23 and 24 March 2000, SN 100/00

For the first time, children were mentioned at the Lisbon European Council as a specific group whose needs should be addressed in the context of social exclusion – although the Council rejected a proposal from the European Commission that there should be a target to reduce child poverty by half in EU member states by 2010.[Footnote 4] Euronet was interested in building on this new focus on children, and in particular in examining the NAPs/incl to see what could be learned about the best ways forward to tackle child poverty and social exclusion in a more coherent way across the EU.

A ‘child audit’ – the starting point
Euronet’s approach emphasises children’s rights – including their right to participate in decision making processes which affect their lives – and seeing poverty through children’s eyes.[Footnote 5] So this was the lens through which it looked at the NAPs/incl.

First, though, the limits of the exercise had to be acknowledged. There is no legal base in the EU Treaties giving the EU itself a general power to act on issues affecting children. Moreover, the references to children in the framework agreed for the NAPs/incl at the Nice European Council were rather scattered; and member states were encouraged to produce an integrated plan, rather than one structured by target group. And because the National Action Plans on employment preceded the NAPs/incl, the focus on employment remained strong, and probably militated against mainstreaming a focus on children in the NAPs/incl.

Member states also had very different starting points, in terms of the magnitude of child poverty and social exclusion in their country. The volume and risk of child poverty vary hugely across the EU.[Footnote 6] Although in most countries children are at greater risk of poverty than adults, this is not so everywhere, and in some countries the reverse is the case. (This variation, of course, means that it is not possible to argue convincingly that child poverty and social exclusion are an inevitable result of current developments in the family, or labour market, or both.) An emphasis on children in one country’s NAPs/incl may demonstrate a real sensitivity to children’s rights, which has already helped reduce child poverty to low levels – or, alternatively, a realistic recognition that child poverty and social exclusion represent a huge challenge. Differing degrees of devolution also mean that central government may have varying influence in determining strategies for combating child poverty.

These factors mean that analysing the NAPs/incl in their present form is not comparing like with like, and should be tackled with caution.[Footnote 7] Moreover, it was clear that for most member states the first version of the NAPs/incl had been written in haste, and often was seen more as an opportunity to list existing policies than a chance to develop new initiatives. In most cases, the production of the NAPs/incl had not been dovetailed with national budgetary processes. Therefore, not only are no new resources usually attached, but often there is little analysis of spending on poverty and social exclusion, and its impact. However, given that this is the start of a ten-year programme, the contribution of the NAPs/incl to tackling child poverty and social exclusion is obviously worth tracking and their potential is worth shaping.

How visible are child poverty and social exclusion?
The European Commission’s report on the NAPs/incl [Footnote 8] notes that the perception of trends in poverty and social exclusion is uneven across member states. Often, whilst the key challenges (including labour market changes, demographic trends and changes in the family) are highlighted, the implications for children are not explicitly drawn out; or alternatively, children may only be seen in the context of these challenges rather than as subjects in their own right. There is some confusion about whether to see children as a whole as a vulnerable group in terms of the risks of poverty and exclusion, or whether only certain subgroups of children should be seen in this light. Few plans differentiate children by age, even though different age groups may vary in the risk of poverty and/or in the impact of poverty on their life and future.

Some member states do address the issue of child poverty and social exclusion in a more comprehensive way than others. This includes the UK, of course, which highlights the challenge of child poverty in the NAPs/incl, as it does in its own annual national strategy document, Opportunity for All.[Footnote 9] This is in part for positive reasons – because it adopts a framework of lifecycle stages, which has advantages, and because it stresses the impact of early disadvantage on the whole lifecourse. But it is also for more negative reasons – because poverty amongst children in the UK is currently so high. On the other hand, Save the Children Finland argues: ‘The very common view in the Finnish society is that we do not want any distinct strategy to combat child poverty and exclusion, but instead we have to build our society in such a way that these kind of problems or questions are not even arising.’[Footnote10]

Children’s rights and seeing poverty through children’s eyes
Few member states use child rights as a shaping framework, and none analyses whether the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is being fulfilled in full in its country, although this could be a useful way of discussing different aspects of poverty and social exclusion among children. However, Sweden and Denmark both declare that their legislation is based on the UN Convention; and some mention that they have a Children’s Ombudsman. Some countries have developed separate strategies for children which may also adopt a rights perspective. Some countries’ energies are obviously directed elsewhere: Ireland, for example, was in the middle of reviewing its own national anti-poverty strategy, and clearly placed more priority on that than on developing its NAPs/incl in much detail.

Children are often dealt with in terms of their future, rather than their well-being and participation in society here and now. The emphasis on employment can overshadow issues of resources and rights for anyone not in the labour market, including children. The tendency to see children largely in terms of their parents’ status, or family policy, also means that some issues of central significance to children’s welfare are not explored. For example, the make-up of household income and who receives it – not just family income in total, household economic status or family type – may be key to children’s well-being; yet this is not discussed explicitly. Neither do member states generally examine critically some of their more problematic policies, such as benefit incentives and sanctions, in terms of their impact on children.

‘Politicians often refer to us children as being the future of Europe. But we are living right now. Our childhood is happening now and not in the future.’
‘Build Children’s Europe – make child rights real’, statement from the Children’s Summit Meeting, Gotenborg, Sweden, 13 June 2001

Promising signs
But there are many promising signs in the NAPs/incl as well. Education, for example, emerges as a central concern, and a fundamental right, for many member states. It is true that in some cases this is less about children’s rights to good education and a good educational experience, and more about securing a passport to integration into the adult world. There could be more focus on what is needed to avoid the stigma suffered by so many children and their parents, and the prior need to combat poverty if children are to gain fully from their time in school. There was also room for examining the place of schools in upholding the values of an inclusive society aware of the rights of children and others, and in helping children to become aware of their rights. But there is some emphasis on universal access, and the costs of a so-called ‘free’ education system, as well as some discussion of funding for disadvantaged schools and areas. Some member states mention specific groups of children, such as minority ethnic groups and Roma children. There is consensus about the seriousness of early leaving.

Several NAPs/incl – including the UK’s – also emphasise the importance of early intervention in disadvantaged children’s lives in order to prevent future problems. The UK and Portugal set ambitious targets for the elimination of child poverty (though not social exclusion), and Ireland sees its overall poverty target as the single most important element of its national anti-poverty strategy. Several member states put some emphasis on children in their choice of indicators by which to measure the success of their strategies. Ireland, for example, says that it will disaggregate all its indicators to show the position of children, whilst the UK uses different indicators for different age groups across the lifecycle, and distinguishes between measures of current poverty and exclusion and those which could cause increased risk for the future.

‘The European Children’s Ministers meeting underlines the merits of a specific consideration for childhood in the national plans implemented by the member states, especially those with respect […] to fighting social exclusion.’
Conclusions, European Meeting of Children’s Ministers, 9 November 2001

Have children helped shape the National Action Plans?
The fourth objective of the framework for the NAPs/incl recommends that member states should promote the participation and self-expression of people suffering exclusion; mainstream the fight against exclusion into their overall policies; and ‘mobilise all relevant actors’. The involvement of stakeholders outside government in drawing up the NAPs/incl varied enormously in the first round. Those countries which have a social partnership, or national consensus, model could more easily incorporate the NAPs/incl discussions, as could those in which there is an ongoing dialogue with civil society such as the Netherlands. Those in which no such structures exist for regular debates about overall policy priorities were not able to involve groups outside government as systematically or constructively in drawing up the NAPs/incl.

In general, the promotion of participation and self-expression by people living in poverty is not systematically addressed, and the need to include children in this objective is not usually even acknowledged. Several countries, including the UK, were simultaneously developing wider participation plans for children in shaping an overall strategy for children. This is to be commended – although the challenge then is to ensure that such exercises reach out proactively to include children living in poverty and social exclusion. Sweden’s NAPs/incl is the only one to set out a goal of integrating children’s point of view into all the measures it proposes.

Recommendations
Euronet is already pushing for the insertion of a new Article in the EU Treaties so that the EU can contribute to the promotion and protection of the rights and needs of children, within existing legal competences and respecting the lead role of the member states.[Footnote 11] But following its ‘child audit’ of the first round of the NAPs/incl, Euronet’s specific policy recommendations included:

• further development of the objectives agreed for the National Action Plans against poverty and social exclusion in order to reflect children’s interests systematically throughout;
  
• further guidance from the European Commission to member states about how to incorporate a children’s perspective in their NAPs/incl;
  
• more sustained efforts by member states themselves to ensure that they foreground and mainstream child poverty and social exclusion throughout their NAPs/incl, using child rights as a shaping perspective; and
  
• more systematic involvement of children living in poverty/social exclusion and the organisations representing their interests in monitoring, evaluating and developing the NAPs/incl in future.

In addition, Euronet made some recommendations in the report about measurement of progress on tackling child poverty and social exclusion. First and most importantly, it argued that there should be a more explicit focus on children in the common indicators of poverty and social exclusion used to monitor member states’ performance in relation to their plans.[Footnote 12] Data should be disaggregated to show the position of children. There should be a particular focus on measuring factors known to be important in children’s experience, such as poverty in young childhood; frequent moves of house and school; and mediating features for the individual, household and neighbourhood which positively or negatively affect children’s resilience and degree of risk. Adoption of a children’s rights perspective would alter the emphasis of data collection (as well as policy measures) – for example, in education, away from increasing overall achievement levels towards ensuring every child’s right to maximise their potential and enjoy a positive educational experience.[Footnote 13]

Timed targets on eliminating child poverty should be developed by member states for inclusion in the next version of their NAPs/incl, due to be published in the middle of 2003. A child rights perspective would also suggest that in developing the NAPs/incl, member states should move towards the achievement of minimum standards for social provision to tackle child poverty and social exclusion. In the longer term, there may also be scope for possible action at EU level, on targets and minimum standards, in addition to member states’ own strategies. For example, a short-term target would be for all member states to aim to match the performance of the average of the best three in relation to child poverty.[Footnote 14] EU-wide targets are already set for employment rates within member states. In the longer term, consideration could therefore be given to setting an EU-wide target for the elimination/reduction of child poverty.

The National Action Plans against poverty and social exclusion may be purely voluntary and they may only be in the first stages of development. But they have great potential for helping individual member states to develop more coherent policy packages to tackle child poverty and social exclusion and for moving towards more ambitious goals and strategies at EU level.

‘The persistence of child poverty in rich countries undermines both equality of opportunity and commonality of values. It therefore confronts the industrialised world with a test both of its ideals and of its capacity to resolve many of its most intractable social problems.’
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, A League Table of Child Poverty in Rich Nations, Innocenti Report Card No. 1, 2000

 

Fran Bennet is an independent social policy expert and part-time research officer and departmental lecturer at the University of Oxford. Sandy Ruxton is an independent social policy adviser on UK and EU poverty issues for Oxfam GB.

Euronet is based at: Rue Montoyer 39, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium (Tel: + 32 2 512 4500; email: europeanchildrenetwork@skynet.be). This article is based on the Euronet report, but was written by Fran Bennett, who therefore takes responsibility for the views expressed, and for any errors.

Footnotes
1. S Ruxton and F Bennett, Including Children? Developing a coherent approach to child poverty and social exclusion across Europe, Euronet, 2002 [back to text]
2. See for example, United Kingdom National Action Plan on Social Inclusion 2001-2003, 2001 [back to text]
3. Social Protection Committee, Report on Indicators in the Filed of Poverty and Social Exclusion, 2001 [back to text]
4. European Commission, Building an Inclusive Europe, COM (2002) 79 [back to text]
5. The project drew on, and found very useful, the approach developed by Tess Ridge and described in her recent articles in Poverty for CPAG; see T Ridge Childhood Poverty and Social Exclusion: from a child's perpective, The Policy Press, 2002. Another useful source was J Micklewright, Social Exclusion and Children: a European view for a US debate, CASEPaper 51, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics, 2002. [back to text]
6. Eurostat, The Social Situation in the EU 2001, European Commission, 2001 [back to text]
7. In part for this reason, this article and the original report focus on general conclusions, rather than highlighting specific points in individual member states' National Action Plans for social inclusion. [back to text]
8. European Commission, Communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee of the Regions: draft joint report on social inclusion, COM (2001), 565 final, 2001 [back to text]
9. For example, see Department for Work and Pensions, Opportunity for All: fourth annual report 2002, Cm 5598, The Stationery Office, 2002 [back to text]
10. Response from Save the Children Finland to Euronet questionnaire for Including Children? project, 2001[back to text]
11.See for example, S Ruxton, A Children's Policy for 21st Century Europe, Euronet, 1999 [back to text]
12. See A B Atkinson, B Cantillon, E Marlier and B Nolan, Social Indicators: the EU and social inclusion, Oxford University Press, 2002 [back to text]
13. S Klasen, Social Exclusion, Children and Education: conceptual and measurement issues, University of Munich, 2001 [back to text]
14.This proposal was put forward by Tony Atkinson in relation to overall poverty levels (in A B Atkinson, A European Social Agenda: poverty benchmarking and social transfers, CAE2000, 2000 [back to text]

Poverty 114, Winter 2003