EU funding

• Author: Applica, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (European Commission), Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER)
• Pages: 18-22

Report on the online consultation

18

Figure 9. The respondent agrees/disagrees with the fol lowing statements

Q7a: Member States should be encouraged to develop coordinated approaches

to the integration of Roma children into society

Q7b: The Commission should develop and promote good standards for the

social integration of migrants children, including unaccompanied minors, and

ensure their access to key social rights

Q7c: In the implementation of the EU Recommendation on the integration of

the long-term unemployed, Member States should be encouraged to give

particular attention to parents at risk

Q7d: The well-being of children, especially those in vulnerable situations,

should be a key element of the fol low through of the proposals on work-life

balance for working parents and carers

Q7e: Children should be a key concern in the implementation of the European

Disability Strategy 2010-2020 and in any future EU strategy relating to

disability

Q7f: The Commission support and funding for the Joint Action for Mental Health

and Well-being should emphasise the importance of a strong focus on children

Q7g: The implementation of the EU Reco mmendation on Upskilling Pathways

should give particular attention to unemployed parents with low skills levels

8 EU funding

This section of the questionnaire included four questions on EU funding, specifically on the

European Social Fund (ESF), the Fund for European aid to the most deprived (FEAD), the

European Regional Development Fund ( ERDF) and t he Asylum, Migration and Integration

Fund (AMIF).

The first question is on whether respondents believe their country spends a sufficient

amount of the EU funding it receives on relieving child poverty and i ncreasing children’s

access to key s ocial rights or t hat it should spend more. Only 4% (mai nly from regional

and national authorities) consider that the amount spent is sufficient, while a third (33%)

think that it is sufficient but should be bette r targeted at vul nerable children (Figure 10).

However, slightly more (36%), disproportionately from NGOs, researchers and, to a lesser

extent, Managing Authorities of Cohesion policy programmes, think that the amount is

insufficient and should be increased . At the same time, over a quarter of the respondents

(28%) are ‘don’t knows’, which is perhaps understandable given the limited inf ormation

generally available on how much funding goes to the areas con cerned.