The way forward?

• Author: Applica, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (European Commission), Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER)
• Pages: 22-24

Report on the online consultation

22

system for controlling and sanctioning the usage of funding to be put in place. Other

barriers identified in the same broad area include problems of corruption and lack of

transparency, the complexity of the funding system (which makes it difficult for small

NGOs, in particular, to apply successfully for funds), which is reinforced by a lack of EU

guidance, with policy makers at national level often facing language barriers when seeking

information on EU funding. The complexity involved in investing in housing under the ERDF

was also mentioned.

Almost as many (31%) poi nted to problems of political commitment and administrative

issues. It is suggested that there is a ne ed for evidence-based and targeted policies, as

well as an integrated strategy covering all government policies and for these policies to be

implemented effectively. Specific barriers identified include excessive bureaucracy, l ong

waiting lists to access services, a lack of cooperation between the different departments or

institutions resp onsible for policies in the relev ant areas and poor organisation of public

administration.

A significant proportion (19%) suggests the need for the adoption of a new approach

involving both parents and children in the d esign, delivery and monitoring of services, as

well as in the planning of EU funds. Some also propose the greater involvement of social

partners and social workers in these tasks.

A slightly smaller pro portion (16%) identified discrimination and stigmat isation as

important barriers, discrimination against Roma children and children with disabilities being

mentioned specifically. It is suggested in particular that EU funds should never support

services that segregate these two groups of children from others. The same is suggested

in respect of migrants, which it i s said, prevents a holistic approach to famili es and so to

the social inclusion of children. It is noted that that separation creates problems for service

providers, that services for undocumented migrants are largely excluded from ESF support

and that services co-financed by the ESF are only accessible to asylum seekers in some

Member States. It is also pointed out that the exclusion of asylum seekers and

undocumented mi grants with children from labour market integration measures reduces

the impact of EU funds on the social inclusion of children i n this particular group.

A smaller proportion still (12%) point to the monitoring of policies as being insufficient and

that the lack of reliable data, particularly on vulnerable children, is a major issue. There is

a need, it is suggested, to organise regular collection of data, disaggregated by region, and

to ensure that data are comparable across countries.

In sum, the large majority of respondents consider that th eir country does not spend a

sufficient amount of EU funding on relieving child poverty. For most, the am ount that is

spent should be increased or better targeted and the EU should encourage Member States

to spend more. They also l argely believe that EU funding is not used effectively in their

countries.

The main barriers to achieving a mo re effective use of EU funds are seen a s the absence

of a strategic and coordinated approach to combating child poverty, a lack of funding at all

levels being explicitly targeted at reducing child poverty and insufficient public and political

awareness of the issue. Some respondents also point to the complexi ty of the EU funding

system, a lack of political will to tackle the issue, di scrimination against disadvantaged

children in the implementation of policies and a lack of data to reveal the extent and nature

of child poverty and the way that it is changing.

9 The way forward?

In this section of the questionnaire, respondents were asked for their views on the creation

of a specific EU instrument for ensuring children’s social rights .

In p ractice, less than half of respondents (45%) consider that a specific EU instrument

would be more effective in ensuring children’s social rights than those which already exist.

At the same time, this is ov er three times the proportion of those that think it would not

be more effective. (14%) (Figure 14). This leaves a large number (41%) who do not know,

including half the respondents from national and regional authorities. Many respondents,