Use of EU funds

• Author: Hunt, Paula Frederica
• Pages: 51-57

Target Group Discussion Paper Children with disabilities

51

Use of EU Funds

5.1 Extent of use

According to the European Parliament document Fighting Ch ild Poverty: the Role of EU

Funding, ‘In the EU, child poverty has increasingly been understood as a context-specific,

multidimensional phenomenon, encompassing not only a lack of money and assets but also

other forms of deprivation connected to children’s survival, development, protection and

participation in decisions that affect their lives. The rights-based approach to child poverty

highlights the multiple factors whi ch contribute to a child’s well -being, and articulates the

rights of children to an adequate standard of living, and to be free from deprivations across

crucial aspects of their lives including their health, education, nutrition, care and protection’

(p.8).

As detailed elsewhere in this paper, child poverty and disability are thought to be cyclical

phenomena. If, as posited in the document above, child poverty has identifiable causes

and effects that pose life-long consequences, it stands to reason that it falls within the EU’s

jurisdiction to address the causes that are ‘underpinning broader community and

household poverty, linked to economic circumstances, social inequalities and institutional

bias in policy and service delivery, among other factors’ (Marshall, 2003, p.21). In the EU,

as elsewhere, children from the TGs included in this study are more likely to live in poverty,

be discriminated against, and face structural inequity. However, as demonstrated in six

documented case-studies (Philipov & Jaschinski, 2014), the ‘process of the adaptation of

EU-level priorities to the national level fails to emphasise the child poverty problem

specifically, or to introduce a comprehensive approach to addressing it (…) the process

demonstrates fragmented attempts to improve access to services, especially to childcare

and education, and in particular for Roma children, children with disabilities and other

disadvantaged groups’ (p.32). This being the case, it can be assumed that co-ordinated,

integrated, and comprehensive policies (and actions) that target poverty alleviation in the

EU are more likely to be able to have an impact on the lives of children with disabilities

(and their families) in the EU Member States.

The availability of evidence on the extent to which EU Funds are used to support policies

and programmes in favour of children at risk of poverty and social exclusion is sketchy,

and this is even more the case in relation to the four TGs focused on by the FSCG –

including the TG that is the focus of this report, children with disabilities. The limited

availability of data and information is a point that is made repeatedly in the Country

Reports and the PA Reports prepared for the FSCG, as well as in other recent studies such

as that by the ESPN (see Frazer and Marlier, 2017) and a recent report for the European

Parliament (see Brozaitis et al., 2018).

According to Bradshaw & Rees (2019), many Country Reports exhibit difficulty in tracing

information regarding European Social Fund (ESF) funds used for nutrition, and even fewer

links were made with regards to the use of funds for the TGs. FEAD funds were easier to

track, with various countries providing examples of their use, although it is difficult to

determine to what extent they address the specific needs of the specific TGs (as opposed

to children in general). No Asylum Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) funds were

reported to be used for children.

Nicaise et al. (2019) indicate that it is not possible to identify ESF investments spent on

children’s education, much less those used on children in the TGs. It seems that most funds

have been spent on promoting equal access to school and in preventing drop-outs.

Similarly, it is difficult to determine from the Country Reports the extent to which ESF

funds were spent on the TGs. 3% of European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) funds

go to education and vocational training and 6% to social inclusion. Again, the reports are

inconclusive as to expenditures on the TGs. FEAD funds (as seen above) were easier to

track but without specific links to TGs. No links to the TGs were found in Erasmus+ or in

AMIF.

Micklewright (2019) makes no mention of EU funds used in healthcare and with a specific

focus on children with disabilities.