European Social Network (ESN)



[pic]

EU local and regional authorities contributing to the

Mid-term review of Europe 2020

Assessment of the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion flagship initiative

Over two years after its launch, the Committee of the Regions will take stock of the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion flagship initiative at a conference to be held on 29 May 2013 in Brussels. This conference will be the fourth in a series of CoR events and monitoring initiatives surrounding the mid-term review of Europe 2020 in 2014. More news on this conference can be found on the CoR website[1].

By participating in this survey, you will:

- ensure that your views are taken into account in the debate held during the conference;

- contribute to the fourth CoR Monitoring Report on Europe 2020, to be published in October 2013;

- contribute to the CoR's consultative activity in this field over the coming months;

- contribute to the mid-term review of Europe 2020 in 2014.

If you wish to participate in this survey, Please complete this questionnaire in any eu language, using the spaces provided, and return it in text format to:

europe2020@cor.europa.eu

by 22 April 2013

For more information on this survey and for details on how to join the

Europe 2020 Monitoring Platform, go to:



The questionnaire is available on this website in all official languages of the EU

Contributor information[2]

|Name of sender: |Stephen Barnett |

|Contact details: |Victoria House, 125 Queens Road, Brighton BN1 3WB, UK |

|(address, telephone, email) | |

|On behalf of: |European Social Network |

|(name of local or regional authority) | |

|Type of organisation | City/Town/Municipality Region |

| |County/Province |

| |Association of local and/or regional authorities |

| |Other (please specify) |

|Country: |EU-wide |

|Member of the EUROPE 2020 Monitoring Platform: | Yes No |

Policy challenges and responses at regional and local level

|BOX 1 – European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: basic information |

| |

|This is the first time ever that the objective of reducing poverty has been identified as a quantitative target under an EU strategy. The|

|aim of the Europe 2020 flagship initiative, the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion, is "to ensure economic, social |

|and territorial cohesion in order to raise awareness and recognise the fundamental rights of people experiencing poverty and social |

|exclusion, enabling them to live in dignity and take an active part in society" [3]. In particular, it outlines actions to help Member |

|States reach the EU target of reducing poverty and social exclusion by at least 20 million by the year 2020[4]. |

| |

|Although the average at-risk-of-poverty-and-social-exclusion rate in the EU has remained relatively stable in recent years, it varies |

|significantly among different age groups and between the Member States. It has significantly increased in a number of countries over the |

|last three to four years[5]: while the rate is under 20% in certain Member States such as Denmark, Germany and Luxembourg, it recently |

|increased to 47% in Bulgaria, 40% in Latvia and 31% in Greece (2011). Furthermore, considerable differences exist between different |

|regions in the Member States[6]. |

|Today, the inhabitants of around one fifth of the EU's regions are particularly exposed to risks of poverty and social exclusion. |

| |

|The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion feeds into the Europe 2020 objective of inclusive growth along with the Agenda|

|for New Skills and Jobs flagship initiative. It will also help to achieve the other objectives of smart growth (alongside the Youth on |

|the Move flagship initiative). In particular, it contributes to the objective of achieving the Europe 2020 headline target to lift at |

|least 20 million people out of the risk of poverty and social exclusion. |

| |

|The main objectives and lines of action of the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion are highlighted in Box 2 below. |

| |

|EU regional and local governments are responsible for about one fifth of total government expenditure for social protection and services |

|and therefore play an important role in helping to achieve the objectives of the flagship initiative[7]. |

| |

|You can find more information on the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion, as seen from the local and regional |

|authorities' viewpoint, on the European Commission's Europe 2020 portal[8] and in the Committee of the Regions' publication Delivering on|

|the Europe 2020 Strategy. Handbook for Local and Regional Authorities[9]. General information on Europe 2020 can be found on the |

|strategy's official website[10] and on the website of DG Employment.[11]. |

|1) What are the main challenges currently facing your MEMBERS in terms of (i) preventing child poverty (ii) providing decent housing |

|conditions and (iii) combating the social exclusion of vulnerable groups? |

|Preventing child poverty |

|ESN’s particular concern is with the most disadvantaged and socially excluded children |

|(children with disabilities, children with mental health problems, children in alternative care, |

|children at risk of neglect/abuse, undocumented child migrants/asylum seekers, Roma and |

|traveller children). These are children who may also be at risk of poverty and social exclusion |

|and may struggle to complete secondary education. They are also the children with whom |

|ESN Members in local public social services typically have most contact. For them and their families, specialist services that support |

|their participation in education, social and cultural life, are important. |

| |

|ESN sees it as important to help parents or other adults involved in a child's upbringing, |

|given the ‘cycle of deprivation’, whereby children ‘inherit’ poverty and disadvantage from their |

|parents. In many cases, improving children’s lives also means improving parents’ lives. ESN |

|also emphasises the links between different key services, the importance of multi-agency |

|work between services working with children, the mutual interdependence of benefits, family |

|policies and services, and the participation of children in decisions affecting their lives. |

|Among the challenges are: |

|Meeting the individual needs and wishes of each child at risk of social exclusion |

|Reaching the right balance between supporting the family and the child within the family |

|Ensuring the safety of children at risk of neglect and harm |

|Assuring a joined up approach across multiple agencies and levels of government |

| |

| |

|Decent housing |

|ESN does not currently work in depth on housing issues. |

| |

|Combating social exclusion of vulnerable groups |

|The challenges here depend on each vulnerable group; however ESN would stress that it is vital to assess each person’s needs as an |

|individual rather than as part of a group. A great deal of work has been done by the EU and international organisations on the needs of |

|vulnerable groups: the homeless; people with disabilities; older people on a low income and/or with care needs; people with mental health|

|problems; migrants and asylum-seekers. No doubt the Committee of the Regions is aware of these pieces of work. It is therefore impossible|

|to summarise the key challenges in a short space. |

| |

|Instead, it may be worth mentioning some general challenges that are common to several areas of ESN’s thematic work on social services: |

|Insufficient policy coherence, joint service planning and case management between multiple agencies, e.g. health, social, justice, |

|education, housing; |

|Difficulty in developing prevention and early intervention alongside reactive approaches that respond to an emergency situation... which |

|could have been prevented. |

|Tendency to focus on services that offer protection (welfare payments, forms of sheltered housing) but are incapable of transforming |

|lives for the better and activating them into social, cultural and labour market participation. |

|Achieving a balance between an individual’s rights/entitlements and their duties/responsibilities to themselves and to society |

|(The absence of) evidence of what types of (social) intervention, service design, policy approaches are effective in transforming lives |

|for the better and in an efficient way. |

|Advancing social inclusion at a time when there is overwhelming pressure on public budgets and savings are required at very short notice |

|(especially in Troika programme countries) |

|These are challenges at the interface of public services with vulnerable individuals. |

|2) Please briefly describe what type of policy programmes/actions are being implemented BY YOUR ORGANISATION in the policy areas covered|

|by the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion, highlighting their specific contribution to the above targets (see Box |

|1). |

|ESN’s priorities over the last three years have been: |

|Developing community care and integration of people with disabilities |

|Mental health and wellbeing |

|Child poverty and wellbeing |

|Long-term care and social inclusion for older people |

|Choice and control for service users |

|Impact of and responses to the economic crisis |

|It is impossible to be specific about the contribution to the target on poverty and social exclusion. |

|3) Are any of the policy programmes/actions described in the above question carried out in partnership with different tiers of government|

|and/or with other stakeholders (regional or local NGOs, representatives of the social partners, the business sector or service |

|providers). If yes, please state (a) the administrative levels involved (b) the practical arrangements taken to manage such joint action |

|(c) who the main partners were and (d) how you worked with them (work organisation and time). |

| |

|Since I am not answering this questionnaire for an individual local authority, it does not make sense to respond to this question |

|directly. However, ESN will hold a workshop on partnership between social services, employment, health and education on 20-21 May and |

|would like to share the results of this workshop with the CoR. |

|4) Ensuring effective access to and participation in cultural activities for all is an essential part of promoting an inclusive society. |

|In what way can participation in cultural and creative activities be instrumental for helping people and communities overcome poverty and|

|social exclusion? Please refer to specific examples and existing initiatives. |

| |

|This is not an area on which we have worked. |

How is the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion relevant to your city or region?

|BOX 2 - European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: main objectives and actions |

| |

|The specific objectives of the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion are[12] [13]: |

| |

|to support the eradication of child poverty. Over 20 million children are at risk of poverty in Europe today. This risk rises to 25% for |

|children who live in large families and is over 30% in the case of children who live in single parent families; |

|to promote the active inclusion in society and on the labour market of the most vulnerable groups since unemployment is the principal |

|cause of poverty among the working-age population. The risk of poverty for the unemployed is more than five times greater than in the |

|case of people in employment; |

|to provide decent housing for everyone. Homelessness and housing exclusion represent one of the most extreme forms of poverty and have |

|increased in recent years. Fuel poverty, which risks depriving households not only of heating or air conditioning but also hot water, |

|light and other essential domestic necessities, is another example of severe deprivation; |

|to overcome discrimination and increase the social integration of people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, immigrants and other |

|vulnerable groups. For example, older people face a higher risk of poverty compared to the overall population; moreover, in some |

|countries older people are at particular risk of material deprivation; |

|to tackle financial exclusion and over-indebtedness which arise from a lack of access to basic banking services, a situation which has |

|been aggravated by the recent crisis. It can also be an obstacle to finding a job and thus lead to persistent marginalisation and |

|poverty; |

|to promote the integration of Roma. Certain ethnic minorities, of whom Roma are the largest group, and migrant people in general, are |

|disproportionately affected by multiple deprivation. |

|The specific actions and tools at EU level are structured as follows[14] [15]: |

| |

|improved access to work, social security, essential services (healthcare, housing, etc.) and education; |

|better use of EU funds to support social inclusion and combat discrimination; |

|social innovation to identify smart solutions in post-crisis Europe, especially in terms of more effective and efficient social support; |

|new partnerships such as those between the public and the private sector; |

|enhanced policy coordination among the Member States; |

|provision of food to the most deprived people, as well as clothing and other essential goods to homeless people and materially-deprived |

|children[16]. |

|5) Which of the objectives and lines of action of the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion (listed in Box 2) are most |

|relevant for the current situation in your region/city? To what extent have they encouraged you to set more ambitious policy goals at |

|regional/local level? Please explain your answer. |

|Child poverty, active inclusion and social integration of people with disabilities are the most relevant lines of action for ESN Members.|

| |

|The impact of the Investing in Children Recommendation remains to be seen over the coming years, though the UNCRC is seen by Members as |

|constituting strong and inspiring policy guidance. Certainly the EU has influenced Member States’ degree of attention to the poverty and |

|social exclusion of children in recent years. |

| |

|On active inclusion, the 2008 Recommendation was the strongest guidance to Member States from the EU. ESN’s analysis concluded that the |

|Recommendation provided a useful template for reform for Portugal and some regions of Spain and reinforced the approach already being |

|taken in Belgium. In Hungary, it has not managed to speed up efforts for the inclusion of those furthest from the labour market. In |

|Germany and Sweden the impact was limited because existing policies were already in place. Finland saw a large impact of the active |

|inclusion recommendation, but in Italy the impact was small. For a more detailed assessment, please see ESN report “2012 Active inclusion|

|policies in Europe (2008-2012), ESN's review of policy & practice on active inclusion of those furthest from the labour market since the |

|EU’s 2008 policy guidance, available at: |

| |

|The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has had some impact on policy reforms in Member States, and the Commission |

|has contributed to promoting and monitoring this. ESN has been active on deinstitutionalisation (UNCRPD article 19) in this area as a |

|member of the European Expert Group on the Transition to Community Care. ESN has also run a training programme on developing community |

|care and so aided raised awareness and transferred knowledge to policy-makers and service managers in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland|

|and Slovakia. |

| |

|In our experience, the impact of the EPAPSE lines of work (and the social OMC) is about influencing and shaping debate, mutual learning, |

|policy monitoring and the development of knowledge. These subtle influences are hard to measure so the individual responses by regions |

|and cities will be very interesting. |

BOX 3 – Social Investment Package[17] [18]:

The Social Investment Package (SIP) aims to give guidance to Member States on more efficient and effective social policies in response to the significant challenges they currently face such as financial distress, increasing poverty and social exclusion, unemployment, especially among young people. These are combined with the challenge of ageing societies and smaller working age populations, which test the sustainability and adequacy of national social systems.

The Social Investment Package includes a Commission recommendation against child poverty, calling for an integrated approach to child-friendly social investment. Investing in children and young people is especially effective in breaking intergenerational cycles of poverty and social exclusion and improving people's opportunities later in life.

The Social Investment Package is an integrated policy framework which takes account of the social, economic and budgetary divergences between Member States. It focuses on:

1. Ensuring that social protection systems respond to people's needs at critical moments throughout their lives. More needs to be done to reduce the risk of social breakdown and so avoid higher social spending in the future.

2. Simplified and better targeted social policies, to provide adequate and sustainable social protection systems. Some countries have better social outcomes than others despite having similar or lower budgets, demonstrating that there is room for more efficient social policy spending.

3. Upgrading active inclusion strategies in the Member States. Affordable quality childcare and education, prevention of early school leaving, training and job-search assistance, housing support and accessible health care are all policy areas with a strong social investment dimension.

|6) How relevant is the new Social Investment Package adopted by the European Commission on 13 February 2013 (Box 3) for your |

|local/regional policies? Has it encouraged or helped you to set more ambitious policy goals at regional/local level? Please explain your |

|answer. |

|The Social Investment Package is highly relevant for local and regional policies. ESN Members in local and regional government are in |

|some cases faced with rising demand for benefits and services on the one hand and decreasing tax/grant revenue on the other. It is |

|therefore vital for them to improve efficiency and effectiveness along the lines identified in the SIP. |

| |

|It is too early to say whether it has helped local and regional authorities to set more ambitious policy goals. However in ESN’s view, if|

|used wisely, it would provide a useful language, paradigm and some evidence to support strategic investment in social services at the |

|local and regional level. |

|7) What are the strong and weak points of the EU's policies addressing poverty and social exclusion? Were they sufficient in view of the |

|challenges you are facing in this area? If not, would you recommend making any specific changes to the European Platform against Poverty |

|and Social Exclusion flagship initiative after the mid-term review of Europe 2020 in 2014, especially with regard to local and regional |

|authority involvement? |

| |

|It may be an obvious point, but the EPAPSE is only two and half years old as it was published in December 2010. |

| |

|Strong points: |

|The Platform (and the poverty target) lent visibility to the challenge of poverty and social exclusion as one of the seven flagships of |

|the Europe 2020 Strategy; |

|The Platform and social OMC offered tools for data collection, mutual learning, policy reporting & monitoring, awareness-raising and |

|innovation; |

|A massive volume of information and good practices has been built up, through national reporting (social OMC), peer reviews, projects and|

|Networks; |

|A community of interested stakeholders has coalesced around the social OMC and helped to shape its agenda; |

|Issues such as the Roma situation, child poverty or homelessness have been given a boost in visibility; |

|Two new policy concepts have been developed into EU-level Recommendations: one in 2008 on Active inclusion of people excluded from the |

|labour market; another in 2012 on Investing in Children, grown out of the work on child poverty and wellbeing |

| |

|Weak points: |

|The strength of the Platform and social OMC as a soft instrument for knowledge exchange and development has arguably also been its |

|weakness – there has been little compulsion or incentive for policy-makers to act on the knowledge that has been developed; |

|Whilst the EU-level indicators on poverty (and social exclusion) have value because they are comparative, they are quite limiting: many |

|issues that lead to social exclusion are not covered nor adequately acknowledged: disability, mental illness, alcoholism, drug misuse, |

|domestic violence, neglect and abuse, dependency in old age; |

|The driving poverty narrative has unfortunately limited the debate to income inequality, rather than wider societal challenges: this has |

|not been adequate to persuade policy-makers to promote social inclusion for everyone; |

| |

|The EPAPSE and social OMC have been sufficient in generating new policy knowledge, but the implementation of that knowledge by |

|policy-makers at all levels has perhaps been lacking. |

| |

|The EPAPSE communication stated that “supporting the efforts made by national, regional and local authorities remains central to EU |

|action.” Further, it said that they “are at the forefront of implementing policy and proven ‘incubators’ of social innovation.” |

|Unfortunately the level of participation in EPAPSE activities by local and regional government has been low, for example at the Annual |

|Conventions. That said, progress has been made by networks like ESN and EUROCITIES in raising awareness of and ensuring input from local |

|and regional government. |

| |

|It is possible to identify the seeds of the Social Investment Package already within the EPAPSE Communication of 2010, notably in the |

|phrase: |

|“As most of the upcoming decade is likely to be marked by reduced public budgets, actions will have to increase efficiency and trust by |

|finding new participative ways to address poverty while continuing to develop prevention policies and target needs where they arise.” |

|It may not make sense to propose detailed changes to the Platform now, since it has arguably been superseded in its presentation of |

|EU-Commission analysis and priorities by the Social Investment Package. |

| |

|Many of ESN’s Recommendations on the European Platform against Poverty remain valid for a 2014 revision of the Platform. Based on those |

|Recommendations, the CoR might suggest: |

|The Platform should state that poverty and social exclusion are ways of talking about a wide range of social challenges such as |

|inequality, deprivation, marginalisation, addiction and that collective knowledge about the impact of disability, mental illness, |

|alcoholism, drug misuse, domestic violence, neglect and abuse, dependency in old age ought to be strengthened and the feasibility of |

|European indicators explored. |

|The Platform should promote the exchange and learning on all social challenges preferably around population groups (e.g. vulnerable older|

|people), rather than policy silos (e.g. long-term care). ESN had proposed the following simple categorisation in 2010: |

|A Children and Young People (0-25) |

|A1 Children, especially vulnerable children, and their families |

|A2 Young people, especially with low educational attainment |

|B People seeking asylum or migrants or minority ethnic groups inc. Roma/traveller |

|C. Adults (26-64) |

|C1 with mental illness and carers |

|C2 with an intellectual disability and carers |

|C3 with a sensory disability and carers |

|C4 with a physical disability and carers |

|C5 with addictions |

|C6 living on the street |

|D Older people (65+), especially dependent older people, and carers |

|The Platform should encourage the development and sharing of easily comprehensible national/regional/local data which show which policies|

|work well in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, for example through the social innovation and evidence-based policy work. |

|The Platform should renew its commitment to the participation of a wide(r) circle of stakeholders, beyond the established funded |

|Networks, reaching out to regional and local government and to the business community. |

| |

|Please refer to ESN’s Recommendations on the Platform against Poverty & Social Exclusion for further details (attached to my email). |

Are your country's policies relevant to your city or region?

|8) To help meet the headline targets and objectives (see Boxes 1 and 2), your country has set its own country targets, which you can |

|find at [19]. To what extent are the targets set by your country appropriate to your |

|local situation? Please explain. |

|ESN Members recognise the value of the European definitions (relative income poverty, material deprivation, low work intensity) as a |

|measure of the “epidemic” of poverty in society. However, they are used to working with thresholds for welfare benefits based on |

|individual/household income, which are probably below the 60% relative poverty measure. In terms of service provision, they are used to |

|working with people who have a particular problem in their life, such as alcoholism, drug abuse, family breakdown or mental health |

|problems. Several workshop participants said they found the European indicators “too abstract”, at least as a basis for local action. |

| |

|For a more detailed account please see ESN report pp4-5: “Lifting 20 million people out of |

|poverty & social exclusion: Insights and experience from local public social services” |

|9) Does your country's 2012 (current) National Reform Programme[20] (NRP) for Europe 2020 adequately respond to your regional/local needs|

|in the policy areas covered by the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion (see Box 1)? If not, would you suggest any |

|changes in your country's NRP for 2013? |

| |

|The following is an excerpt from ESN’s position paper on the NRPs 2012 and the AGS 2013 “Are adequate and affordable social services a |

|priority in Europe 2020?” available at: |

| |

|Conclusions and Recommendations |

|This assessment of eight countries’ National Reform Programmes in 2012 shows that ‘adequate and affordable social services’ were not a |

|priority despite the importance attached to the issue in the AGS 2012. There are a number of lessons to learn from this assessment as we |

|move into the European Semester 2013. |

| |

|Consultation and Awareness |

|Analysis: Members of ESN’s working group on leadership, performance and innovation had been unaware of the NRPs as such, but were |

|familiar with individual initiatives mentioned. |

| |

|How to improve: Governments should be sure to involve specialists such as associations of social directors besides generic local |

|government networks. They would provide valuable professional and strategic input on social, health, employment and education policy, |

|notably in relation to the target on poverty & social exclusion and to Guideline 10. Even if the NRPs (and NSRs) are unlikely to produce |

|new policy initiatives, greater stakeholder involvement could at least close various reporting gaps. |

| |

|Priorities and policy gaps |

|Analysis: The NRPs tended to focus on economy and employment in the main, turning only to social issues later in the document (albeit in |

|line with the order of Europe 2020 Guidelines and targets), and then having a narrow focus on labour market activation and education; |

|there was little reference to older people in poverty or with care needs, those with a disability or a mental health problem (whether in |

|poverty or not). |

| |

|How to improve: The NRPs need to at least recognise the wider group of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion and in need of |

|long-term care and support, even if few policy details are given, in light of the limited space – these could then be elaborated in the |

|National Social Reports. People at the margins of society and perhaps invisible to EU statistics (those in residential care) should be |

|made visible given the EU’s commitment to ‘inclusive growth’. The importance of adopting a broader ‘active inclusion’ approach which not |

|only looks at active labour market measures but also looks at adequate income support and access to quality services (including social |

|services) should be stressed. However, active inclusion in the labour market cannot be the only approach for the most vulnerable people, |

|who need help first and foremost to achieve independence and a decent quality of life. |

| |

|Relevance to social services |

|Analysis: Social services are mentioned only by implication but not by name in relation to youth unemployment and education, and they are|

|seldom referred to in relation to poverty & social exclusion – despite their responsibility for basic welfare benefits, emergency social |

|aid and social work. This is particularly disappointing in light of the call in the Annual Growth Survey 2012 to give priority to |

|“adequate and affordable social services”. |

| |

|How to improve: In line with the first recommendation to make sure those at the margins of society are visible, there is a concurrent |

|need to recognise those essential social services (and indeed wider public services and policy efforts) that aim to offer them care and |

|support, to help them overcome or manage challenging life circumstances, and ultimately achieve independence and wellbeing – or in other |

|words, social inclusion. |

| |

|Impact of the crisis |

|Analysis: In many NRPs limited attention seems to have been given to the impact of the crisis and financial consolidation packages on the|

|most vulnerable groups in society. The key role played by social services in supporting these groups and helping them find routes out of |

|poverty/exclusion is insufficiently acknowledged and is being put at risk due to the dual impact of cutbacks in resources and increased |

|demands on services. |

| |

|How to improve: Monitoring of the crisis by the European Commission and Member States should give particular attention to the impact on |

|the most vulnerable groups and, given their key role in protecting those most at risk, every effort should be made to protect social |

|services from the effects of financial consolidation. Short-term cuts and a failure to maintain investment in social services will have |

|long term and expensive consequences for society. At the same time, it should be recognised that social services (and welfare and health |

|systems more broadly) need to improve their knowledge of what works and measure their economic and social impact. |

| |

|Protecting children |

|Analysis: Coverage of children and the services that support them in the NRPs is extremely limited, despite the knowledge that children |

|are at a greater risk of poverty/exclusion than the general population and that poverty/exclusion tend to be passed down from one |

|generation to the next. There is a failure to sufficiently recognise that investment in early childhood services is a cost-effective and |

|necessary intervention with long term benefits for the children and the society and thus for achieving Europe 2020’s overall goals. |

| |

|How to improve: Encourage Member States to give more attention to protecting and investing in social services for children in their NRPs |

|2013. In this regard, the forthcoming Commission Recommendation on child poverty and well-being should emphasise the importance of social|

|inclusion and well-being of children in the Europe 2020 process. It should also draw attention to the key role played by specialist |

|social work, family support and child protection services. |

|10) Do you have the opportunity to contribute to the drafting of your NRP, or your National Job Plan, in the policy areas covered by the |

|European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion, even if this takes place indirectly through the organisations that represent |

|cities and regions in your country? If yes, please state how in brief. |

| |

|Consultation and Awareness |

|Analysis: Members of ESN’s working group on leadership, performance and innovation had been unaware of the NRPs as such, but were |

|familiar with individual initiatives mentioned. |

| |

|How to improve: Governments should be sure to involve specialists such as associations of social directors besides generic local |

|government networks. They would provide valuable professional and strategic input on social, health, employment and education policy, |

|notably in relation to the target on poverty & social exclusion and to Guideline 10. Even if the NRPs (and NSRs) are unlikely to produce |

|new policy initiatives, greater stakeholder involvement could at least close various reporting gaps. |

Policy and funding issues

|11) What sources of funding are used to finance your actions under the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion (as |

|provided under question 2)? In particular: what is the role of the EU Structural Funds in funding actions relating to the European |

|Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion? |

| |

|ESN is part-financed by PROGRESS under the Social Inclusion & Protection Networks strand. |

|12) Have any of the goals pursued in fighting poverty and social exclusion been jeopardised due to fiscal consolidation policies and |

|subsequent financial difficulties? |

|Excerpt from ESN conference paper “Adapting European Social Services to the Economic Crisis: Efficiency and Sustainability” (attached to |

|my email) |

| |

|The fight against poverty and social exclusion has first and foremost been jeopardised by the financial and economic crisis itself, which|

|has led to debt problems, unemployment, etc. and secondarily by fiscal consolidation as a consequence of the crisis. In fact, the |

|Commission has argued that social protection has acted as an automatic stabiliser against the consequences of the crisis. |

| |

|Despite the negative impacts on people’s income and welllbeing, it should not forgotten that social protection appears to make a |

|difference. This table[21] shows the percentage of EU citizens estimated to be at risk of poverty (AROP) – the measure used is the number|

|of people living in households with a disposable income below 60% of the average. If we take the EU27 figures for 2008 to 2010 before |

|social transfers – i.e. before the payment of social benefits – then the risk of poverty rose by 0.7 percentage points. However, taking |

|the payment of social benefits into account, it stayed steady at 16.4%. In the case of the Euro Area and Spain, social transfers did not |

|manage to keep the AROP rate steady but did reduce its increase. |

| |

|At risk of poverty |

|Year |

|EU27 |

|Euro Area |

|Spain |

| |

|Before social transfers |

|2008 |

|2010 |

|25.2 |

|25.9 |

|23.9 |

|25 |

|24.1 |

|28.1 |

| |

|After social transfers |

|2008 |

|2010 |

|16.4 |

|16.4 |

|15.8 |

|16.1 |

|19.6 |

|21.8 |

| |

| |

|These figures only take into account social benefits (cash transfers), rather than services, though in some cases benefits and services |

|may go hand-in-hand. |

| |

|Moving on now to the impact on social services, we will rely on statistics drawn from Eurostat by the Council of European Municipalities |

|and Regions (CEMR) and Dexia Crédit Local. Their analysis shows that EU-wide average subnational social spending rose by a dramatic 9% in|

|2009 (compared to 2008) but more slowly (+1.2%) in 2011. This sharp rise is associated with rising unemployment, increased entitlement to|

|housing and other social benefits, and rising demand for advice and support on debt, housing, mental health, work and so on. |

| |

|There is of course a huge variety in the situation within and between the Member States. On the graph opposite, there is no clear |

|grouping of countries worst or least affected by the crisis. Portugal’s municipalities were among those that had no choice but to respond|

|to the crisis with emergency social aid, therefore increasing spending, however they are next to Luxembourg. At the bottom of the table, |

|Romania and Latvia experienced some dramatic cutbacks in social spending at county and municipal level, most of that in the form of |

|reduced staff pay and reduced benefits. Alongside the crisis, one has to consider that municipalities are getting more competences for |

|social spending (e.g. Greece, Netherlands, Lithuania). This tallies with citizens’ expectations: if there are social problems, they |

|expect emergency help and assistance from municipalities, even if they do not have formal legal responsibilities for this. |

|13) Were you directly or indirectly involved in the preparation of the forthcoming Partnership Agreement which is to be signed between |

|your national government and the European Commission for the management of the Structural Funds under the Common Strategic Framework |

|2014-2020? If yes, please explain how in brief. |

|ESN itself was not involved and has not monitored the involvement of its Members. |

|14) How should poverty issues be addressed in the forthcoming Partnership Agreement mentioned in the above question? |

|ESN does not follow the Partnership Agreements in enough detail to be able to comment. |

|15) Please add any further comments you wish to make on the issues covered in this questionnaire. |

| |

|SHARE YOUR GOOD PRACTICE |

| |

|As part of the preparations for the CoR conference to be held on 29 May 2013 and to showcase good practices in areas covered by the |

|European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion, you are invited to submit examples of good practice from your local area. |

|Please complete the form available on our website: |

| |

|[pic] |JOIN THE EUROPE 2020 MONITORING PLATFORM |

| | |

| |To help convey the voice of EU cities and regions in the implementation of Europe 2020 at EU level and in your |

| |country, join us. For details on how, see: |

| | |

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION!

-----------------------

[1] .

[2] Privacy Statement: The follow-up to your contribution requires that your personal data (name, contact details, etc.) be processed in a file. All the answers to the questions are voluntary. Your replies will be kept for a period of 5 years after the receipt of your questionnaire. Should you require any further information or wish to exercise your rights under Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 (e.g. to access, rectify or delete your data), please contact the data controller at europe2020@cor.europa.eu. If necessary, you may also contact the CoR Data Protection Officer (data.protection@cor.europa.eu). You have the right of recourse to the European Data Protection Supervisor at any time (edps.europa.eu). Please note that the questionnaire with your contribution and your contact details will be published online. Your questionnaire may be transmitted to CoR rapporteurs and other EU institutions for information. Should you not agree to this, please inform us accordingly.

[3] EUROPE 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020 final, Brussels, 3.3.2010

p. 19.

[4] .

[5] .

[6] .

[7] .

[8] .

[9] The Handbook can be downloaded from

.

[10] .

[11] .

[12] .

[13] COM(2010) 758 final "The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A European framework for social and territorial cohesion", p. 4-5 - .

[14] .

[15] COM(2010) 758 final "The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A European framework for social and territorial cohesion", p. 5 - .

[16] .

[17] .

[18] COM(2010) 758 final "The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A European framework for social and territorial cohesion", p. 4-5 - .

[19] Please note that some Member States have not set targets in the field of poverty eradication.

[20] All available here: .

[21] Eurostat: own research

-----------------------

EN

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download