Child poverty and wellbeing in the Western Balkans

1. Child poverty and wellbeing in the Western Balkans Elena Gaia UNICEF Regional Office CEE-CIS World Bank International Conference Poverty and Social Exclusion in the Western Balkans Brussels, 15 December 2010

2. This presentation:1. Child poverty, social exclusion and child wellbeing in the Western Balkans2. Social protection for low income families with children in the Western BalkansConclusion

3. UNICEF’s research • Child poverty studies and re-assessments of LSMS/HBS data with children as unit of analysis, at different poverty thresholds and measures (B&H, Kosovo, Macedonia, Serbia) • Policy and public expenditure analyses (MOP in Serbia during the crisis; access to services in rural areas Serbia; child-focused PER in Macedonia) • Monitoring and tracking of impacts of financial, food and energy crises on children (all countries) • Social Monitor 2009 • Data collection initiatives: TransMONEE, MICS, child well-being index • Model family analysis 2010 (with York University)

4. 1. Child poverty and child wellbeing in the Western Balkans

5. Our starting point • Countries in this region do relatively well on MDG or headline poverty indicators but • what is usually monitored in terms of income poverty, education performance, MDG indicators does not necessarily capture well the real challenges faced by children • Getting the definition and measurement of child poverty right is crucial

6. Concepts and definitions

7. Child well-being: an analytical framework • Access to/quality of basic services • Health care • Education • Social services Family inclusion care • Access to basic goods • Housing • Employment • Social benefits Child’s well-being values goods leisure Peers State/Policy environment

8. Child poverty rates and gaps at different thresholds (%) Averages based on fewer than 20 cases are ported as [-]

9. Children and young people in the Western Balkans: what are the issues? • General poverty has been decreasing but vulnerability still high – crisis has made this visible • Positive pre-crisis GDP figures and social indicators mask deeply rooted structural issues • Erosion of social services: high access, but low quality • Rise in regional and ethnic disparities • Situation of marginalised groups shows little improvement (e.g. Roma, children with disabilities, children in institutions) • Young people – lack of employment opportunities, increase in risky behaviours

10. Children are at higher risk of poverty than general population in the region • Poverty and child poverty in Kosovo % (consumption-based)

11. Risk factors for child poverty (B&H, K, S) • Having two or more siblings • Living in families where the youngest child is <6 • Living in a rural area • Employment status and education of the household head, crucial predictors. Children in families where the head has a university degree are the least likely to be poor • In Serbia, 28 per cent of children living in families headed by persons with education below secondary are vulnerable to poverty compared with just 0.4 per cent of children with university educated heads of household • In Kosovo, RAE children (3.4% of Kosovo’s children) have higher risk of poverty than children of Serbian and Albanian ethnicity

12. Material deprivation varies across countries Percentage of children living in households lacking the following durable goods

13. Key messages: • Child poverty and wellbeing in the Western Balkans are complex, multidimensional and context-specific • Child poverty analysis of LSMS/HBS should be undertaken using a variety of poverty thresholds and deprivation indicators • We are just beginning to unpack and understand the multiple factors influencing and constituting the living conditions of children in this region

14. 2. Social protection for low income families with children in the Western Balkans

15. Social protection • Set of public and private policies and programmes aimed at reducing, managing and overcoming the economic and social vulnerability of children, women and families, in order to ensure their access to a decent standard of living and essential services.

16. Four core components • 1. Cash Transfers • 2. Programmes to ensure economic and social access to services • 3. Social support services • 4. Legislation and policies to ensure equity and non-discrimination in children’s and families’ access to services and employment/livelihoods • It is the interconnection of cash and services that have an impact on children that we are concerned about

17. Model family analysis • Method for comparing social protection schemes, first time used in this region • Used by OECD in Benefits and Wages series • National informants estimate what a set of standard model families would receive, at a specified set of earnings levels, in the way of a specified set of taxes and benefits that make up the social protection package for families with children • Info is entered into data matrices to explore the level and structure of the child benefit package, converted to a common currency ($ purchasing power parities) or expressed as a proportion of average earnings

18. Model family analysis (cont.) • The family types included in the study are: •  Childless couple (for a base line) • Lone parent with one child aged 2 years and 11 months • Lone parent with two children aged 2 years and 11 months and 7 • Couples with one child aged 7 • Couples with two children aged 2 years and 11 months and 7 • Pensioner couple (social assistance case only) • The earnings cases included in this study are: • One earner half average earnings • One earner average earnings • No earners and receiving social assistance/minimum income scheme. • Pensioner couple on social assistance/minimum income scheme • The package that this study has taken into account includes: • Tax benefits for children, • Income related child benefits, • Non income related child benefits, • Housing benefits, • Exemptions from local taxes, • Direct childcare subsidies, • The value of health charges and benefits, • The value of education charges and benefits, • Child support (where it is guaranteed), • Other benefits such as food stamps or social assistance

19. Model family analysis (cont.) • Quick method for comparing like with like • Enables comparisons of the level and structure of the benefit package and how it varies by family type, earnings, number and ages of children and before and after housing and childcare costs • limits to the number of model families, income levels and parental employment permutations covered – comparisons illustrative rather than representative • does not represent how these rules and laws operate in practice (non take-up) • Informal payments to service providers not accounted • Challenges in computing housing costs and benefits

20. Net support to low income families with children is negative: taxes and charges exceed benefits • Earnings, charges and benefits for a couple+2 children (aged 2yrs 11 months and 7 years old) on half average earnings. June 2009 in 2007 US$ PPPs, per year

21. Low income families with children are worse off than childless couples on same earnings The child benefit package for a couple plus 2 (2 years 11 months and 7) as a proportion of net income of childless couple with one earner on half average earnings, June 2009.

22. Other findings • For families in unemployment and living on minimum income support, level of support is more generous with families with more children, except Albania and Kosovo where support to pensioner households is higher • As proportion of average earnings, social assistance benefits are very low (below 30%) for all household types across al countries. In Kosovo, pensioners receive almost double the support of families with children

23. Impact of targeted social assistance on child poverty rates is limited Impact of TSA on child poverty rates (2* food poverty except B and H and Serbia 4* food poverty)

24. Conclusions • Before and after the crisis, children remain extremely vulnerable to poverty and social exclusion in the Western Balkans • Social protection systems in Western Balkan countries could do more, or more of the right things, to support families with children and reduce child poverty • Beyond improving current TSA schemes, need to look into alternative models

25. Way forward • Combating child poverty: a priority for all of us, now. The costs of inaction are too high • Even in an era of fiscal consolidation, the best interests of children need to be put first • More research into multidimensional poverty, its consequences on child welfare and specific needs of certain groups of children • Rigorous assessments of impact of current policies, modelling and cost-benefit of alternative models • Sharing of experiences from the region and creation of regional networks of expertise are important contributions

26. Thank you!egaia@unicef.orgFor more informationwww.unicef.org/ceecis