Archive:Being young in Europe today - living conditions for children

PAGE UNDER CONSTRUCTION !!!

Data extracted in November 2014. Most recent data: Further Eurostat information, Main tables and Database

This article is part of a set of statistical articles based on the Flagship publication ‘Being young in Europe today’. It presents a range of statistics covering children’s (aged 0–17) living conditions in the European Union (EU), the vast majority of the data is derived from EU statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC), a wide-ranging source of information for analysing poverty and social exclusion. This article provides, among others: information relating to the risk of monetary poverty among children; details concerning the ease with which families with / without children can afford a range of goods; information on the housing conditions in which children live; as well as evidence linking a child’s risk of poverty and deprivation to their parents’ labour market situation and educational attainment.

Policymakers agree that children should ideally grow up in families with sufficient resources to meet their essential needs, while their future well-being is enhanced through ensuring they have access to a range of services and opportunities including, among others, early childhood education and recreational, sporting and cultural activities. Most EU Member States have a range of policies that aim to tackle child poverty: these tend to be based around promoting children's rights, although there are differences in the balance struck between promoting universal measures and targeting support at specific (vulnerable) groups.

GIVING CHILDREN A LIFE CHANCE Many people would argue that a child’s opportunities in life should, in an ideal world, not be pre-determined by the characteristics of the family into which they are born. However, a range of studies suggest that this is indeed the case and that children growing up in poverty or social exclusion are less likely to do well at school, enjoy good health, or achieve their full potential later on in life. The risk of poverty among children appears to be closely linked to the composition of the household into which they are born, in particular, the labour market situation and educational attainment of their parents. Some commentators believe that such a cycle of poverty and social exclusion may be broken by targeting children in their early years. However, in light of the global financial and economic crisis, there has been an increase in the risk of poverty among children, which may at least in part be attributed to austerity measures and decreasing investment in children.

Main statistical findings

Poverty and social exclusion

Almost 3 out of every 10 children in the EU was at risk of poverty or social exclusion

Figure 1 shows the proportion of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion in the EU since 2005, with information presented for children (aged less than 18 years) and for the whole population. There was some progress made in reducing the risk of poverty or social exclusion up until the onset of the global financial and economic crisis in 2008. However, during the crisis and thereafter there was an increase in the share of the population that was at risk of poverty or social exclusion. This was particularly true for children, as the gap between the rate for children and that for the whole population was wider following the crisis (a difference of 3–4 percentage points over the period 2009–13). By 2013, almost 3 out of every 10 children living in the EU-28 — some 27.6 % — was living at risk of poverty or social exclusion.

EU POLICY MEASURES IN RELATION TO POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION AMONG CHILDREN The European platform against poverty and social exclusion is one of seven flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy which advocates not only smart and sustainable — but also inclusive — growth. The European Council adopted in June 2010 a headline target for social inclusion, namely, that by 2020 there should be at least 20 million fewer people in the EU who are at risk of poverty or social exclusion. This headline indicator measures the number of people affected by at least one of three forms of poverty: monetary poverty, material deprivation or low work intensity. To meet the overall target, individual EU Member States have set their own national targets, these are generally expressed as absolute numbers of people to be lifted out of the risk of poverty or social exclusion (compared with national levels for 2008). The EU financially supports such actions through its social investment package and through the EU’s funds, in particular the European Social Fund. A European Commission Recommendation, Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage (2013/112/EU) addresses poverty and social exclusion among children, promoting children’s well-being. It encourages the EU Member States to go beyond ensuring children’s material security, by promoting equal opportunities so that all children can achieve their full potential, providing a focus on children who face an increased risk due to multiple disadvantages. It stresses the need to develop integrated strategies based on three pillars: access to adequate resources (for example, providing children with adequate living standards through a combination of benefits); access to affordable quality services (for example, reducing inequality by investing in early childhood education and care, or improving the responsiveness of health systems to address the needs of disadvantaged children); and promoting children’s right to participate (for example, supporting the participation of children in play, recreation, sport and cultural activities).

Children accounted for more than one in five of those at risk of poverty or social exclusion

In absolute numbers, a total of 123 million persons in the EU-28 were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2013; this figure included 26 million children. As such, children accounted for just over one fifth (21 %) of the total number of persons in the EU-28 at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2013.

Households with children are usually financially worse off when compared with households without children, as the former face more expenditure linked to the cost of bringing up children. Indeed, the number of children in a family directly influences the risk of monetary poverty shown through statistics, as each child in a family increases the family size and so reduces average income per family member. Governments may choose to target specific types of family units through social transfers and allowances (for example, child allowance or tax credits), often with the goal of encouraging people to have children. These transfers may balance, to some degree, the income situations of families with and without children, with social benefits and taxation likely to mitigate some of the differences.

[INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE]

The three conditions of the risk of poverty and social exclusion

The headline indicator covering the population at risk of poverty or social exclusion is defined as the share of the population in at least one of the following three conditions: i) at risk of poverty, which means living below the poverty threshold, ii) in a situation of severe material deprivation, iii) living in a household with low work intensity.

DEFINING POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION Persons at risk of poverty are those living in households with an equivalised disposable income below the risk of poverty threshold, which is set at 60 % of the national median equivalised disposable income (after social transfers). The risk of poverty is a relative measure, which is conventionally set against a threshold of 60 % of the national median equivalised disposable income — this means the poverty threshold varies between countries, as well as over time. Severe material deprivation concerns those persons whose living conditions are constrained by a lack of resources and experience of at least four out of nine deprivation items, in other words, those who cannot afford: i) to pay rent/mortgage or utility bills on time, ii) to keep their home adequately warm, iii) to face unexpected expenses, iv) to eat meat, fish or a protein equivalent every second day, v) a one week holiday away from home, vi) a car, vii) a washing machine, viii) a colour television, or ix) a telephone (including mobile telephones). People living in households with very low work intensity are those aged 0–59 who live in households where the adults aged 18–59 worked, on average, less than 20 % of their total work potential during the past year; students are excluded. Household income is ‘equivalised’ (or adjusted) so that the incomes of different types of households can be compared — based on the premise that household income is shared and there are some economies of scale which result from living together. To do so, total household disposable income is divided by the household’s size. Eurostat uses the ‘modified OECD equivalence scale’ which gives a weight of 1.0 to the first adult, 0.5 to any other household member aged 14 and over, and 0.3 to each child below the age of 14. The resulting average income figure is allocated to each member of the household, whether they are an adult or a child. It is sometimes said that it is impossible to abolish poverty as the poverty line is always moving, and as income increases so too does the poverty line. However, it is possible for incomes to increase without affecting the median level of income: for example, a tax break for high wage earners would increase their disposable income without changing the median, while the introduction of a new social transfer targeted specifically at the poor could result in some households being pulled above the poverty threshold without a change in the median level of income. Figure 2 presents how these three conditions can overlap — note that a person can experience none, one, two or all three of these poverty and / or social exclusion conditions. Outside of the three circles shown in Figure 2, almost three quarters (72.4 %) of the children in the EU-28 did not experience any form of poverty or exclusion in 2013, while the corresponding share for the whole population was higher still, at 75.5 %. Among the 26 million children in the EU-28 who were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2013, just below 10 million were simultaneously affected by more than one of these three conditions. Of these, 3.2 million children were at risk of poverty and severe material deprivation, 3.3 million were at risk of poverty and living in a household with low work intensity, 1.0 million were both materially deprived and living in a household with low work intensity, while 2.4 million were touched by all three conditions (in other words, those simultaneously at risk of poverty, in a situation of severe material deprivation and living in a household with low work intensity). As such, the proportion of children in the EU-28 experiencing all three poverty and social exclusion conditions was 2.6 % in 2013 — again this was higher than the corresponding average for the whole population (1.8 %). [INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE]

Monetary poverty was the risk that most affected children

Figure 3 shows developments over time for the proportion of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion; it provides an analysis for the three conditions described above. Breaking down the headline indicator, it is clear that monetary poverty — the proportion of children at risk of poverty (but not severely materially deprived and not living in a household with low work intensity) — was the most widespread form of poverty or social exclusion among children, affecting between 10 % and 12 % of all children in the EU during the period 2005–13. The proportion of children affected by any form of monetary poverty (in other words, on its own or in combination with other conditions) rose to just over one in five (20.4 %); this was higher than the proportion of the whole EU-28 population (children and adults) that was affected by any form of monetary poverty (16.6 %).

Monetary poverty was the most widespread form of poverty or social exclusion among children affecting almost 11 % of children in the EU-28 in 2013. © Fotolia

Between 2009 and 2013, about half a million additional children in the EU experienced all three poverty and social exclusion conditions simultaneously — this was likely due, at least in part, to the effects of the financial and economic crisis.

The proportion of children suffering from severe material deprivation rose rapidly in 2012 then slightly decreased…

Prior to the financial and economic crisis, the proportion of children in the EU-28 that were exclusively facing severe material deprivation or living in households with low work intensity fell, as the EU economy grew, disposable incomes and employment levels tended to rise, and with more people in work, the average household had more money to purchase goods and services. With the onset of the crisis, there was a subsequent increase in the proportion of children in the EU-28 that were living in households with low work intensity in 2010; this was probably linked to persistently high unemployment levels and precarious labour markets. The share of children suffering from material deprivation (exclusively or in combination with other conditions) rose rapidly in 2012, likely reflecting a contraction in real wages and living standards. In 2013 the proportion of children materially deprived slightly decreased, but not reaching yet its level prior to the crisis, as shown in the left-hand part of Figure 3.

…while the share of children at risk of monetary poverty rose at the onset of the financial and economic crisis and abated before 2012

During a period of economic expansion (2005–08) in the EU, the share of children that were exclusively at risk of poverty (but not facing severe material deprivation or living in a household with low work intensity) rose. While this may seem a perverse result, it may be explained through an increasing degree of inequality in relation to the distribution of incomes. Although those at the lower end of the income scale saw their living standards rise during the period 2005–08, the rate at which their incomes rose was slower than the average for the whole population, and as such a higher proportion of children fell into relative poverty. Following the onset of the financial and economic crisis, the proportion of children that were at risk of monetary poverty started to fall (from 2009) — a pattern that continued through to 2013.

Among EU Member States, where the overall risk of poverty was high, the severity of poverty among children also tended to be high

As already shown, children (27.6 %) in the EU-28 were at a greater risk of poverty or social exclusion than the average rate for the whole of the population (24.5 %) in 2013. Figure 4 shows that a similar pattern existed across the majority of the EU Member States, with the gap between the two rates particularly high in Hungary, Romania, Malta, the United Kingdom and Luxembourg, where the risk of poverty or social exclusion for children was at least 7 percentage points above the national average. By contrast, there were eight Member States where a lower proportion of children were at risk of poverty or social exclusion — Slovenia, Estonia, Germany, Croatia, Cyprus and the Nordic Member States.

In Bulgaria more than half of all children were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2013, while relatively high rates — more than 35 % of all children — were recorded in Romania, Hungary, Latvia, Greece and Lithuania. By contrast, the proportion of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion was much lower in Finland (13.0 %), while fewer than one in five children were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in Denmark, Sweden, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Germany.

[INSERT FIGURE 4 HERE]

Figure 5 shows that from a relative low of 26.3 % in 2009, the proportion of children in the EU-28 at risk of poverty or social exclusion rose to 27.6 % by 2013; this average conceals considerable variations among the EU Member States. During this period, which for most Member States can be described as post-crisis, some EU Member States made progress in reducing their share of vulnerable children in society. The largest reductions in at risk of poverty or social exclusion rates for children were recorded in Romania (– 3.5 percentage points), Estonia (– 2.2 percentage points) and Poland (– 1.2 points). Germany, Finland, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands were the only other Member States to report a lower share of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2013 than in 2009.

The proportion of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion was particularly high among some of the EU Member States that were most deeply affected economically by the financial and economic crisis

By contrast, some of the EU Member States where the proportion of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion rose at its most rapid pace between 2009 and 2013 were characterised as having been deeply affected by the financial and economic crisis, for example, Greece and Cyprus. Alongside a contraction in economic activity, these countries were also characterised by austerity measures, which probably impacted upon a range of measures and services designed to support children.

[INSERT FIGURE 5 HERE]

World comparison: the poverty situation for children living in non-member countries is often less favourable than in the EU

Of the 2.2 billion children in the world, almost half are thought to live in poverty, one in three without adequate shelter, one in five without access to safe water. According to UNICEF, an average of 21 000 children across the world died each day in 2010 (down from 33 000 in 1990). The main causes of death were malnutrition, unsafe drinking water and a lack of access to medical services (for example, vaccines).

The Luxembourg Income Study Database (LIS) provides income statistics for upper and middle-income countries. Note that the equivalence scale employed for household size is different to that used by Eurostat in the EU-SILC and is based on the square root of the number of household members, regardless of age. Figure 6 shows that at risk of poverty rates for children were particularly high in South Africa, Brazil and Israel, where more than one in three children were living with less than 60 % of the median level of income.

Among those EU Member States shown in Figure 6, at risk of poverty rates for children and the whole population were consistently below the rates recorded in South Africa, Brazil, Israel, the United States or Mexico. The Nordic countries had some of the lowest at risk of poverty rates for children, across both EU Member States and the non-member countries of Iceland and Norway.

[INSERT FIGURE 6 HERE]

What impact does a parent’s education and job have on a child’s risk of poverty?

Many people would argue that the opportunities afforded to children as they grow up should not be determined by the characteristics of the family into which they were born. That said, each child is born with a unique set of genes that may, at least in part, predispose them to certain abilities or levels of health. Furthermore, parents can influence the life outcomes for their children, through nurturing, encouraging aspirations and investing time and money in their education and health, while external social, cultural and economic environments may also play a role in shaping a child’s development. These determinants define a child’s life chances as they mature into adults, look for work, leave the parental home and start to establish their own family unit.

PARENTAL EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Intergenerational poverty may be analysed in relation to the educational attainment of a child’s parents. The international standard classification of education (ISCED 1997) covers seven levels of education: ISCED 0 — pre-primary education; ISCED 1 — primary education; ISCED 2 — lower secondary education; ISCED 3 — (upper) secondary education; ISCED 4 — post-secondary non-tertiary education; ISCED 5 — first stage of tertiary education; ISCED 6 — second stage of tertiary education.

More than 1 in 10 households with dependent children were affected by in-work poverty

There is an old saying that work is the surest way to get out of poverty. However, in recent years there has been a sharp rise in precarious forms of employment, such as short-term contracts, low-pay or part-time work. Low wage growth, households where only one adult is in employment and households where those in work only have limited contracts are some of the reasons why an increasing share of working families remain in poverty. Furthermore, it is likely that some parents choose to work a limited number of hours each week in order to balance their professional and private lives; while for some this may be a lifestyle choice, the proportion of people that do so may, at least in part, be linked to the availability of adequate childcare arrangements for working parents .

Children whose parents had a higher level of education were, on average, exposed to a lower risk of poverty or social exclusion

Almost two thirds (62.2 %) of all children in the EU-28 whose parents had attained no more than a lower secondary level of education were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2013. This group of children were almost twice as likely to face the risk of poverty or social exclusion as children whose parents had at most an upper secondary level of education (32.2 %). The risk of poverty or social exclusion was considerably lower among those children whose parents had a tertiary level of education (10.5 %).

[INSERT FIGURE 9 HERE]

This pattern was repeated in each of the EU Member States with the risk of poverty or social exclusion for children highest among those children born to parents with low levels of educational attainment. Even in the Member States where the differences were at their smallest — the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Portugal — children whose parents had a low level of educational attainment were about thirty percentage points more likely to be at risk of poverty or social exclusion than children whose parents had a tertiary level of educational attainment. The level of parental educational attainment had a far greater impact on a child’s risk of poverty or exclusion in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Lithuania and Bulgaria, as children whose parents had a low level of educational attainment had a risk of poverty or social exclusion that was more than 70 percentage points higher.

Children of wealthier and more educated parents appear to have a higher chance of succeeding at school, better health , and (upon starting work) earn higher incomes, while the converse is true among those born into poorer families . This section has shown that both in-work poverty and parental educational attainment may be closely linked to the risk of poverty or social exclusion. This evidence supports the notion of intergenerational transmission of poverty, in other words, a cycle of poverty being passed from one generation to the next among those less fortunate members of society.

Material deprivation of children: the inability to afford a range of goods and services

The majority of the information presented in this article so far has been focused on relative measures of poverty, referring to national poverty thresholds. Material deprivation is a more absolute measure of poverty and provides a useful complement to analyse poverty and social exclusion; for a definition of material deprivation and severe material deprivation, see the box titled ‘Defining poverty and social exclusion’. The indicators included in this section are defined in relation to the enforced inability to afford a range of goods and services, considered to be desirable or even necessary to lead an adequate life. A number of examples are presented, starting with the proportion of households that are in arrears on regular payments, before moving on to the (in)ability of households to afford a computer or a range of goods and services that cater for the specific needs of children.

A higher proportion of households with children were in arrears for regular monthly payments

Figure 10 provides an analysis by EU Member State in relation to the proportion of households that faced arrears in paying their mortgage or rent, utility bills or hire purchase items; in other words, people who could not keep up with the regular monthly payments that most households face as part of their budget each month. The information presented shows that, on average, single parent households with dependent children and households with two adults and three or more dependent children were more likely to face difficulties in making these regular monthly payments than was typical for all households.

[INSERT FIGURE 10 HERE]

Almost 12 % of all households in the EU-28 had arrears (for mortgage or rental payments, utility bills or hire purchase payments) in 2013. This figure rose to nearly one in five (18.8 %) households among those composed of a single parent with dependent children, while households with two adults and dependent children generally faced less difficulty in making regular monthly payments. This was particularly the case for two adult households with a single or two dependent children, as between 12 % and 13 % of such households faced difficulties with arrears in 2013, which was almost the same rate as the average for all households. Those households with a higher number of dependent children — three or more — faced more difficulties (17.4 %).

Among the EU Member States, more than half of all single parent households in Cyprus (54.2 %) and Greece (52.8 %) and about 49 % of single parent households in Bulgaria (49.4 %) and Romania (48.6 %) had arrears in 2013. The proportion of single parent households in arrears was higher than the average for all households in each of the EU Member States. In five Member States, namely Ireland, Cyprus, Latvia, Romania and Slovenia, the proportion of single person households with dependent children that faced arrears was even more than 17 percentage points .

Some 17.4 % of households composed of two adults with three or more dependent children in the EU-28 faced arrears in 2013. This share rose to more than four in five (82.8 %) of such households in Bulgaria, while it was just over half (54.4 %) in Greece. By contrast, less than one on twenty households composed of two adults and three or more dependent children in Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (4.9 %) faced arrears. In the Netherlands and Luxembourg the proportion of these households that faced arrears was similar to the rate recorded for all households (5.0 % and 5.2 % respectively).

Single person households with dependent children faced greater difficulty in being able to afford a computer

Just over 1 in 20 households (5.1 %) across the EU-28 faced difficulties in being able to afford a computer in 2013. Among those households where a single person was living with dependent children, this proportion rose to 8.6 %. By contrast, households composed of two adults with dependent children faced less difficulty in being able to afford a computer (Figure 11).

However, among the EU Member States, those households facing the greatest difficulty in being able to afford a computer were those in Bulgaria and Romania composed of two adults with three or more dependent children. More than three in five (61.8 %) of these households in Bulgaria faced an enforced lack of a computer in 2013, a share that fell to 39.1 % in Romania, which was nevertheless more than twice as high as the two next highest shares, 16.6 % and 16.3 %, recorded for Spain and Hungary respectively. In Bulgaria, the proportion of households composed of two adults with three or more dependent children unable to afford a computer was 45.2 percentage points higher than the average for all households, while In Romania the difference was 16.8 percentage points. By contrast, in 16 of the EU Member States the proportion of households composed of two adults with three or more dependent children that faced difficulties in being able to afford a computer was lower than the national average for all households.

Some 26.3 % of single person households with dependent children in 2013 faced difficulties in being able to afford a computer in Romania. In excess of one in five (22.2 %) single parent households in Bulgaria experienced the same difficulty, while corresponding shares were above one tenth of single parent households in the United Kingdom, Hungary, Greece, Ireland , Latvia and Portugal. By contrast, single person households with dependent children in Slovakia, Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland and the Netherlands faced less difficulty in being able to afford a computer than the average for all households. The gap was the widest in Slovakia, where the proportion of single parent households facing difficulties in being able to afford a computer was 2.5 percentage points lower than the average for all households, followed by Estonia where this gap was 2.0 points, Croatia 1.9 points and Lithuania 1.8 points.

Households composed of two adults and no more than two dependent children often reported less difficulty in being able to afford a computer than the average for all households. Indeed, with the exception of Romania, the proportion of households with two adults and a single or two dependent children that faced difficulties in being able to afford a computer was consistently lower than one tenth, other than for households with two adults and two dependent children in Bulgaria (12.4 %) and Greece (10.5 %).

[INSERT FIGURE 11 HERE]

A third of all children in Romania were deprived of having books at home suitable for their age

Data sources and availability

<description of data sources, survey and data availability (completeness, recency) and limitations>

Context

<context of data collection and statistical results: policy background, uses of data, …>

See also

• Name of related Statistics Explained article
• Name of related online publication in Statistics Explained (online publication)
• Name of related Statistics in focus article in Statistics Explained

Subtitle of Statistics in focus article=PDF main title - Statistics in focus x/YYYY

Further Eurostat information

Data visualisation

• Regional Statistics Illustrated - select statistical domain 'xxx' (= Agriculture, Economy, Education, Health, Information society, Labour market, Population, Science and technology, Tourism or Transport) (top right)

Publications

• Title of the publication

Publications in Statistics Explained (either online publications or Statistics in focus) should be in 'See also' above

Main tables

• Title of top Main tables folder, see:

Title(s) of second level folder (if any)

Title(s) of third level folder (if any)

Database

• Title of top Database folder, see:

Title(s) of second level folder (if any)

Title(s) of third level folder (if any)

Dedicated section

• Name of dedicated section

Methodology / Metadata

<link to ESMS file, methodological publications, survey manuals, etc.>

• Crime and criminal justice (ESMS metadata file — crim_esms)
• Title of the publication

Source data for tables, figures and maps (MS Excel)

• Download Excel file

Other information

<Regulations and other legal texts, communications from the Commission, administrative notes, Policy documents, …>

• Regulation 1737/2005 (generating url [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32005R1737:EN:NOT Regulation 1737/2005]) of DD Month YYYY on ...
• Directive 2003/86/EC (generating url [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003L0086:EN:NOT Directive 2003/86/EC]) of DD Month YYYY on ...
• Commission Decision 2003/86/EC (generating url [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003D0086:EN:NOT Commission Decision 2003/86/EC]) of DD Month YYYY on ...

<For other documents such as Commission Proposals or Reports, see EUR-Lex search by natural number>

<For linking to database table, otherwise remove: {{{title}}} ({{{code}}})>

External links

• Name of organisation/web site/deep link

Notes

[[Category:<Subtheme category name(s)>|Name of the statistical article]] [[Category:<Statistical article>|Name of the statistical article]]

Delete [[Category:Model|]] below (and this line as well) before saving!