Statistics Explained

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

Revision as of 17:52, 9 April 2015 by Corselo (talk | contribs)
Data extracted in March 2015. Most recent data: Further Eurostat information, Main tables and Database

This article is part of a set of statistical articles based on the Eurostat flagship publication 'Being young in Europe today' (which can be consulted in order to get a layouted pdf version). 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 [1].

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

Figure 1: People at risk of poverty or social exclusion, EU, 2005–13 (1)
(% of the whole population and % of children) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_peps01)
Figure 2: The three dimensions of poverty — an analysis of those at risk of poverty or social exclusion, EU-28, 2013 (1)
(% of the whole population and % of children) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_pees01)
Figure 3: Children at risk of poverty or social exclusion, EU, 2005–13 (1)
(% of children) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_pees01)
Figure 4: People at risk of poverty or social exclusion, 2013
(% of the whole population and % of children) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_peps01)
Figure 5: Children at risk of poverty or social exclusion, 2009 and 2013
(% of children) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_peps01)
Figure 6: Relative poverty rates, 2010
(% of the whole population below 60 % of median income and % of children) - Source: Eurostat, LIS Inequality Key Figures
Figure 7: In-work at risk of poverty rate by household type, 2013 (1)
(%) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_iw02)
Figure 8: Children living in households with low work intensity by highest education level of their parents, 2013 (1)
(% of children) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_lvhl60)
Figure 9: Children at risk of poverty or social exclusion by highest education level attained by their parents living in the same household, 2013 (1)
(% of children) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_peps60)
Figure 10: Households with arrears
(mortgage or rent, utility bills or hire purchase), by selected type of household, 2013 (1)
(%) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_mdes05)
Figure 11: Households with an enforced lack of a computer, by selected type of household, 2013 (1)
(%) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_mddu03)
Figure 12: Households' ability to purchase selected children's items, EU-27, 2009 (1)
(% of children aged 1–15 years) - Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC ad-hoc module (2009, variables HD100–HD210)
Figure 13: Households unable to afford selected children's items, EU-27, 2009 (1)
(% of children aged 1–15 years) - Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC ad-hoc module (2009, variables HD150–HD170)
Figure 14: Severe material deprivation rate, 2013 (1)
(% of the whole population and % of children) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_mddd11)
Figure 15: Severe material deprivation rate for children by highest education level of their parents, 2013 (1)
(% of children) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_mddd60)
Figure 16: Overall satisfaction with housing conditions, 2012 (1)
(% of households and % of households with children) - Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC ad-hoc module (2012, variable HC080)
Figure 17: Population reporting a shortage of space in their dwelling, 2012
(% of households and % of households with children) - Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC ad-hoc module (2012, variable HC010)
Figure 18: Overcrowding rate by household type, 2013 (1)
(%) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_lvho05b)
Figure 19: Severe housing deprivation by household type, 2013 (1)
(%) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_mdho06b)

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.

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 %).

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 did not fall low as 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.

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.

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 (LIS) database 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.

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 [2].

In-work poverty is defined as the proportion of persons who are at work and have 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). Some 10.6 % of households in the EU-28 with dependent children faced the risk of in-work poverty in 2013, a share that was 3.2 percentage points higher than the rate recorded among households without dependent children. Romania (20.5 %) recorded the highest rate of in-work poverty for households with dependent children, followed by Greece (15.6 %) and Luxembourg (14.3 %).

The in-work at risk of poverty rate was higher among households with dependent children (compared with those without children) in the majority of EU Member States. The biggest differences were recorded in Malta (where the in-work at risk of poverty rate was 7.7 percentage points higher among households with dependent children). There were also relatively large differences in Poland, Luxembourg, Romania, Spain and Lithuania (6 percentage points or more).

One out of four children whose parents had no more than a lower secondary level of education lived in households characterised by low work intensity

Figure 8 extends the analysis by looking at the share of children who live in households with low work intensity presented for each EU Member State by the highest level of education attained by either parent.

Over one quarter (26.1 %) of all children in the EU-28 whose parents had no more than a lower secondary level of education (ISCED levels 0-2) lived in a household with low work intensity in 2013. The share living in households with low work intensity was considerably lower among those children whose parents remained longer in the education system, falling to 9.7 % for those whose parents had no more than an upper secondary level of education (ISCED levels 3 and 4), and to 2.8 % for those whose parents had a tertiary level of education (ISCED levels 5 and 6).

This pattern was repeated in each of the EU Member States. Among children whose parents had no more than a lower secondary level of education, more two thirds (68.1 %) of the children in Slovakia found themselves living in a household with low work intensity, a share that fell to less than 10 % in Luxembourg and Romania. By contrast, the proportion of children whose parents had completed a tertiary level of education and who found themselves living in households with low work intensity was considerably lower, with 16 of the Member States reporting shares below the EU-28 average of 2.8 %.

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 %).

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 30 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 [3], and (upon starting work) earn higher incomes, while the converse is true among those born into poorer families [4]. 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.

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 [5].

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 1 in 20 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 [6], 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 %).

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

An ad-hoc module conducted as part of the 2009 EU-SILC exercise provides information focused on specific items linked to material deprivation among children. Note that the coverage of the module referred to children aged 1–15 years and if one child in the household missed a specific item then all children within the household were considered to be deprived of that particular item. The statistics distinguish between the inability to afford a good or service and other reasons why people do not own particular goods or participate in particular activities (for example, some households may choose to live without a car or a television, while some children may not want to participate in particular leisure activities).

In 2009, a 12.0 % share of children (aged 1–15) in the EU-27 were deprived of practising a leisure activity — such as swimming or playing a musical instrument — as a result of an inability to pay, while 7.6 % were deprived of participating in school trips or events that cost money. While the vast majority (90 %–95 %) of children in the EU-27 enjoyed a childhood with a wide range of goods and services, there were disparities across the EU Member States (as shown in Figure 13). For example, while 1 in 20 children in the EU-27 in 2009 were deprived of having books at home that were suitable for their age, this share rose to one in three (33.0 %) children in Romania, nearly 3 in 10 (28.9 %) children in Bulgaria, and around one in eight children in Latvia (12.4 %), Hungary (12.5 %) and Portugal (12.2 %).

Severe material deprivation was slightly lower for children (than for the whole population) in Croatia, Finland, Slovenia, Estonia, the Netherlands and Poland

The proportion of children in the EU-28 experiencing severe material deprivation was 1.4 percentage points higher than the corresponding ratio for the whole population and stood at 11.0 % in 2013. While the share of children experiencing severe material deprivation was generally higher than that for the whole population, this pattern was not repeated across all of the EU Member States. Indeed, in Croatia, Finland, Slovenia, Estonia, the Netherlands and Poland a lower proportion of children faced severe material deprivation in 2013, albeit with rates that were only marginally lower than for the whole population.

There were 13 EU Member States where the proportion of children experiencing severe material deprivation in 2013 was at least 2 percentage points higher than the national average. The gap was largest in the United Kingdom, Romania and Hungary; in the latter the severe material deprivation rate for children was 8.2 percentage points higher than the average for the whole population.

Severe material deprivation among children inversely related to parental educational attainment

Across the EU-28, severe material deprivation in 2013 affected almost one third (30.4 %) of children whose parents had attained no more than a lower secondary level of educational attainment. The proportion was considerably lower among children whose parents had attained an upper secondary level of education (12.5 %) or a tertiary level of education (2.7 %).

The share of children whose parents had a tertiary level of educational attainment experiencing severe material deprivation was less than 1 % in 2013 in Sweden, Denmark, Finland and the Czech Republic. By contrast, at least three out of every four children whose parents had no more than a lower secondary level of educational attainment in Slovakia, Bulgaria and Hungary faced severe material deprivation.

Housing quality and satisfaction

The cost and quality of housing are key elements that contribute to overall living standards and well-being. Indeed, the risk of poverty is strongly linked to the burden of sustaining a household and is therefore especially difficult for those with low qualifications and those in relatively poorly paid jobs.

As such, indicators that measure the quality, facilities and space available within dwellings may provide complementary information for assessing the material conditions of different groups within society. Housing quality can be assessed by looking at a range of housing deficiencies, such as a lack of sanitary facilities (a bath or shower, or indoor flushing toilet) and problems in the general condition of the dwelling (a leaking roof, or a dwelling that is considered to be too dark). Note that the statistics presented in this section refer to questions that were asked only once for all members of each household surveyed.

The vast majority of people in the EU-28 were satisfied with their overall housing conditions in 2012 (see Figure 16). Among the EU Member States the highest degrees of satisfaction — for both the whole population and for households with children (aged less than 18 years) — were recorded in the Netherlands and Slovenia, with both rates in excess of 95 %.

The lowest levels of satisfaction with housing conditions among households containing children were recorded in Hungary (72.7 %), Bulgaria (70.9 %) and Denmark (69.2 %). These were the only three EU Member States where less than three quarters of the households containing children were satisfied with their housing conditions in 2012. The same three Member States also recorded the largest differences in satisfaction rates between households containing children and the whole population, as the level of satisfaction among households with children was 9.1 percentage points lower than for the whole population in Bulgaria, 7.3 points lower in Hungary, and 4.5 points lower in Denmark. Indeed, households with children were generally less inclined to be satisfied with their housing conditions, although this pattern was reversed in Portugal, Greece and Croatia.

HOUSING

One dimension for assessing the quality of housing conditions is the availability of sufficient space in a dwelling. The overcrowding rate describes the proportion of people living in an overcrowded dwelling, as defined by the number of rooms available to the household, the household’s size, as well as its members’ ages and their family situation.

The severe housing deprivation rate is defined as the share of the population living in dwellings which are considered as being overcrowded, while at the same time having at least one of the following housing deprivation measures: no bath / shower and no indoor toilet; a leaking roof; or a dwelling considered too dark.

More than one in five households with children complained about a lack of space

A shortage of space is one among a range of reasons that may be cited in relation to dissatisfaction with a dwelling. The proportion of households with children in the EU-28 reporting a shortage of space was 22.0 % in 2012 (some 7.2 percentage points higher than the corresponding share for the whole population); this is perhaps not surprising given that many children have to share a bedroom with their siblings.

The cost and quality of housing are key elements that contribute to overall living standards and well-being.
© Fotolia

Around one third of households with children in Bulgaria, Romania and Poland reported a shortage of space in their dwelling in 2012, this share peaking in Latvia at 36.3 %. By contrast, less than one in five households with children reported a lack of space in eight of the EU Member States, with the lowest shares being recorded in the Czech Republic (15.1 %) and the Netherlands (14.8 %).

The proportion of households reporting that they did not have enough space was consistently higher among those containing children when compared with the average for the whole population in 2012; the difference was generally with the range of 5–10 percentage points, although it was higher in Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.

Almost one quarter of all households with dependent children suffered from overcrowding

To some degree the indicators presented above may be considered as subjective, insofar as they are based upon the perception of each respondent. The analysis of housing quality and satisfaction can be extended and balanced by referring to a range of objective indicators. Indeed, EU-SILC provides a measure of overcrowding that is based on the number of rooms and the number of people living in a household. In 2013, the overcrowding rate for households with dependent children in the EU-28 was 24.8 %, which was 15.0 percentage points higher than the corresponding share for households without dependent children.

The highest rates of overcrowding among households with dependent children were observed in Romania (69.5 %), Hungary (65.0 %), Bulgaria (60.8 %), Poland (56.9 %) and Croatia (56.4 %); each of these reported overcrowding rates for households without dependent children in the range of 25–30 % (which also marked the highest rates among the EU Member States).

There were 9 EU Member States in 2013 with overcrowding rates for households with dependent children that were less than 10 %; the lowest shares (less than 4 %) were recorded in Cyprus, Belgium and the Netherlands. The Netherlands and Finland were the only EU Member States to report that their overcrowding rate for households with dependent children was lower than their rate for households without dependent children (see Figure 18).

Severe housing deprivation is defined in relation to insufficient space and poor amenities. In 2013, the severe housing deprivation rate for households with dependent children in the EU-28 was 7.6 %, which was 2.5 times as high as the corresponding rate for households without dependent children (2.9 %).

The highest severe housing deprivation rates among households with dependent children were exhibited by Romania (31.2 %), Hungary (24.8 %) and Latvia (23.2 %); none of the remaining EU Member States recorded a rate that was above 20 %. By contrast, the severe housing deprivation rate was less than 1 % for households with dependent children in the Netherlands, Ireland [7] and Finland.

All EU Member States reported severe housing deprivation rates for households with dependent children higher than those for households without dependent children, except the Netherlands and Finland for which the rates were similar (see Figure 19).

Conclusions: what does the future hold for child poverty and social exclusion in the EU?

Children that grow up in poverty are more likely to suffer from social exclusion and other outcomes in life and are also less likely to develop to their full potential in the future. Breaking this cycle of disadvantage in a child’s early years can potentially reduce the risk of poverty or social exclusion.

Although tackling poverty and social exclusion can lead to benefits not only for the individuals concerned but also for society at large, the current economic climate of austerity measures has done little to help policymakers face these widespread challenges. Furthermore, in recent years there have been signs that the (re-)distribution of income is becoming increasingly unequal while real incomes have stagnated or even fallen in a number of EU Member States that were particularly affected by the crisis. This has resulted in an increasing share of the EU’s population suffering from a lack of work, monetary poverty and / or social exclusion and material deprivation. The impact of the crisis has been proportionally greater across those households with children.

This article has shown that the risk of poverty is more common among children than it is for the population as a whole. This is particularly the case when children live in households that are characterised by the presence of a single parent or a low degree of work, while parental educational attainment also appears to have a marked impact upon the risk of poverty or social exclusion experienced by children.

Data sources and availability

The data used in this article are primarily derived from EU statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC), established under ‘framework’ Regulation 1177/2003. EU-SILC is a multi-purpose instrument that focuses mainly on income, but also gathers information on social exclusion, material deprivation, housing conditions, labour market participation, education and health. It is carried out annually and has a reference population of all private households and their current members residing in the territory of EU Member States; persons living in collective households and in institutions are generally excluded from the target population. The EU-28 aggregate is a population-weighted average of individual national figures. Children are defined as persons aged less than 18.

In a 2009 EU-SILC module, information was collected in relation to child deprivation; this covered children aged 1–15 living in households which could not afford (an enforced lack) a range of goods and services: i) some new (not second-hand) clothes; ii) two pairs of properly fitting shoes, including a pair of all-weather shoes; iii) fresh fruits and vegetables daily; iv) three meals a day; v) one meal with meat, chicken, fish or vegetarian equivalent daily; vi) books at home suitable for the children’s age; vii) outdoor leisure equipment; viii) indoor games; ix) a suitable place to do homework; x) to consult a dentist when needed; xi) to consult a general practitioner (GP) when needed; xii) regular leisure activities (for example sports and youth organisations); xiii) celebrations on special occasions; xiv) to invite friends round to play and eat from time to time; xv) to participate in school trips and school events that costs money; xvi) outdoor space in the neighbourhood to play safely; xvii) one week’s holiday away from home.

Note that data covering the material deprivation of children (as collected for the ad-hoc EU-SILC module in 2009) will in the future form part of the standard EU-SILC exercise. The European Statistical System (ESS) has agreed to include the collection of a wide range of child-specific indicators for material deprivation from reference year 2013 onwards.

See also

Further Eurostat information

Publications

Statistical books and pocketbooks

Statistical working papers

Main tables

Database

People at risk of poverty or social exclusion (Europe 2020 strategy) (ilc_pe)
Income distribution and monetary poverty (ilc_ip)
Living conditions (ilc_lv)
Material deprivation (ilc_md)
EU-SILC ad-hoc modules (ilc_ahm)
Youth social inclusion (yth_incl)

Dedicated section

Methodology / Metadata

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

Excel.jpg Living conditions: tables and figures

Other information

External links

Notes

  1. ↑ See ‘SPC advisory report to the European Commission on tackling and preventing child poverty, promoting child well-being’of 27 June 2012.
  2. ↑ See the publication ‘Gender equality in the workforce: Reconciling work, private and family life in Europe’.
  3. ↑ J. W. Lynch and G. Kaplan, ‘Socioeconomic position’, in Social Epidemiology, L. F. Berkman and I. Kawachi, Eds., pp. 13–25, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2000.
  4. ↑ See ‘Raise household income to improve children's educational, health and social outcomes’.
  5. ↑ As 2013 data are not yet available for Ireland, 2012 results have been used for this country.
  6. ↑ Data for Ireland is from 2012 instead of 2013.
  7. ↑ Data for Ireland is from 2012 instead of 2013.


Retrieved from "https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Archive:Being_young_in_Europe_today_-_living_conditions_for_children&oldid=229850"