eu network of investing in children: breaking the cycle of ...csdle.lex.unict.it/archive/lw/data...

Investing in Children: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage

A Study of National Policies

Germany

EU Network of

Independent Experts

on Social Inclusion

This publication has been prepared for the European Commission by

© Cover illustration: European Union Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission may be held responsible for use of any information contained in this publication. The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and should not be considered as representative of the European Commission’s or Member States’ official position. Further information on the Network of independent experts is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1025&langId=en © European Union, 2014 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1025&langId=en

Investing in Children:

Breaking the cycle of disadvantage

A Study of National Policies

WALTER HANESCH HOCHSCHULE DARMSTADT

COUNTRY REPORT - GERMANY

Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 5

1. Assessment of overall approach and governance ............................................. 7

(a) Integrated strategy against child poverty .................................................. 7

(b) Involvement of stakeholders .................................................................... 8

(c) Children’s rights approach ....................................................................... 9

(d) Universal versus targeted policy against child poverty ................................. 9

(e) Evidence-based policy and evaluation of programmes ................................10

(f) Sustained investment in children and families ............................................10

(g) Recommendations ..............................................................................11

2. Access to adequate resources ......................................................................13

(1) Child poverty as a challenge for the German welfare state ..........................13

(2) Improving employment participation in families ........................................13

(a) Employment policy ....................................................................13 (b) Reconciling work and family life ..................................................14

(3) Provision of marriage and family related benefits ....................................14

(a) Child benefit and child tax credit .................................................15 (b) Social benefit in social assistance / basic income support for job

seekers ....................................................................................15 (c) Supplementary child benefit .......................................................15 (d) Parental allowance and parental leave .........................................15 (e) Additional benefits ....................................................................16

(4) Assessment and further development of marriage and family related

benefits .............................................................................................16

3. Access to affordable quality services .............................................................18

(1) The role of the local level in service provision .........................................18

(2) Selected service areas .........................................................................18

(a) Education and care in early childhood ..........................................18 (b) Benefit for education and participation .........................................20 (c) School-based education services .................................................20 (d) Health care services ..................................................................21 (e) Youth and family services ..........................................................21 (f) Housing and living environment ..................................................22

(3) Integrated local strategies ...................................................................22

4. Addressing child poverty and social exclusion in the European Semester ...........24

5. Mobilising relevant EU financial instruments ...................................................25

References.......................................................................................................27

Annex .............................................................................................................32

Add title 2

Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany

2013 5

Executive Summary1

(1) The European Commission`s recently published recommendation on

“Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage” has not

attracted much attention in Germany. Only few comments have been

published up to now. One reason for this may be the fact that the social

investment approach of the European Commission corresponds to a

paradigm shift in family policy that has taken place in Germany during the last decade.

(2) Up to now, public expenditure on marriage and family-related benefits

shows a clear dominance of cash benefits and tax exemptions in Germany:

Even if public expenditure on benefits in kind has gained in importance, it

is still of minor quantitative relevance. And up to now, no comprehensive,

integrated strategy against poverty in general and child poverty in

particular – including all state levels and actor groups – has been developed and implemented.

(3) The German policy on child poverty is focussed on the improvement of

employment participation in families with children. Even if the employment

rate has continuously increased during the last decade, the integration of

disadvantaged groups in the labour market has only low priority in

Germany. The reconciling of family and professional life has been improved through the massive expansion of day care facilities.

(4) The `social investment` approach to child poverty in Germany was and still

is mainly focussed on the expansion of educational and social services,

while other strategic options, like improving the material situation of poor

children and families, have been widely neglected. Above all, since the

current conservative-liberal coalition came to power, the income aspect of

poverty in general, and of child poverty in particular, has been completely faded out of this strategy.

(5) The volume of monetary funds for marriage and family related cash

benefits and tax exemptions is comparatively high in Germany. At the

same time, the existing benefit system is rather ineffective for preventing

or reducing child poverty. To reduce child poverty more effectively, a child-

oriented restructuring of family benefits and the introduction of a child-related minimum income would be necessary.

(6) Even if early childhood education and care has received high political

priority in recent years, the expansion of day-care facilities has not solved

all the problems. Because of scarce funding, qualitative deficits threaten to

increase. And so far, families with the greatest need for support were the

least likely to profit from the expanded supply. To date, insufficient

strategies for child-oriented support in the school system have meant little

success in promoting pupils with disadvantaged social backgrounds.

1 Readers should note that the drafting of this report was completed in September 2013

thus it does not include an analysis of data or policy developments that became available after this date.


2013 6

(7) Integrated strategies, which are aimed at developing a support system for

poor families and children, have to be focussed on local municipal levels.

The system of preventive networks for different age groups in the city of

Monheim could serve as an example of good practice for other

municipalities.

(8) The already initiated expansion of affordable quality services for poor

families and children should be continued, above all, with regard to early

childhood education and care, as well as to education in the school system.

Many of the political objectives and intentions have so far remained rather more rhetorical than real, especially with regard to the school system.

(9) The NRP´s and NSR´s are providing information on the variety of

programmes against child poverty. The problem is that no differentiated

information is available on the objectives and impacts of these

programmes. Nevertheless, monitoring and evaluation of family

programmes and benefits have become regular elements of newly adopted

social and family policy programmes.

(10) The wide range of programmes against child poverty are funded mainly by

tax revenues of the federal state, the states and the municipalities. The

European Structural Funds have been used for additional funding. These

financial sources are used for additional programmes of the federal state

and the states.


2013 7

1. Assessment of overall approach and governance2 On February 20, 2013, the European Commission adopted a recommendation on

“Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage” as a key element of the

Social Investment Package (SIP). This recommendation sets out a common

European framework for tackling child poverty and social exclusion and for

promoting child well-being. In this chapter, the national, regional and local

framework for the implementation of this recommendation and for the fight

against child poverty in Germany will be analysed.

(a) Integrated strategy against child poverty

According to the judgement of the Federal Constitutional Court, the obligation to

prevent and/or overcome poverty in Germany derives from the principle of human

dignity, legally enshrined in Article 1 of Constitutional Law, as well as from the

welfare-state commitment enshrined in Articles 20 and 28 of Constitutional Law.

Furthermore, the obligation to combat child poverty results for the Federal

Government from the signing (1990) and ratification (1992) of the United Nations

children’s rights convention of 1989. By this, the Federal Government has

committed itself to recognise and implement the right of every child to a living

standard that is appropriate to its physical, mental, psychological, moral and

social development, which should be guaranteed by separate social policy

measures (BMFSFJ 2007).

The declared intention to fight child poverty has become part of the political

rhetoric of all Federal Governments since the poverty problem was put on the

national political agenda in the year 1998. In all four coalition treaties since then,

the problem of child poverty has been included, as well as the necessity for

political action. But up to now, the governing coalitions have failed to develop an

integrated, comprehensive strategy against child poverty. Furthermore, they have

tended to downplay the importance of the child poverty problem in Germany.

Relying on EU-SILC data, which tend to underestimate the volume of child

poverty, the Federal Government has repeatedly emphasised that Germany is one

to the EU member states with the lowest poverty rate for children (see recently

BMAS 2013).

In 2008, the Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth

(BMFSFJ) ordered a special report on child poverty (BMFSFJ 2008), which

provided a rough picture of income poverty of families with children in Germany

and discussed possible instruments for the prevention or reduction of this

problem. But the recommendations of this report did not lead to a broad public

debate or the creation of an adequate strategy against child poverty. Instead, the

aim of combating child poverty largely remained political rhetoric. Even more

detailed reports on the situation of families with children and the well-being of

children in Germany published since then (BMAS 2013; BMFSFJ 2013) did not

initiate the creation of political strategies and programmes. Also the repeated

publication of independent reports on child poverty in Germany (e.g. Hübenthal

2009; Hurrelmann, Andresen, Schneekloth 2010; Bertram and Kohl 2010) had

only limited impact on the policy process and did not contribute to the

development of adequate strategies and programmes. Because of the lack of a

national strategy against child poverty, several states have published their own

2 Readers should note that the drafting of this report was completed in September 2013

thus it does not include an analysis of data or policy developments that became available after this date.


2013 8

regional reports on this issue and developed their own state programmes to

improve the situation of children, youngsters and families in precarious living

conditions (e.g. MAGS 2011). At the same time, more and more municipalities

have started to publish their own reports and to develop their own programmes

against child poverty (Holz 2010).

Child poverty is normally a complex phenomenon which requires a

multidimensional approach so as to record and overcome it. Strategies to prevent

or overcome child poverty are therefore related to a wide range of policy areas.

The main policy areas are

Labour market and employment policy,

Education Policy,

Social policy,

Family policy,

Health care policy,

Housing policy, and

Urban development policy.

In the German federalist welfare state, the jurisdiction and political responsibility

for these policy areas are spread over different state levels and ministries. Up to

now, no attempts have been made to establish a national board for the

development and coordination of an integrated strategy against poverty in

general, and child poverty in particular, in Germany. Instead, policies and

programmes are separately developed and implemented by the different state

levels and actor groups. Even the establishment of a national coordination

structure for the implementation of the UN children’s rights convention had no

impact on this heterogeneous policy process (see (c)).

(b) Involvement of stakeholders

The main groups of actors in the political arena in the fight against child poverty

are, above all, the three levels of state actors, the national welfare associations

and the children`s rights groups:

The main group of actors consists of the three state levels. While the

Federal State is primarily responsible for the national benefit schemes and

labour market policy, education policy is in the jurisdiction of the states,

and the main task of the municipalities is to coordinate and to guarantee a

comprehensive and needs-oriented provision of services for children,

youngsters and families. At national level, the lead ministry with regard to

strategies and programmes against child poverty is the Federal Ministry of

Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMFSFJ).

The large national welfare associations, which have joined forces in the

Federal Association of Non-Statutory Welfare Organisations

(Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege (BAGFW)) and

which are at the same time members of the national anti-poverty network

(Nationale Armutskonferenz), traditionally play an important role in the

public debate on combating poverty in general and child poverty in

particular in Germany. Furthermore they are providers of education, social

and health care services for children, youngsters and families at national,

regional and local level. Finally, as members of local policy networks, they

are involved in the planning and coordination of services for families and

children in need. In addition, national associations of self-help groups,

youth and family associations play an active role in the debate on child

poverty.


2013 9

Children’s rights associations like the Deutsches Kinderhilfswerk (KHW),

Deutscher Kinderschutzbund (DKSB), UNICEF Deutschland and the

National Coalition for the Implementation of the UN Children’s Rights

Convention in Germany (National Coalition für die Umsetzung der UN-

Kinderrechtskonvention in Deutschland (NC)) assume an important role

with regard to the observation of the implementation of children’s rights

and the strengthening of the position of this population group in society.

The basis for action of these associations is the United Nations Children’s

Rights Convention. Therefore, the Deutsches Kinderhilfswerk (KHW), the

Deutscher Kinderschutzbund (DKSB), and UNICEF Deutschland founded the

Aktionsbündnis Kinderrechte in 1994, which since then has continuously

challenged the Federal Government to introduce children’s rights into

Constitutional Law. The children’s rights associations have furthermore

repeatedly challenged the Federal Government to combat child poverty,

because growing up in precarious living conditions is not compatible with

basic children’s rights (DKSB 2007; DKHW 2008).

(c) Children’s rights approach

The Federal Republic of Germany ratified the UN Children’s Rights Convention in

1992. As a consequence, the Federal Government adopted a National Action Plan

for a Child-friendly Germany 2005 – 2010 (BMFSFJ 2005), which was to contribute

to the implementation of children’s rights in Germany. The BMFSFJ reported in

2010 on the results of the implementation of this Action Plan (BMFSFJ 2010a).

Starting in 1988, the National Assembly (Deutscher Bundestag) has set up a

Children`s Commission under the leadership of the BMFSFJ, which should

represent children`s interests in the legislation of the National Assembly. In

addition, around 100 national associations have joined the National Coalition

under the leadership of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Kinder- und Jugendhilfe

(AGJ), which critically accompanies and supports the implementation of the UN

Children’s Rights Convention in Germany.

Even if the BMFSFJ has delivered a positive summary of the implementation of the

National Action Plan (BMFSFJ 2010a), the national children’s rights associations

have criticised that children’s rights have up to now no high political priority and

have not been legally enshrined in Constitutional Law in Germany. They have

furthermore criticised that there have not been sufficient efforts by the Federal

Government to prevent or overcome child poverty (National Coalition 2010).

(d) Universal versus targeted policy against child poverty

Like in most EU member states, the policy against child poverty in Germany is

characterised by a mix of universal and targeted policies and programmes. On the

one hand, monetary transfers as well as benefits in kind are offered to all children

and families. On the other hand, specific benefit schemes and programmes have

been implemented for children and families in difficult living conditions with a

specific need for support.

Recent experiences show mixed results: The expansion of early childhood

education and care services in recent years was mainly addressed to all children

under the age of three years. But up to now, families with the highest need for

support have made the least use of this. Conversely, the introduction of the new

education and participation benefit was targeted in a very restrictive way to

economically needy families. In this case too, the take-up rate was rather low.

While in the first case actual or perceived high cost as well as cultural reservations

(e.g. among immigrants) may have contributed to this result, the high


2013 10

administrative barriers and the feeling of discrimination were decisive for the lack

of acceptance.

Reform initiatives have shown how the impact of such benefit or service

programmes can be improved through the intelligent combination of both

principles. The reform proposal for a children`s minimum income envisages

paying this benefits to all children (universalism) and ensuring through the

taxation of this benefit (as part of the family income) that only needy families

benefit (targeting). And the family centre approach combines the provision of

early childhood education and care services for all children (universalism) with a

combination of different services for, and an activating approach towards the

parents and children in disadvantaged neighbourhoods (targeting).

(e) Evidence-based policy and evaluation of programmes

Even if there is no long tradition of evaluating social policy programmes and

measures in Germany, evaluation research has gained increasingly in importance

in the social policy debate and programmes. More and more programmes include

the legal obligation to monitor and evaluate their impact. Because there is a wide

range of policy areas and programmes designed to tackle certain aspects of child

poverty, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive picture of programme

evaluations. Only recently, the BMFSFJ ordered a comprehensive evaluation of the

system of family benefits (Rainer et al. 2011 and 2012; Bonin et al. 2012 and

2013a; Schölmerich et al. 2012; Müller 2013). The BMFSFJ (2013a) has published

a separate report including summaries and conclusions of the different evaluation

studies. Significantly, the problem of child poverty did not play a major role in

these evaluation studies (see chapter 3).

The discussion about evidence-based programmes is also only rudimentarily

developed in Germany. As a first step, the discussion on “good practice” has

intensified in recent years. With regard to the problem of child poverty, certain

programmes and certain municipalities have become known as exemplary models.

One of the municipal approaches is described in chapter 4 (3).

(f) Sustained investment in children and families

The recently published European Commission`s recommendation on “Investing in

children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage” has not found great attention in

Germany. Only few comments have been published up to now (see e.g. Deutscher

Verein 2013). One reason for this may be the fact that the social investment

approach, which was highlighted by the EC recommendation, corresponds to a

paradigm shift in family policy, which was implemented in Germany during the

last decade.

According to Olk and Hübenthal (2009), the current German approach to fight

child poverty is part of a broader concept of ‘sustainable family policy’: ”The ‘turn

to investment’ in German policies concerning children and families came into

effect during the red-green coalition’s second term under Chancellor Gerhard

Schröder. The Minister for Family Affairs, Renate Schmidt (SPD), developed a new

concept labelled ‘sustainable family policy’. With the help of this concept the

fertility rate should be increased, the reconciliation of family and work should be

improved, the educational level of pupils in Germany should be raised and the

poverty of children and families should be reduced. The concept of ‘sustainable

family policy’ is considered an important contribution to economic growth and

competitiveness of the German economy” (Olk and Hübenthal 2009: 151). But

even if the paradigm shift in family policy was designed during the second term of

the Red-Green Coalition, it was implemented during the following Great Coalition,


2013 11

and the CDU Minister for Family Affairs of the Great Coalition, Ursula von der

Leyen, has since then become the face of the new paradigm.

With the accession to power of the Grand Coalition in the year 2005, family policy

became a policy area of high public interest, which gave priority to demographic

and employment-oriented objectives and programmes. Besides a partial

restructuring of the family benefits system (replacement of the former education

benefit by the new parent’s benefit in the year 2007), the focus was mainly on

improving the reconciliation of family and professional life. The core element of

this strategy was to expand early childhood education and care facilities for

children under three years of age. The transition from the former education

benefit to the new parent’s benefit was intended to increase the incentive for

higher-income families to have children and to get parents on leave back into the

labour market faster. The expansion of day care was intended to fill the gap which

had resulted from a traditionally low supply of day-care facilities for children under

three years, especially in Western Germany.

But not all the aims and objectives of the new paradigm shift have become reality

as yet. In the year 2011, Germany spent around 200 billion Euros on marriage

and family-related benefits, in absolute and in relative terms more than most

other EU member states. If we take a closer look at the structure of public

expenditure on family policy (see Annex 1; BMFSFJ 2010b), it can be seen that

expenditure on benefits in kind have gained importance, but are still of minor

quantitative relevance. In 2011, only 27 billion Euros or 13.7% of total

expenditure were spent on benefits in kind. Even if the rise in spending on

benefits in kind was higher than on any other spending area, the intended policy

shift has so far remained limited in extent. Public spending on family and

marriage-related tax measures, on cash benefits, social insurance measures and

marriage-related measures have also increased, but these developments in output

did not follow a single logic, but contradicted each other in their objectives and

impacts. Critical reviews of German family policy have therefore come to the

conclusion that the current policy in Germany does not have distinct objectives

and does not pursue a clear strategy. Instead, recent policy changes are assessed

as being inconsistent (Bonin et al. 2013).

Tackling and preventing family and child poverty is only one of several objectives

to which family policy can be oriented. In Germany, this objective was and is

traditionally of low priority in family policy. Also the new policy approach, which

was and is mainly focussed on the expansion of early childhood educational and

care, was primarily motivated by demographic and employment objectives, but at

the same time improved the framework conditions for poor families. Other

strategic options like improving the material situation of poor children and families

have, however, been widely neglected. Since the conservative-liberal coalition

came to power, the income dimension of poverty in general and of child poverty in

particular has been completely faded out of this strategy (Hanesch 2011b). It is

therefore hardly surprising that family and child poverty in Germany have not

declined over the last decade, but continued to increase.

(g) Recommendations

An effective policy against family and child poverty in Germany must take a

multidimensional and multilevel approach. It should include above all the following

strategic elements:

Of primary importance are the development and implementation of an

integrated strategy against poverty in general, and against child poverty in

particular. Such s strategy should include all state levels, policy areas and


2013 12

actor groups. The coordination of policies between the different state levels

and actor groups requires the inauguration of a separate national

institution, which should ensure an on-going planning, coordinating and

cooperating process.

The improvement of the economic situation of poor families should have

priority. This requires a labour-market policy, which actually puts the focus

on the employment and social integration of the most vulnerable groups in

the labour market and, at the same time, strengthens the efforts to

improve the reconciliation of family and professional life.

As a complement to the stabilisation of the existing social minimum income

schemes, the extensive system of family benefits should be restructured

towards child-related benefits that cover subsistence level for children in

low-income families.

The already initiated expansion of affordable quality services for poor

families and children should be continued, above all, with regard to early

childhood education and care, as well as to education in the school system.

Many of the political objectives and intentions have up to now remained

more rhetorical than real, especially with regard to child-oriented reforms

of the school system.

Integrated strategies should be developed and implemented primarily at

local level. The system of preventive networks for different age groups in

the city of Monheim could serve as an example of good practice for other

municipalities.

The objectives, programmes and instruments should be monitored and

evaluated regularly to ensure continuous progress. The results should be

documented in the NRPs and NSRs.


2013 13

2. Access to adequate resources

(1) Child poverty as a challenge for the German welfare state

The problem of child poverty would seem to be of low importance in Germany.

According to Eurostat data, the at-risk-of-poverty rate of children and youngsters

under 18 years of age in the year 2011 (15.6%) was only slightly lower than the

rate for the whole population (15.8%). Measured on the basis of all three poverty

indicators, the volume of poverty and social exclusion among children and

youngsters was at the same level as of the total population (19.9%). Compared to

the average in the 27 EU-member states, the German poverty and social

exclusion rate in general, and for children and young people in particular, were

and are, rather low (Lopez Vilaplana 2013). On the other hand, the poverty rate

for young people in Germany has almost constantly risen in recent years, and it

seems highly probable that this trend will continue in the coming decade (see

Annex: Tables 1-4).

The number of children living in households with recipients of basic income

support for job seekers has slightly declined, as has the total number of benefit

recipients. In 2011, 1,619 million children under the age of 15 years were living in

such households, compared to 1.745 million in 2008. But more differentiated

studies have proved that child poverty continues to be an important challenge for

social inclusion policy in Germany. A recently published report by the Institute of

Labour and Occupational Research (IAB) analysed the social situation of these

children (Lietzmann; Tophoven; Wenzig 2011). The study came to the conclusion

that the poverty risk is especially high for children who grow up in a single-parent

household or in a family with several children and with parents who have one of

the following characteristics: migration background, low educational level, low

labour market integration. Even if basic consumption for these children is covered

by the minimum income benefits, the possibilities of participating in social and

cultural life are greatly restricted. This situation has not been changed by the

introduction of the “benefit for education and participation” in 2011, see 4 (c)).

This chapter presents the policies, programmes and instruments through which

the access of poor families to economic resources is to be improved. The chapter

is mainly focussed on two approaches: the improvement of employment

participation in poor families, and the provision of marriage and family-related

benefits. In a last section, the assessment and further development of marriage

and family-related benefits are discussed.

(2) Improving employment participation in families

Germany is characterised by an extremely high poverty rate among the

unemployed and their family members. Many poor children are therefore living in

households of unemployed recipients of basic support for job seekers. There is a

broad consensus that the best strategy to reduce family and child poverty is to

improve the employment participation in households with unemployed people

(BMFSFJ 2008). Improving the employment situation of poor families can involve

as a first option:

(a) Employment policy

During the last decade, Germany was successful in raising the number and rate of

employed people. But even if the employment rate showed positive results - rising

from 68.3% in 1999 to 76.7% in 2012 - the real situation of the employees looks

somewhat different: The constant rise in the number of employed people was, and

still is, mainly due to an enormous increase in precarious forms of employment.


2013 14

The number and proportion of regular jobs, which had been declining in the last

decade, have recently stabilised. Nevertheless, the growing heterogeneity of

employment forms has contributed to give rise to growing employment and

income risks for wage earners. So while on the one hand the total number of

employed persons has risen and this trend may still continue in the next years,

the employment and social situation of certain groups of wage earners have

deteriorated. Above all, the situation of unskilled workers has become extremely

difficult as a consequence of an increasing differentiation of the wage structure

and a lowering of the lower wage level. The declining importance of collective

bargaining and the lack of a statutory minimum wage have contributed to the

growing importance of the problem of the working poor.

At the same time, the number of registered unemployed has declined in recent

years, but the number of recipients of basic income support for job seekers has

gone down at a much slower rate. So, even if the employment rate has increased

in recent years as a consequence of economic growth, not all groups of the work

force have profited equally from this development. Registered long-term

unemployed and unemployed recipients of basic income support for job seekers,

in particular, were not able to profit from the ‘employment miracle’. In recent

years, long-term unemployed persons had only low priority in the German labour

market integration policies. This can be deduced from the fact that the long-term

unemployed were and are underrepresented in all types of integration measures.

It is therefore no wonder that the integration rate of long-term unemployed

people into the normal labour market has not improved since 2005

(Bundesagentur für Arbeit 2012; Hanesch 2013).

In a report from November 2012, the German Federal Court of Auditors

(Bundesrechnungshof) has criticised the practice of labour market integration in

the context of Social Code Book II (Bundesrechnungshof 2012). The examination

of this practice in a selection of job centres has shown that integration measures

are focused on those groups, which have the best integration prospects, while

groups far removed from the labour market are systematically neglected. This

practice was and is the result of a short-term business strategy of the

Bundesagentur für Arbeit, which has been silently tolerated by the BMAS. As a

result of this policy, families with children have hardly profited from the existing

integration programmes. In the future, a reorientation of labour market

integration policies will be necessary; these will have to be focussed primarily on

the most vulnerable groups on the labour market.

(b) Reconciling work and family life

A second approach towards improving the employment and economic situation of

poor families with children is to improve the reconciliation between work and

family life. For many decades, Germany needed to catch up with other European

member states. The main instruments were and are the flexibilisation of working

time arrangements through collective bargaining or company-specific agreements

and the expansion of flexible child-care facilities and all-day schools. In both

areas, considerable improvements have been made during the last decade (see

chapter 4).

(3) Provision of marriage and family related benefits

Social policy in Germany is traditionally characterised by the primacy of monetary

benefits over benefits in kind. The system of family benefits is also determined by

this primacy of cash benefits and tax breaks for families as opposed to benefits in

kind (i.e. education, social and health care services). The most important

elements are the following child and family allowances:


2013 15

(a) Child benefit and child tax credit

Parents are entitled to child benefit (Kindergeld) payable until the child’s 18th

birthday, if the child lives in Germany. If a child takes up a place in a vocational

training course or is studying, this entitlement extends to the child’s 25th birthday,

at the maximum. The government pays a child benefit of EUR 184 per month for

each of the first two children, EUR 190 per month for the third child, and EUR 215

per month for every additional child. The payments function as an advance child

credit.

When the parents file their German income tax return at year-end, the tax

authorities will compare the amount of the child-related cash payment to the tax

benefit that the taxpayers would receive through the application of the child

exemption (Kinderfreibetrag). If the tax benefit of the exemption is higher than

the cash payment received, the tax authorities will add back the child payment

(child benefit) on the taxpayers' income tax assessment and apply the exemption

instead. If the child payment is more favourable, no child credit is given on the

return.

(b) Social benefit in social assistance / basic income support for job

seekers

Children have an entitlement to social benefits under Social Code Book II (Basic

income support for job seekers), if at least one person capable of work but in

need of assistance lives in their benefit community. If they live with persons not

capable to work but in need of assistance, they have, at the same level, an

entitlement to social assistance under Social Code Book XII. Currently, the

standard benefit amount under SGB II or XII for an adult is EUR 384. Children

under 6 years receive EUR 224, children between 6 and 13 years receive EUR

255; young people between 14 and 17 years receive EUR 289, and young adults

between 18 and 24 years in a benefit community receive EUR 306.

(c) Supplementary child benefit

The German state supports families with a low income by means of the

"supplementary child benefit" which is paid subject to the following conditions

(children aged under 25 live with their parents in the same household; income

and assets are sufficient for the parents to live on, but not enough to support the

children as well). The level of the supplementary child benefit depends on the

parents’ income and assets and is a maximum of EUR 140 per child per month.

(d) Parental allowance and parental leave

The parental allowance is a state benefit for parents who would like to look after

their child themselves after their birth and therefore are not in full-time

employment or not working at all. Since 2007, parents can file for parental leave

and receive 67% of their net income as a parental allowance from the government

for the duration of up to 14 months – subject to a minimum amount of EUR 300

and a maximum of EUR 1,800. Parental leave offers parents the opportunity of

looking after their child whilst allowing them to maintain contact with their

working life. Employees are entitled to parental leave until the child’s third

birthday. Their job is kept for them, and their contract cannot be terminated by

their employer. Parental leave can be taken by the mother and the father

individually or jointly.


2013 16

(e) Additional benefits

There is a whole series of additional benefits for families with children, among

them

additional benefits for single parent households living on social assistance

or basic income support for job seekers,

housing benefits for low income households,

maintenance payments are paid for a child (under 12 years) who gets no

maintenance payment from the parent with whom the child does not live.

(4) Assessment and further development of marriage and family

related benefits

While in the year 2010 family-related benefits (cash benefits, tax credits, benefits

in kind) amounted to a volume of 125.5 billion Euros, marriage-related benefits

added up to an additional 74.9 billion Euros. The total number of 156 programmes

covered 200.3 billion Euros (see Annex; BMFSFJ 2013b). This relationship reflects

the traditional dominant task of family policy to support the conservative middle-

class male breadwinner family model, instead of primarily supporting poor and

needy families (Schrieverhoff 2011).

In this legislative period, several research institutes have evaluated this marriage

and family related benefit system on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Family

Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMFSFJ) and the Federal Ministry of

Finance (BMF) (Rainer et al. 2011 and 2012; Bonin et al. 2012 and 2013a;

Schölmerich et al. 2012; Müller 2013). In a political report on the evaluation

studies, the BMFSFJ (2013a) came to the conclusion that the existing system of

marriage- and family-related benefits is successful with regard to the economic

stabilisation of families with children and the well-being of children. However, this

conclusion has only found partial agreement among the research institutes

involved (see Bonin et al. 2013).

The scientific debate in Germany is much more critical of the effectiveness of this

system. Actually, the existing complex system of marriage and family related

benefits is not able to prevent child poverty in Germany. Two main points of

criticism can be distinguished:

In its decision of February 9, 2010, the Federal Constitutional Court rated

the existing system of fixing the standard benefits under Social Code Book

II and XII as unconstitutional and formulated requirements for a new fixing

system. The new fixing system on the legal basis of the “Gesetz zur

Ermittlung von Regelbedarfen und zur Änderung des Zweiten und Zwölften

Buches Sozialgesetzbuch”, which came into force in March 2011, did not

bring substantial improvements. It is still criticised that the new fixing

system does not fulfil the legal and methodical requirements of the

Constitutional Court (Becker 2010; Lenze 2012). As a consequence, the

current benefit level of the last safety net for children and adults is not

sufficient to guarantee a living free from poverty.

Even if public spending on cash benefits and tax breaks is comparatively

high in Germany, it is not effective in fulfilling this social policy objective.

This is the result of a benefit system, which was, and still is, aimed

primarily at family and demographic objectives and mainly supports

middle-class families. This effect is further enhanced by a taxation system

which is still oriented around a traditional male bread-winner family model,

especially with the joint taxation of married couples and the possibility of a

reduction of their tax burden through what is called “tax splitting”.


2013 17

For a sustainable policy against child poverty, the existing system of monetary

marriage and family-related benefits should be reoriented away from the legal

status of families and in favour of actual need situations in families. By drastically

reducing marriage-related benefits, funds should be made available for the

expansion of family, and above all, children-related benefits, which at the same

time should be focussed on low-income families. Even if the current system of

child benefits is difficult to reform because of its legal roots in the jurisprudence of

the Federal Constitutional Court, the existing child tax credit should be abolished.

Furthermore, the so-called “Ehegattensplitting”, which allows couples a reduction

in their tax liabilities through joint taxation, should be replaced by the transition to

individual taxation (Bündnis Kindergrundsicherung 2013).

Because of the ineffective and unjust system of family benefits (and family

taxation) in Germany, more and more family and welfare associations, supported

by a group of economists and social scientists, are calling for a child-oriented

reform of this system and the introduction of a children`s minimum income (see

www.kinderarmut-hat-folgen.de). Meanwhile, this option is also being supported

by the Green and the Leftist parties. According to the most widely supported

version of such a minimum income, a basic amount should be offered to all

children and young people till the age of 18 (or – for those who are in training or

studying – till the age of 25 years), which should be legally fixed at subsistence

level for children. Because this minimum income should be subject to taxation –

as part of the family income – only families with no or a low family income would

profit from this new benefit scheme. In a micro-simulation study, Becker and

Hauser have shown that the introduction of a children`s minimum income would

contribute to a considerable reduction of child poverty in Germany (Becker and

Hauser 2006).

http://www.kinderarmut-hat-folgen.de/


2013 18

3. Access to affordable quality services

(1) The role of the local level in service provision

Even if the provision of educational and social services for families with children in

Germany is regulated by federal and state laws, it is mainly up to the

municipalities to guarantee, coordinate and fund the service provision. In addition

to the municipalities, private welfare associations, churches or for-profit agencies

also play an important role as service providers. Because the provision of these

services is a self-government task of the municipalities, there is a great

heterogeneity in the volume and structure of services between the municipalities.

This is a result of differing ideas guiding social policy between the municipalities,

as well as of the great regional differences in economic strength and financial

power between the municipalities.

The municipalities’ continuing lack of fiscal resources has caused cutbacks in the

provision of affordable high-quality services in recent years. The introduction by

Constitutional Law of a debt cap, which will come into force from 2016, will further

restrict the fiscal framework for political action. There is the risk that the most

vulnerable groups will be most affected by this development. More and more

public services have to be topped up by buying additional services in the market

system, such as tutoring for pupils and students, certain health care services and

child care services for children under the age of one year. Even if there is free

access to public services for all groups of the population, there are specific

barriers for certain groups. Migrants are confronted with ethnic-cultural and

language barriers, and there are financial barriers to fee-based services for low-

income household members.

In the following, some of the main areas of service provision for families, children

and young people will be outlined in more detail.

(2) Selected service areas

(a) Education and care in early childhood

In Germany’s conservative welfare state model, a traditional deficit in the

provision of family-related services has been the lack of (publicly funded or

subsidised) early childhood education and care facilities. As a result, the

reconciliation of family and professional life has been restricted and the promotion

of children coming from households with low income and low educational

attainment has hardly been possible. With the massive expansion of early

childhood education and care facilities in recent years, this situation has

considerably improved.

What led to the reorientation in the provision of education and care services in

Germany during the last decade was a turn not so much to child-oriented

objectives in family policy, as primarily to employment and population-related

necessities and objectives. Nevertheless, in Germany too in recent years it has

become a commonly shared assessment that the early promotion of children

contributes decisively towards improving their professional and social

opportunities and prospects in their future lives. Above all, as recent studies on

child poverty have shown, early childhood education and care opportunities – in

combination with other services such as family or health care services – can play

an important role in mitigating the impact of precarious living-conditions for

children (Laubstein et al. 2012).


2013 19

In a first step, a legal basis for the improvement of the early childhood education

and care situation was created in 2005 with the Act on Quality and Needs-

Oriented Expansion of Day-Care Facilities (TAG). The Federal Government, the

states and the municipalities agreed on the common objective of offering 750,000

child-care places for children under three years of age by 2013. With the Act on

Child Promotion (KiFöG) of 2008, the Federal State and the states agreed to

financially support the municipalities in funding the expansion of day-care

facilities. According to a newly established monitoring system, which regularly

provides data on the provision of day-care places, the supply situation has

continuously improved since 2006. The numbers of day-care places as well as the

care ratio have constantly increased. The care ratio rose from 13.6% in 2006 to

25.4% in 2011. The improvement in the day-care situation took place both in the

western and the eastern parts of Germany. As a result, the care gap between the

two parts of Germany remained almost unchanged (BMFSFJ 2012b).

Despite the fast growth in the number of day-care places, many districts and

municipalities were sceptical about the possibility of reaching the target ratio of

35% by mid-2013, when the legal right to day-care for every child under three

years of age came into force. They feared a wave of legal complaints by parents

whose demands for day-care could not be met. Furthermore, in many cities it was

expected that the actual demand for day-care would widely exceed the calculated

ratio of 35%. Currently, it is too early to assess whether and to what extent these

problems have occurred (BMFSFJ 2011). According to the states, more than

810,000 places will be offered in the time period 2013/14, which is more than the

calculated demand (BMFSFJ 2013c). But this information has not been confirmed

by the municipalities.

In any case, early childhood education and care is the policy field where the

greatest improvements have been made in recent years. Nevertheless, there is

not only a quantitative deficit, because the number of families claiming day-care is

constantly rising; there are also qualitative deficits, because the current expansion

is at least partly being paid for with a deterioration in the quality of the service.

E.g. the state of Hesse wanted to adopt a “Childcare Promotion Bill” that would

have entailed a far-reaching reduction in early childhood education and care

standards. Massive protests by professionals and welfare associations were

necessary to force the state government to at least modify that bill (Hessischer

Landtag 2012).

Parallel to the introduction of the legal right to early childhood education and care

for every child between one and three years of age, the current Federal

Government has introduced a so-called “care payment” (Betreuungsgeld) for

those parents who renounce this claim to day-care. This new “care payment” has

been severely criticised in the scientific and in the social policy debate, It is

expected that above all low-education and low-income parents, or parents with a

migration background will opt for this payment to improve their precarious income

situation. They will thus not use the opportunities to adequately promote their

children. Recent experience has shown that low-income and low-education

families as well as families with a migration background participate to a lower

degree than non-migrant families in day-care facilities and in non-formal

education opportunities (Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung 2012; Schober

and Spieß 2012). It is therefore necessary to facilitate access to these services

among these groups. The financially pressurised municipalities must be prevented

from raising day-care facility fees to a level that will impede access for low-income

families. Fee reductions for these groups, which are normally provided under

Social Code Book VIII, are not known or not taken advantage of. Following the

example of the English “Early Excellence Centres” (EEC), the further development


2013 20

of early day-care centres into family centres can help to integrate these children

and families in the early childhood education and promotion system (Stöbe-

Blossey 2011).

Under these conditions, the reconciliation of family and professional life will be

facilitated by the swift expansion of early childhood education and care facilities.

This will strengthen the opportunities for labour market integration of family

members, especially women, and in particular single mothers. It will also help to

improve the economic situation of families with children. But above all, it should

contribute to an improvement of the opportunities and perspectives for children

from marginalised families.

(b) Benefit for education and participation

Following the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court`s decision of

February 9, 2010, which criticised the lack of adequate promotion of educational

and social participation for children in households living on minimum income

benefits, in 2010 the Federal Government adopted a programme to improve the

educational and social participation of children and young people in low-income

families, which came into force in 2011. This new “benefit for education and

participation” is non-cash and is aimed directly at helping needy children and

young people. It includes, for example, paying expenses for mid-day meals in

schools, extra tuition and participation in a sports club or music lessons (BMAS

2013).

While the BMAS describes this new benefit scheme as successful (see also ISG

2013), it has been criticised from the beginning because of its extremely

restrictive concept of benefit provision. To prevent any supposed misuse of the

benefit, it has been organised in a prohibitively bureaucratic way, which not only

pushed the administrative costs to an extremely high level, but also prevented the

majority of eligible families from claiming the benefits (DGB 2011; DIJuF 2012;

DPWV 2013). Most experts agree that it would have been more useful and

effective to improve and qualify the existing programmes of the school system

and the youth welfare service (Lenze 2010).

(c) School-based education services

In Germany, children from families with low educational attainment and low

income and with a migration background are generally at high risk of poverty and

social exclusion. One main reason for this is the fact that these children perform

poorly in the school system, and a higher percentage of them leave school without

an educational degree compared to other groups. As a consequence, they are

confronted with greater problems in finding training opportunities and entering the

labour market as qualified workers. At the same time, evaluations of the German

school system have repeatedly come to the conclusion that the German school

system shows a high degree of social selectivity. The school performance of pupils

is greatly dependent on the economic, social and educational status of their

parents (Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung 2012).

An important element of the national integration plan therefore, is to improve the

school performance of children with a migration background and to reduce the

number and proportion of migrant entrants in the labour market without an

educational or training degree. In Germany, the school system is in the

jurisdiction of the states, with only a very loose coordination by the Conference of

State Ministers of Education and Culture. As a result, not only do the framework

conditions for innovative reforms vary from state to state, but also common

strategies hardly exist in this system for developing and implementing them. So

even if the national integration plan contains a broad range of education and


2013 21

training-related measures at state and at local level, no coordinated action is to be

expected.

As a modest element in the reform of the German school system, the states have

repeatedly announced that they will further expand the number of all-day schools

with the aim of improving the promotion of pupils with a disadvantaged social

background. Up to now, however, the implementation of all-day schools is lagging

far behind the political promises. And in many states, like in the state of Hesse,

all-day school means the introduction of programmes offered by organisations

that operate with volunteers and low-qualified professionals. These programmes

can hardly be expected to improve the promotion of children and youngsters with

a disadvantaged social background. Recent reports on the German education

system have revealed that the proportion of school-leavers without an educational

degree has decreased slightly in recent years. But at the same time, the

proportion among migrant school-leavers continued to be considerably higher. The

German school system has, up to now, hardly been able to introduce the

necessary reforms, which could help to sustainably improve the performance of

these groups. Despite increased efforts by the states to implement a child-centred

promotion in the school system, the results are rather sobering so far (ISA 2011;

Pielage, Pries, Schultze 2012; Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung 2012).

(d) Health care services

The first large-scale national study on children’s health (KIGGS) was performed by

the Robert Koch Institute and was the first to contain a representative

documentation of the state of health of German children and youth (Kurth 2006).

The study showed that social disadvantages have a strong impact on the health of

children and young people.

Between 2006 and 2012, the BMFSFJ has funded a national action programme on

“early help for parents and children and social early-warning systems”. The

intention of this programme was to create and expand local networks of early help

which should provide this kind of family support. In the context of this

programme, a “national ‘early help’ centre” was established and a great number of

model projects at local level have been funded. Between 2012 and 2014, the

Federal Government, under the Federal Child Protection Law, is financially

supporting states and municipalities in establishing regional and local “early help”

networks (BMFSFJ 2006).

The task of the local networks is to develop close cooperation between different

policy and service areas, like health care, youth and social services, pregnancy

counselling and early childhood intervention, aimed at improving child protection

and family support. At the same time, the coordination between the different

service offers and the exchange between professionals in the different areas are

to be intensified. The coordination of each local network is normally in the

competence of the health care office and the youth office (Sann 2010).

(e) Youth and family services

In the federalist system of the German welfare state, the local authorities have

the legal duty to provide youth and family-related services to their citizens, but

they have considerable scope for action with regard to this self-governing task

(BMFSFJ 2013d). Therefore, we can find great heterogeneity between the different

regions and municipalities. In the debate on combating child poverty at local level,

youth and family services, which are normally the responsibility of the youth office

play an important role, because these services are aimed at supporting children

and youngsters in their well-being and supporting families in their educational and

social tasks and problems. According to Social Code Book VIII, their legal task is


2013 22

above all to support children and families in precarious living conditions. According

to the principle of subsidiarity, the service provision is often delegated to welfare

associations or private agencies. This division of labour requires close coordination

and cooperation between the different actor groups at local level, which is the

responsibility of the municipalities. The same administrative units are challenged

to develop and implement local strategies against child poverty (see the example

of the city of Monheim at the end of this chapter).

(f) Housing and living environment

Recently published national reports on poverty and the well-being of children in

Germany have largely neglected the role of housing and socio-spatial living

conditions for the well-being of families and children. Housing conditions are

normally not included in national (or international) indicator sets and are difficult

to measure and assess in national studies. At the same time, local ethnographic

case studies have proved that these aspects are of great importance for the well-

being of children (see e.g. Helbig 2010).

On the one hand, the housing shortage has increased in certain regions

and cities of Germany. Especially in metropolitan areas in western

Germany, apartments at reasonable rents are hard to find for low-income

families with children (Eichener 2012). Because the federal state and the

states have reduced their funds for the promotion of housing construction,

and because the municipalities in the affected regions are overburdened in

providing the funding alone, the situation will worsen in the coming years.

To return to balanced housing markets in the metropolitan areas, joint

efforts by the federal state, the states and the municipalities are

necessary. At the same time, local programmes and services against over-

indebtedness, housing loss and homelessness will have to be expanded.

On the other hand, several research studies have come to the conclusion

that social segregation is currently increasing in German cities. Children

and young people in particular are greatly affected by increasingly

worsening housing and living conditions in certain city areas (Seidel-

Schulze, Dohnke, Häußermann 2012; Bertelsmann Stiftung 2010). During

the last decade, the municipalities have been supported by the federal

state and the states in implementing and funding local integrated urban

development programmes. This coordinated multi-level approach has

recently been terminated as a consequence of massive cuts in federal and

state funds in 2010 (Franke 2011). There is a broad consensus between

municipalities, housing industry and welfare associations that the “socially

integrative city” approach should be revived and that joint funding should

be expanded again (see e.g. BAGFW 2013).

(3) Integrated local strategies

Integrated strategies against child and family poverty, which are aimed at

developing a support system for these children and families, have to be focussed

on local municipal levels. Even if the cities and local districts have to be supported

by the federal state and the states by additional, complementary programmes and

funds, the local level must be the main starting point for action programmes. Such

programmes have to be integrated programmes, because the poverty of children,

youngsters and families involves a wide range of resources and aspects of well-

being which have to be tackled by the whole range of local social-policy areas and

instruments. At the same time, all the groups of local actors have to be included

in this integrated action.


2013 23

In recent years, more and more cities, and even some districts, have published

their own reports on child poverty. And some municipalities have even started to

develop and implement local action plans against child poverty (Holz 2011). While

some municipalities have developed comprehensive action plans, others have

drawn up complex action plans for certain policy areas such as “education

poverty”. The city of Monheim has become well known in the German social policy

debate as an example of comprehensive action plans (see e.g. Holz et al. 2005;

Stadt Monheim 2009).

The city of Monheim began its fight against child poverty in the year 2002 as an

element of an integrated urban development plan. This plan was mainly focussed

on two topics: developing deprived urban areas and supporting children and

young people. Under the leadership of the municipal youth office, a local

coordination unit was established. The main objective was to develop a local

prevention strategy:

This should guarantee equal opportunities for all children, irrespective of

their family and social background,

At the same time, children living in deprived urban areas should receive

special support towards equal opportunities for education and participation,

An early warning and support system should be established,

There should be a close cooperation and coordination between the different

local policy areas involved (education, culture, health care, youth and

social services),

The combination of all available public and private resources should be

realised.

One main element of this preventive approach was the establishment of a series

of networks between local actor groups which are focussed on specific age groups.

Step by step, these networks have been introduced and used to optimise the

range and quality of services for the different age groups of children and young

people. The range of networks currently extends from children under three years

(and their families), to youngsters between fourteen and eighteen years, and

covers all kinds of services, ranging from early childhood education and care to

advice and support during the transition from school to training and employment.

All phases and elements of this prevention system have been evaluated and

documented. The approach of the city of Monheim is therefore well known as an

example of good practice for a local strategy against child poverty in Germany.

Examples like the city of Monheim have proved that integrated strategies are

possible, at least at local level, and can be successful if there is a joint and

sustainable effort made by all the local actors. However, the city of Monheim also

needed, and still needs, support from federal and state level.


2013 24

4. Addressing child poverty and social exclusion in the European Semester

As has been described in recent reports (see e.g. Hanesch 2011: 16), the German

National Reform Programme refers in its quantitative target-setting for the fight

against poverty and social exclusion to only one of the three dimensions by which

poverty and social exclusion are newly defined in the European Strategy 2020.

The dimensions of income poverty and material deprivation are completely

omitted, while a target is only defined for the third dimension (persons living in

households with very low work intensity). Because income poverty is not an issue

in the official anti-poverty policy of the Federal Government, the extent and

development of child poverty, the causes and the impacts on the affected families

and children are not described and discussed in the NRPs. Finally, strategies and

programmes to reduce or overcome the material situation of poor families are not

discussed in the NRPs. This reflects the fact that strategies and programmes to

reduce or overcome income poverty in general are regularly faded out.

At the same time, the Federal Government has highlighted in its NRP 2011 that

additional qualitative targets and measures to tackle poverty must also be taken

into consideration when assessing national targets and objectives. For Germany,

this includes the improvement of the educational opportunities and opportunities

for social inclusion for vulnerable children and young people at risk (BMWT 2011:

8/9). The recent NRPs include long lists of federal and state programmes and

measures which are aimed at improving the education and professional

qualifications of children, youngsters and adults:

According to the NRPs, federal, state and municipal authorities have

intensified their joint efforts to expand the supply of early childhood

education and care places within the last decade.

The efforts of the school system have been strengthened to support

disadvantaged children who come from low education and low income

families or families with a migration background.

Following the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court, the Federal

Government adopted a programme to improve the educational and social

participation of children and young people from low-income families

(benefit for education and participation), which came into force in 2011.

There are a great number of federal and state programmes for vocational

orientation and preparation, many of them funded by the European Social

Fund. Most of the funded measures are aimed at helping disadvantaged

young people to get started in vocational training and employment.

The problem is that the NRPs do not provide more detailed information on how

these qualitative targets should be addressed and which programmes should

contribute in which way. Because they are not described in detail, it is unclear to

which extent they should contribute to the prevention or reduction of poverty and

social exclusion. It is therefore difficult to assess which actual effects they will

have. The hope is that the newly introduced national social reporting system in

the EU will provide more detailed information about federal, state and municipal

initiatives and programmes. The national social report 2012, which was published

by the federal government in spring 2013, has not met these expectations

(Hanesch 2013).


2013 25

5. Mobilising relevant EU financial instruments In the funding period 2007 – 2013, the European Structural Funds provides funds

of around 25.5 billion Euros for Germany. 16.1 billion are provided under the

European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and 9.4 billion under the European

Social Fund (ESF). While 37% of the ESF funds are spent on federal programmes

and 63% are used for state programmes, only 9% of the ERDF funds go to the

federal state, while the large majority of funds are spend by the individual states.

In the National Strategic Reference Framework the federal state and the states

have jointly defined four overarching objectives for the use of European Structural

Funds, which have been categorised according to thematic priorities (BMWT

2008).

In one of the thematic priorities for the use of the ESF - “employment and social

inclusion” - the funding was and is mainly used for programmes aimed at

supporting the active inclusion of children and young people, because almost all

ESF programmes are aligned to the labour market integration and to improving

the opportunities and perspectives in the education and training system. The

tackling or prevention of child poverty is pursued by taking into account the

specific problem and need situation of families. Families affected by

unemployment and threatened by social exclusion are offered coaching services to

improve the situation of the family. Furthermore, parents are supported in their

integration into the labour market by activation and employment measures. The

integrated approach should help to improve the situation of the children (Brand et

al. 2012: 77). On the one hand, these education, training and employment

programmes have supplemented national and regional programmes and

discharged the national and regional funding. On the other hand, these

programmes have contributed to a complex, heterogeneous system of

programmes, which is hardly transparent and even for experts difficult to

understand.

Nevertheless, there were and are some programmes which should be highlighted

because of their exemplary importance. One of them is presented here:

Education, economy, labour in the quarter (Bildung, Wirtschaft, Arbeit im

Quartier (BIWAQ)):

The BIWAQ programme was introduced in 2008 as a social-space-oriented

labour-market policy programme, which should support the national urban

city development policy based on the “socially integrative city” programme

(Stadtteile mit besonderem Entwicklungsbedarf – Soziale Stadt), by which

the living conditions in deprived urban areas should be improved. The

target group of BIWAQ are children and young people living in such urban

areas, and the funding is used for implementing educational, training and

employment projects, which are integrated into the local urban

development programme and are aimed at supporting these groups as

regards educational and professional inclusion. Between 2008 and 2015

184 million Euros (ESF: 124 million Euros and BMVBS: 60 million Euros)

will be invested in these projects. Up to now, 222 projects have been

funded in two funding periods. All the projects have to be evaluated

(BMVBS 2011; Güles 2009). Evaluation has shown that these projects

regularly have various positive impacts on the situation of the affected

people, as well as on the development of the urban areas in which the

projects were/are located.

However, this positive assessment of the BIWAQ programme is being

fundamentally questioned by the politically induced change of the


2013 26

framework conditions: In the year 2010, the lead programme – the socially

integrative city – was dramatically reduced by 2/3 and has since continued

at a modest level. As a result, the deterioration of the framework

conditions in the promoted urban areas has jeopardised the positive

impacts of the BIWAQ projects (Franke 2012).

For the funding period 2014 – 2020, substantial funding will also be available for

Germany. The German welfare associations have welcomed the announcement by

the EC that 20% of the funding will have to be used for social inclusion objectives.

So even if the Structural Funds for Germany are reduced in the next funding

period, the European funding framework for social inclusion programmes in

Germany will remain stable. A requirement should be that the funding is not only

invested in active inclusion programmes, but that the range of topics and

programmes is enlarged. For the coming years, the promotion of integrated urban

development programmes and the expansion of educational, social and health

services at municipal level according to the specific local needs should have high

priority. The Structural Funds should be used to support these local efforts

through adequate national and regional programmes. The boards should ensure

that the traditional target group orientation be supplemented or substituted by a

social space orientation (see chapter 3).


2013 27

References Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung (2012), Bildung in Deutschland 2012.

Edited by Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF). Berlin.

BAGFW (Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege)(2013),

Stellungnahme der Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege zur

Anhörung am 05. Juni 2013 im Ausschuss für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung

des Deutschen Bundestags. Berlin.

Becker, Irene and Hauser, Richard (2010), Kindergrundsicherung, Kindergeld und

Kinderzuschlag: Eine vergleichende Analyse aktueller Reformvorschläge. Riedstadt

and Frankfurt am Main.

Becker, Irene (2010), Bedarfsbemessung bei Hartz IV. Zur Ableitung von

Regelleistungen auf der Basis des „Hartz-IV-Urteils“ des

Bundesverfassungsgerichts. WISO Diskurs. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Berlin.

Bertelsmann Stiftung (Ed.)(2010), Demographie konkret - Soziale Segregation in

deutschen Großstädten. Gütersloh.

Bertelsmann Stiftung et al. (2013), Chancenspiegel 2013. Zur

Chancengerechtigkeit und Leistungsfähigkeit der deutschen Schulsysteme mit

einer Vertiefung zum schulischen Ganztag. Gütersloh.

Bertram, Hans; Kohl, Steffen (2010), Zur Lage der Kinder in Deutschland 2010.

Deutsches Komitee für UNICEF, Köln.

BMAS (Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales)(2013), Lebenslagen in

Deutschland. Der vierte Armuts- und Reichtumsbericht der Bundesregierung.

Bonn.

BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) (2005),

Nationaler Aktionsplan. Für ein kindergerechtes Deutschland 2005 - 2010. Berlin.


Frühe Hilfen für Eltern und Kinder und soziale Frühwarnsysteme. Berlin.

BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) (2007):

Übereinkommen über die Rechte des Kindes UN-Kinderrechtskonvention im

Wortlaut mit Materialien. Berlin.


Dossier: Armutsrisiken von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Deutschland. Berlin.

BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) (2010a),

Perspektiven für ein kindergerechtes Deutschland. Abschlussbericht des

Nationalen Aktionsplans. „Für ein kindergerechtes Deutschland 2005 – 2010“.

Berlin.

BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) (2010b),

Bestandsaufnahme der familienbezogenen Leistungen und Maßnahmen des

Staates im Jahr 2010. Berlin.


Familienreport 2012. Berlin.

Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (BMFSFJ) (2012b),

Dritter Zwischenbericht zur Evaluation des Kinderförderungsgesetzes. Berlin.


Politischer Bericht zur Gesamtevaluation der ehe- und familienbezogenen

Leistungen. Berlin.


2013 28

BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) (2013b),

Bestandsaufnahme der familienbezogenen Leistungen und Maßnahmen des

Staates im Jahr 2010. Berlin.

BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) (2013c),

Meilensteine – August 2013. Berlin.

BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) (2013d),

14. Kinder- und Jugendbericht. Berlin.

BMVBS (Bundesministerium für Bau, Verkehr und Stadtentwicklung) (2011),

Bildung, Wirtschaft, Arbeit im Quartier (BIWAQ). Berlin.

BMWT (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie) (2008), National

Strategic Reference Framework for the EU Structural Funds in Germany, 2007–

2013. Berlin.

BMWT (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie) (2011), Nationales

Reformprogramm. Berlin.

Bonin, Holger et al. (2012), Evaluation zentraler ehe- und familienbezogener

Leistungen in Deutschland. Endbericht. Mannheim.

Bonin, Holger et al. (2013a), Mikrosimulation ausgewählter ehe- und

familienbezogener Leistungen im Lebenszyklus. Mannheim.

Bonin, Holger et al. (2013b), Zentrale Resultate der Gesamtevaluation

familienbezogener Leistungen. In: DIW-Wochenbericht 40.

Brand, Tasso et al. (2012), Strategiebericht 2012 zur EU-Strukturpolitik.

Berichterstattung zum Nationalen Strategischen Rahmenplan für den Einsatz der

EU-Strukturfonds in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. IFS Institut für

Stadtforschung und Strukturpolitik. Berlin.

Bündnis Kindergrundsicherung (2013), Kinder brauchen mehr. Unser Vorschlag für

eine Kindergrundsicherung. Berlin.

Bundesagentur für Arbeit (2012), Arbeitsmarkt 2011. Nürnberg.

Bundesrechnungshof (2012), Mitteilung an die Bundesagentur für Arbeit über die

Prüfung der Steuerung der Zielerreichung in den strategischen Geschäftsfeldern I

und Va. Bonn.

Der Paritätische Gesamtverband (2012), Positive Trends gestoppt, negative

Trends beschleunigt. Bericht zur regionalen Armutsentwicklung in Deutschland.

Berlin.

Der Paritätische Gesamtverband (2013), Anspruch nicht eingelöst. Kritische

Praxisbilanz nach zwei Jahren Bildungs- und Teilhabepaket. Berlin.

Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (DGB)(2011), Das Bildungs- und Teilhabepaket:

Viel Verpackung, wenig Inhalt. Arbeitsmarkt aktuell N0. 4.

Deutscher Kinderschutzbund (DKSB) (2007): ‚Armut – (k)eine Kinderkrankheit?!’

Informationen zum Weltkindertag 2007.

www.dksb.de/upload/dksb/themen/Armut/wkt_2007.pdf

Deutsches Kinderhilfswerk (DKHW) (2008): Forderungen und Handlungsfelder des

Deutschen Kinderhilfswerkes zur Bekämpfung der Kinderarmut in Deutschland.

www.dkhw.de/download/14_DKHW_Forderungskatalog.pdf

Deutscher Verein (für öffentliche und private Fürsorge)(2013), Deutscher Verein’s

Opinion on the European Commission’s Communication “Towards Social

Investment for Growth and Cohesion“. Berlin.

http://www.dksb.de/upload/dksb/themen/Armut/wkt_2007.pdf

http://www.dkhw.de/download/14_DKHW_Forderungskatalog.pdf


2013 29

Deutschen Instituts für Jugendhilfe und Familienrecht eV (DIJuF)(2013), Bildung

und Teilhabe für Kinder und Jugendliche nach SGB II: eine Strukturkritik,

Stellungnahme der Ständigen Fachkonferenz 1 „Grund- und Strukturfragen des

Jugendrechts“. Heidelberg.

Ebner, Christian; Nikolai, Rita (2010), Schlechtes Zeugnis für Deutschland. Europa

und die Bildungs-Benchmarks der Lissabon-Strategie – eine Zwischenbilanz,

WZBrief, September

Eichener, Volker (2012), Wohnungsbau in Deutschland – Zuständigkeiten von

Bund, Ländern, Kommunen und Europäischer Union? EBZ Business School –

University of Applied Sciences. Bochum.

European Commission (2013), Investing in children: breaking the cycle of

disadvantage. RECOMMENDATION of 20 February 2013 (2013/112/EU). Brussels.

Expertenrat Herkunft und Bildungserfolg (2011), Empfehlungen für

Bildungspolitische Weichenstellungen in der Perspektive auf das Jahr 2020 (BW

2020). Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg. Stuttgart.

Franke, Thomas (2011), Auswirkungen der Mittelkürzungen im Programm Soziale

Stadt. Herausgegeben von der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Berlin.

Güles, Orhan (2009), BIWAQ – Zusammenhalt durch sozialraumorientierte

Arbeitsmarktpolitik. In: Informationen zur Raumentwicklung. Heft 6.

Hanesch, Walter (2011a), Assessment of progress towards the Europe 2020

objectives. A Study of National Policies. Germany. EU Network of Independent

Experts on Social Inclusion. Darmstadt.

Hanesch, Walter (2011b), „Deutschland verabschiedet sich vom Kampf gegen

Armut und soziale Ausgrenzung“. Stellungnahme der Nationalen Armutskonferenz

(nak) zum deutschen Nationalen Reformprogramm im Rahmen der Strategie

Europa 2020. Berlin.

Hanesch, Walter (2012), Assessment of Implementation of European Commission

Recommendation on Active Inclusion. A Study of National Policies. Germany. EU

Network of Independent Experts on Social Inclusion. Darmstadt.

Hanesch, Walter (2013), Assessment of progress towards the Europe 2020

objectives. A Study of National Policies. Germany. EU Network of Independent

Experts on Social Inclusion. Darmstadt.

Helbig, Michael (2010), Neighborhood does matter! Soziostrukturelle

Nachbarschaftscharakteristika und Bildungserfolg, in: Kölner Zeitschrift für

Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie.

Hessischer Landtag (2012), Drucksache 18/6733 vom 04. 12. 2012

Holz, Gerda (2010), „Kommunale Strategien gegen Kinder- und Bildungsarmut“.

Oder: Der Ansatz kindbezogener Armutsprävention (nicht nur) für Kommunen. In:

Hanesch, Walter (ed.), Die Zukunft der ‚Sozialen Stadt’: Strategie gegen soziale

Spaltung und Armut iun den Kommunen. Wiesbaden.

Holz, Gerda (2011), Ansätze kommunaler Armutsprävention – Erkenntnisse aus

der AWO–ISS-Studie „Kinderarmut“. ISS. Frankfurt am Main.

Holz, Gerda et al. (2005), Armutsprävention vor Ort – MoKi – Monheim für Kinder.

ISS. Frankfurt am Main.

Hoofe, Gerd (2010), Thesenpapier zu der Fachtagung von DGB / HBS zum Thema

"Wege aus der Kinderarmut" am 8. Juni 2010. Berlin.


2013 30

Hübenthal, Maksim (2009), Kinderarmut in Deutschland. Empirische Befunde,

kinderpolitische Akteure und gesellschaftspolitische Handlungsstrategien.

Deutsches Jugendinstitut. München.

Hurrelmann, Klaus; Andresen, Sabine; Schneekloth, Ulrich (2010), Kinder in

Deutschland 2010, 2. World Vision Kinderstudie. Frankfurt am Main.

Huster, Ernst-Ulrich; Benz, Benjamin; Boeckh, Jürgen (2007), Tackling child

poverty and promoting the social inclusion of children. A Study of National

Policies. Germany…

ISA (Institut für Soziale Arbeit (2011), Bildungsbericht Ganztagsschule NRW 2011.

Dortmund.

ISG (Institut für Sozialforschung und Gesellschaftspolitik) (2012), Bildung und

Teilhabe von Kindern und Jugendlichen im unteren Einkommensbereich.

Untersuchung der Implementationsphase des „Bildungs- und Teilhabepakets“ im

Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Arbeit und Soziales. Köln.

ISG (Institut für Sozialforschung und Gesellschaftspolitik) (2013), Umfrage zur

Inanspruchnahme der Leistungen des Bildungs- und Teilhabepakets. Köln.

Kurth, Bärbel-Maria (2006), Symposium zur Studie zur Gesundheit von Kindern

und Jugendlichen in Deutschland. Berlin.

Laubstein, Claudia et al. (2012), Von alleine wächst sich nichts aus ...

Lebenslagen von (armen) Kindern und Jugendlichen und gesellschaftliches

Handeln bis zum Ende der Sekundarstufe I. ISS. Frankfurt a.M.

Lenze, Anne (2010), Regelleistung und gesellschaftliche Teilhabe. In: WSI-

Mitteilungen. No. 10.

Lenze, Anne (2012), Regelleistungen nach der Rechtsprechung des

Bundesverfassungsgerichts. In: Hanesch, Walter and Fukawa, Hisashi (Eds.), Das

letzte Netz sozialer Sicherung in der Bewährung. Baden Baden.

Lietzmann Torsten; Tophoven, Silke; Wenzig, Claudia (2011), Bedürftige Kinder

und ihre Lebensumstände. IAB-Kurzbericht No. 6.

Lopez Vilaplana, Christina (2013), Children were the age group at the highest risk

of poverty or social exclusion in 2011. In: Statistics in Focus No 4 (Eurostat).

MAGS (Ministerium für Arbeit, Gesundheit und Soziales) (2009), Prekäre

Lebenslagen von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Nordrhein-Westfalen.

Sozialberichterstattung Nordrhein-Westfalen. Düsseldorf.

Müller, Kai-Uwe et al. (2013), Evaluationsmodul: Förderung und Wohlergehen von

Kindern. DIW Politikberatung kompakt No. 73. Berlin.

National Coalition (für die Umsetzung der UN-Kinderrechtskonvention in

Deutschland) (2010), Ergänzender Bericht zum Dritt- und Viertbericht der

Bundesregierung Deutschland. Berlin.

Nationales Zentrum Frühe Hilfen (2010), Bestandsaufnahme kommunale Praxis

früher Hilfen in Deutschland. Teiluntersuchung 1: Kooperationsformen. Materialien

zu frühen Hilfen 2. Köln.

OECD (2009b), Doing Better for Children. Paris.

OECD (2011), Doing Better for Families. Paris.

Olk, Thomas; Hübenthal, Maxim (2009), Child poverty in the German social

investment state. In: Zeitschrift für Familienforschung. Heft 2.


2013 31

Pielage, Patricia; Ludger Pries; Günther Schultze (2012), Soziale Ungleichheit in

der Einwanderungsgesellschaft: Kategorien, Konzepte, Einflussfaktoren;

Tagungsdokumentation im Auftrag der Abteilung Wirtschafts- und Sozialpolitik der

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Berlin.

Rainer, Helmut et al. (2011), Kinderbetreuung. Erstellt im Auftrag der

Geschäftsstelle Gesamtevaluation der ehe- und familienbezogenen Leistungen in

Deutschland. ifo-Forschungsberichte No 59. München.

Rainer, Helmut et al. (2012), Kindergeld. Erstellt im Auftrag der Geschäftsstelle

Gesamtevaluation der ehe- und familienbezogenen Leistungen in Deutschland.

Ifo-Forschungsberichte No. 60. München.

Sann, Alexandra (2010), Kommunale Praxis Früher Hilfen in Deutschland. Köln.

Schober, Pia S; Spieß, C. Katharina (2012), Frühe Förderung und Betreuung von

Kindern: Bedeutende Unterschiede bei der Inanspruchnahme besonders in den

ersten Lebensjahren. DIW-Wochenbericht Heft 43.

Schölmerich, Axel et al. (2012), Wohlergehen von Kindern. Endbericht des

Moduls. Erstellt im Auftrag der Geschäftsstelle Gesamtevaluation der ehe- und

familienbezogene Leistungen in Deutschland. Ruhr Universität Bochum. Bochum.

Schrieverhoff, Hannah (2011), Kinderarmut und Familienpolitik in Deutschland.

Zur Wirksamkeit armutsreduzierender Transferleistungen. CEuS Working Paper

No. 2011/5. Universität Bremen. Bremen.

Seidel-Schulze, Antje; Dohnke, Jan; Häußermann, Hartmut (2012), Segregation,

Konzentration, Polarisierung - sozialräumliche Entwicklung in deutschen Städten

2007-2009. Berlin.

Seils, Eric; Meyer, Daniel (2012), Kinderarmut in Deutschland und den

Bundesländern. WSI in der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung. Düsseldorf.

Social Protection Commitee (2012), SPC Advisory report to the European

Commission on tackling and preventing child poverty, promoting child well-being.

Brussels.

Sozialverband Deutschland e.V. (2010), Kinderarmut bekämpfen –

Chancengleichheit verwirklichen. Berlin.

Stadt Monheim (2009), KoKi – Monheim für Kinder. Monheim.

Stöbe-Blossey, Sybille (2011), Familienzentren in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Eine

Zwischenbilanz. Aktuelle Forschungsergebnisse aus dem Institut Arbeit und

Qualifikation 2011-06. Duisburg and Essen.

UNICEF (Innocenti Research Centre)(2012), Measuring child poverty.

Florence/Italy.

UNICEF (Office of Research – Innocenti)(2013), Child well-being in rich countries.

A comparative overview. Innocenti Report Card 11. Florence/Italy.


2013 32

Annex

Table 1:

Poverty and social exclusion in Germany 2008 – 2011 (in %)

2008 2009 2010 2011

Total population 20.1 20.0 19.7 19.9

- Women 21.6 21.2 20.9 21.3

- Men 18.5 18.8 18.6 18.5

Population

under 18 years

20.1 20.4 21.7 19.9

- Women 19.5 18.3 21.4 21.5

- Men 20.7 22.1 21.9 18.6

Source: EU-SILC

Table 2:

At-risk-of-poverty in Germany 2008 – 2011 (in %)

2008 2009 2010 2011

Total

population

15.2

15.5 15.6 15.8

Population

under 18 years

15.2 15.0 17.5 15.6

Population

between 18 and 84 years

15.4 15.8 15.6 16.4

Population 65

years and more

14.9 15.0 14.1 14.2

Source: EU-SILC


2013 33

Table 3:

At-risk-of-poverty in Germany 2008 – 2011 (in %)

2008 2009 2010 2011

People in all

household types

15.2 15.5 15.6 15.8

People in

households without children

17.0

17.4

16.5

17.5

People in

households with children

13.1

13.0

14.6

13.7

- Single

parent

households

35.9

37.5

43.0

37.1

- Two

adults

with one

child

9.3

9.8

9.0

9.8

- Two

adults

with two children

8.3

7.7

8.8

8.7

- Two

adults

with

three and

more children

15.2

13.6

21.6

16.2

Source: EU-SILC

Table 4:

Marriage and family related benefits in Germany 2007 – 2010 in million Euros

2007 2008 2009 2010

Tax

measures

42,115 41,152 43,594 45,627

Cash benefits

23,249 24,087 24,749 25,134

Social insu-

rance measures

24,942 25,551 26,953 27,304

Benefits in

kind

20,804 22,453 25,129 27,397


2013 34

Marriage

rela-ted measures

71,180 73,272 74,541 74,854

Marriage and

family

related benefits

182,290 186,515 194,966 200,316

Source: BMFSFJ 2010

Table 5:

Population at risk of poverty or social exclusion by age group (%), 2011

Source: Eurostat

eu network of investing in children: breaking the cycle of ...csdle.lex.unict.it/archive/lw/data...

Documents