7th Annual Conference Report - Brighter Futures Building ... · 1. OPENING CEREMONY 7th Annual...

7th Annual Conference Report - Brighter Futures – Building Effective Partnerships To End Child Poverty 1

CONTENTS


CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................. 4

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 5

1. OPENING CEREMONY .................................................................................................................. 7

2. OPENING PLENARY SESSION ..................................................................................................... 9

3. WORKSHOPS ............................................................................................................................. 15

4. PANEL DEBATE: ADDED-VALUE OF EU ACTION ON CHILD POVERTY ................................ 33

5. CLOSING SESSION ..................................................................................................................... 37

ANNEX 1 – LIST OF PARTICIPANTS .............................................................................................. 39

ANNEX 2 – CONFERENCE PROGRAMME ..................................................................................... 45

ANNEX 3 – WORKSHOPS SUMMARIES ........................................................................................ 47

ANNEX 4 – WORKSHOPS ACCOMPANYING BRIEFINGS ........................................................... 59

ANNEX 5 – STUDY VISITS SUMMARIES ........................................................................................ 73

ANNEX 6 – YOUTH EVENT PROGRAMME ..................................................................................... 75

ANNEX 7 – SWEDISH SEMINAR PROGRAMME ............................................................................ 77

ANNEX 8 – EUROCHILD POLICY BRIEFING ................................................................................. 79

ANNEX 9 – CONCLUDING STATEMENTS ...................................................................................... 85

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

4 7th Annual Conference Report - Brighter Futures – Building Effective Partnerships To End Child Poverty

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report is based on the content of Eurochild‟s 7th Annual Conference which took place on 3-5th November

2010 in Örebro, Sweden. Thanks go to the Örebro Regional Development Council and in particular to Marie

Gustaffson and Ann-Louise Gustaffson, for their wonderful hospitality and excellent organisation.

Eurochild also acknowledges the contribution of all the speakers, discussants, chairs and rapporteurs who

contributed their valuable time and expertise to make the event a success.

AUTHORS

The report has been drafted by Agata D‟Addato (Policy Officer) and Lilia Kamenow (Policy Assistant) -

Eurochild Secretariat - with inputs from each of the workshops rapporteurs. Thanks to Marie Dubit (Membership

Officer) for layout and design.

The reports and presentations can be downloaded from Eurochild‟s website: www.eurochild.org

Printed versions of the Report are available in request from the Secretariat. Contact: [email protected]

Published in February 2011.

This publication is supported under the European Community Programme for Employment and Social

Solidarity (2007-2013). This programme is managed by the Directorate-Generale for Employment, Social

Affairs and Equal Opportunities of the European Commission. It was established to financially support the

implementation of the objectives of the European Union in the employment and social affairs area, as set out in

the Social Agenda, and thereby contribute to the achievement of the Lisbon Strategy goals in these fields.

The seven-year Programme targets all stakeholders who can help shape the development of appropriate and

effective employment and social legislation and policies, across the EU-27, EFTA-EEA and EU candidate and

pre-candidate countries.

PROGRESS mission is to strengthen the EU contribution in support of Member States' commitments and

efforts to create more and better jobs and to build a more cohesive society. To that effect, PROGRESS will be

instrumental in:

- providing analysis and policy advice on PROGRESS policy areas;

- monitoring and reporting on the implementation of EU legislation and policies in PROGRESS

policy areas;

- promoting policy transfer, learning and support among Member States on EU objectives and

priorities; and

- relaying the views of the stakeholders and society at large.

The views expressed by Eurochild do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European

Commission.

For more information see: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/progress/index_en.html

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/progress/index_en.html

INTRODUCTION


INTRODUCTION

2010 is the European Year against poverty and social exclusion. Child poverty is on the top of the political

agenda. Eurochild took the opportunity of its 7th annual conference to look at how all stakeholders can work

together to end child poverty. The conference was co-hosted by the Regional Development Council of Örebro,

member of Eurochild.

Children have the highest stake in an inclusive, prosperous Europe. Poverty and social exclusion are a denial

of children‟s rights, which can undermine their development and limit the realisation of their full potential.

Ending child poverty is the most effective means of achieving long-term social cohesion and equality.

This conference had three overarching objectives:

In the framework of EY2010 against poverty and social exclusion, highlight the importance of EU efforts

in helping member states fight child poverty and social exclusion, and bring suggestions of how this

effort can be reinforced in the future.

Demonstrate why investment in children and families must remain a top political priority, even in times

of scarce public finances.

Show practical examples of working together to end child poverty and how this leads to better

outcomes for children. This includes demonstrating cooperation between NGOs, local/regional

authorities and other service providers; the role of researchers; and the benefits of direct involvement

of children and families.

The following is a brief resumé of presentations and discussion. Overheads of all presentations are available on

Eurochild‟s website.

1. OPENING CEREMONY


1. OPENING CEREMONY

Eurochild‟s 7th Annual Conference “Brighter Futures – Building Effective Partnerships to End Child Poverty”

was inaugurated during the Opening Ceremony that took place at Örebro Castle in the evening of 3rd

November

2010.

1. Irén Lejegren, Chairwoman, Örebro Regional Development Council, officially opened the conference by

introducing participants to the history of the city of Örebro. Ms Lejegren underlined that the quick economic

development of the city, which began as a cross-road for trade, would have not been possible without a well-

developed social welfare system.

The well-being of children and young people is now at the heart of the city‟s development strategy. Within the

Örebro Regional Development Council a strong belief prevails that every child has a right to grow up in a

secure and stable environment, as well as an equal right to education, leisure, etc.

She stressed that society must be built on the foundations of strong social values, where all citizens are valued

and cared for. Events such as the 7th Eurochild‟s conference, are important opportunities to share how we can

achieve this challenge together.

2. Mária Herczog, Eurochild President acknowledged all those who contributed to the conference

organisation. Ms Herczog admitted that working together is not an easy task. Its great value, however, lies in

the fact that it leads to a common understanding of challenges, as actors struggling for the welfare and well-

being of children in Europe come from various fields and thus do not always “speak the same language”.

Among other crucial elements for improving children´s well–being the Eurochild President pointed out a greater

participation of children and young people themselves, as well as identifying root causes of poverty and social

exclusion to tackle them efficiently, especially in the current times of economic and financial crisis.

3. Lena Holm, Secretary General, The Mayflower Charity Foundation, focused her intervention on some of

the main activities of the Mayflower Charity Foundation, the 3rd

biggest organisation in Sweden devoted to child

well–being.

In Sweden 15% of children live in poverty. Ms Holm, being also the Ambassador of the 2010 European Year

against Poverty and Social Exclusion, underlined the importance of initiatives such as those led by the

Mayflower Foundation. The organisation, set up in 1907 by Beda Hallberg, started its activities the same year

by organising a one–day event consisting of selling a mayflower in one city. The following year there were

already 200 local committees and the action was widely covered by national and local media. Today, The

Mayflower committees can be found in 700 municipalities. The innovative idea, that rendered the action a

success, was based on a principle of children helping children, as these were children who were selling the

mayflowers.

Ms Holm presented also the three overarching objectives of the Foundation, which are: to fight child poverty; to

ensure all children can participate in play and at school on equal grounds; and to subsidize research on

diseases and organise summer camps. The main Foundation‟s activities focus on granting free of charge

school education, subsidising glasses for children up to 15 years old and organising summer camps during

eleven–weeks summer holidays in Sweden.

2. OPENING PLENARY SESSION



1. WELCOME

Chair: Mária Herczog, Eurochild President

1. MARIA LARSSON, SWEDISH MINISTER FOR CHILDREN AND THE ELDERLY

Maria Larsson, Swedish Minister for Children and the Elderly, opened her speech by underlining the Swedish

government‟s devotion to child well-being. Being convinced that what is good for families is good for children,

the government struggles for implementing family-friendly policies, including strengthening the families‟

economic situation and creating necessary conditions for combining family and professional lives. These

policies are of crucial importance, as without them 26% of households would live under the poverty threshold

and this would be true especially for migrant families.

Thanks to the government‟s activities, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ratified by

Sweden in 1990 became the most well-known document among children at local level. Moreover, in June of the

current year, an overview of the Swedish legislation was agreed to be undertaken with the aim of strengthening

children‟s participation in the decision making process. The development of a follow-up system for children‟s

rights remains one of main priorities of the Swedish government, as there is hardly any domain that does not

affect child well-being. As Ms Larsson stated, there are many valuable initiatives undertaken, which give hope

for a better future. Eurochild together with other stakeholders has an important role to play in this regard.

2. LÁSZLÓ ANDOR, EU COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYMENT, SOCIAL AFFAIRS & INCLUSION (VIDEO)

László Andor, EU Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, in a video address to the

participants of Eurochild‟s 7th Annual Conference, pointed out that out of 100 million people under the age of 18

in the EU, more than 20%, live at risk of poverty or social exclusion. It is important that we act seriously to

improve the situation in the coming years, which is why the EU has put the fight against poverty in general, and

child poverty in particular, very high on its agenda. The Europe 2020 strategy has set the objectives at EU level

and now it is time to outline the action.

The European Platform Against Poverty identifies the areas where this action needs to be taken and the

direction it has to take. The Commissioner stressed that to succeed we have to build strong alliances between

the EU, the Member States governments, the local governments and the NGOs. The NGO sector has an

important role to play not simply in awareness raising and problem identification, but also in the implementation

and monitoring the progress in the coming years. We have to work together and ensure that children in the

future will have a right to a decent life and a life under good social conditions.

A recorded interview between the Commissioner László Andor and Eurochild Secretary General Jana

Hainsworth was projected.

JH: How do you see the European Platform flagship initiative taking shape and what does it mean for

NGOs’ work in addressing child poverty and social exclusion?

LA: We need to rely increasingly on NGO cooperation in the future. The Platform is an initiative that will

enable us to further strengthen this cooperation. as well as to bring on board new stakeholders into a

wider cooperation which will be one of main elements of the Platform. Whilst it is a historic step that

poverty reduction has been elevated to a European level, we cannot succeed just through the European

bureaucratic machinery. We need to build an alliance between the institutions, Member States and

NGOs, and regional and local government level otherwise we will not be able to deliver and to monitor the

progress.

Another element of the platform is to strengthen coordination between the various policy areas. It is not

only about social inclusion; education, healthcare and employment among others are important.

http://www.youtube.com/user/eurochilddotorg#p/a/u/1/fPi4Q9VAa2A

http://www.youtube.com/user/eurochilddotorg#p/a/u/0/kPHoVO_cMMU



Finally the Platform will provide a framework for the lining up of the EU’s financial instruments with the

objectives of fighting poverty and social exclusion. This has already been done to limited extent through

the ESF, but the Platform will ensure greater coherence between spending and the EU2020 targets.

JH: As you know Eurochild is an umbrella comprising NGOs, local and regional authorities, professionals,

academics committed to children’s rights and welfare. How can we participate concretely in the Platform?

LA: Eurochild clearly has a place within the Platform as joining forces and bringing everyone into a

dialogue is crucial to understand the urgency of tackling child poverty. So far there is only a headline

target on poverty in general, however, it is important to focus especially on children, as they are the

future. If certain groups of society are allowed to be marginalized and socially excluded, Europe’s future

will be further socially, economically, as well as politically undermined.

JH: Tackling child poverty requires a multi-dimensional approach. How will the Platform enable this

coordination between policy areas to take place?

Child’s access to health protection, education, security and comfort determines their chances later in life.

Ignoring this can lead to a whole generation being put at risk. That is why it is so important to start

working on child healthcare from the beginning of pregnancy, as well as to focus on early childhood

education to strengthen the enrolment and participation in primary education. It’s also connected to the

huge demographic challenge we face in Europe, which is linked to the security that young families are

able to provide to themselves and their children.

JH: The figure of 20 million children living at risk of poverty in the EU is shocking. But this does not even

take into account children not living in households who are among the most vulnerable. What can you do

to ensure that needs of the most vulnerable are addressed?

LA: I would like to mention two important groups. Firstly children from minority groups, including

immigrant communities and the Roma, can face extreme deprivation. In this case the issue is not just

about income, healthcare, education and employment, but also about cultural barriers that have to be

broken down. They isolate the communities from mainstream society and prevent them from a full

participation in society, the labour market and education. In this regard, communication is needed not to

reach out to the minorities but also to the mainstream society.

The second group of children particularly vulnerable includes those that grow up in institutions or who

spend a large part of their life without a family, which is a major issue especially in a few ´new´ Member

States. We have already carried out some initiatives on deinstitutionalisation to ensure that children grow

up in a family environment. This is a long-term project but we are committed to this work as it will provide

better outcomes for children in the long term. Even where some institutions are inevitable we must ensure

adequate funding and quality of social services.

Even during times of fiscal consolidation and austerity measures, we must do our utmost to retain social

benefits, social protection and social services to protect the most vulnerable groups in our society.

Commissioner Andor‟s video speech and his interview with Jana Hainsworth are available at Eurochild‟s

website: www.eurochild.org.

2. KEYNOTE SPEECHES

Chair: Hugh Frazer, Adjunct professor, Department of Applied Social Studies, National University of

Ireland, Maynooth

Hugh Frazer, in his capacity as chair of the session, made some initial remarks before giving the floor to the

speakers. He recalled recent developments at EU level, such as the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty with

its horizontal “social clause”, outcomes from the Social OMC, the European Year against poverty and social

exclusion, the new Europe 2020 strategy with its poverty target and finally the forthcoming European Platform

Against Poverty.

Notwithstanding all these important initiatives aiming at and/or having a strong potential to improve child well-

being in Europe, the figures on child poverty remain alarming. On average, today in the EU one in five children

http://www.eurochild.org/



is at risk of poverty, ranging from 10-12% in countries like Denmark, Finland or Sweden to 30% and more in

Romania and Bulgaria. The highest risk exists for larger families (one in four, ranging from 10% to 50% and

more); lone parent families (one in three, ranging from 16% to 57%) and households composed of parents

coming from non-EU countries (one in three). When it comes to education, one in seven children has no more

than lower secondary education and no training, facing a risk of poverty three time higher than its peers with

higher education. Moreover, some children, especially those in or leaving institutions, homeless, coming from

ethnic minorities, being victims of violence, abuse and trafficking or those with a disability face extreme poverty.

As Mr Frazer pointed out, these figures will probably increase and thousands of children risk to be further

marginalised as a consequence of the economic and financial crisis.

1. THE FACES OF CHILD POVERTY IN SWEDEN

TAPIO SALONEN, PROFESSOR IN SOCIAL WORK AND LEADER OF A RESEARCH GROUP ON CITIZEN

PARTICIPATION AND SOCIAL INCLUSION AT LINNAEUS UNIVERSITY, SWEDEN

Resumé

Tapio Salonen, Professor in Social Work and leader of a research group on Citizen Participation and Social

Inclusion at Linnaeus University, Sweden, focused on child poverty in Sweden. Poverty constituted the main

political issue in Sweden until mid-1900s, during which time the great challenge for the emerging Swedish

modern state was to create the “people‟s home”, that is to build a welfare system fulfilling the needs of every

citizen. Over the time, the country succeeded in developing a well-established security system, and poverty fell

off the agenda for over 20 years, until the early 1990s. During that time the UN Convention on the Rights of the

Child was ratified, while accession to the EU further reinforced the discussion on issues such as redistribution

of income, child poverty, etc. This contributed to a shift in the overall perspective of a child from as “becoming”

an individual with full rights to “being” an individual with rights here and now.

Notwithstanding the economic growth and country‟s well-developed security system, children‟s economic

vulnerability was increasing, reaching the highest level in 1997 to successively decrease until 2003. Since then

the rate has been fairly stable: around 12-13 % at national level, ranging however from 5 to 31% among

different municipalities. In Sweden, child poverty is lowest in the suburban municipalities and highest in the

three largest cities, within which it varies from 3 to 62% dependently on districts. Moreover, immigrant children

and those with a single parent run three times the risk of living in poverty.

In general, during the 2000s together with an increase of the households‟ economic standard (+35% between

1999 and 2009) the income inequality also widened (in relative terms). Mr Salonen pointed out that two

contemporary policies - one with an emphasis on children‟s rights (from “becoming” to “being” approach) and

the other focused on activation strategies - often move into opposite directions regrettably.

In his conclusion Prof Salonen stressed that welfare policies addressing children and their families do make a

significant difference. In Sweden child poverty would be three times higher without public policies, i.e. instead of

10-12% there would be 30-35% persons living in poverty. However, welfare policies are not irreversible and

must be defended vigourously!

2. SECTOR-LEAD MODEL IN THE UK TO IMPROVE OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN

HEATHER RUSHTON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR EXCELLENCE AND OUTCOMES IN CHILDREN AND

YOUNG PEOPLE‟S SERVICES (C4EO), UK

Resumé

About C4EO

The Centre for Excellence and Outcomes in Children and Young People‟s Services (C4EO) was set up in 2008.

For the first time, excellence in local practice, combined with national research and data about „what works‟ is

being gathered in one place. C4EO shares this evidence and the best of local practice with all those who work

with and for children and young people. C4EO also offers practical „hands-on‟ support and challenge to build

capacity and spread effective practice, helping services and agencies secure high productivity and maximum



Key areas for action

MAXIMISING FAMILY INCOME - The key components are tackling worklessness, maximising the incomes

of those in work and maximising benefits take-up. Ways to do this include:

1. Providing high-quality employment and career advice and information, developing whole-area

intelligence on the local employment market, and encouraging local investment in deprived areas

2. Targeting the needs of groups at risk, for example, young people leaving care, disabled parents,

people on low incomes, those not in work

3. Working with local businesses to develop jobs in more deprived areas, and services for working

parents such as childcare, including before and after school care

4. Encouraging employers to provide flexible working patterns

5. Local authorities acting as „model‟ employers by providing back-to-work „tasters‟ and other stepping

stones

6. Improving local transport and facilitate access to it so that parents can travel to and from work and

training

7. Providing training based on local needs and including „softer skills‟ and confidence building

8. Local campaigns and support to maximise benefit take-up

NARROWING OUTCOME GAPS - Enable poorer children and young people to achieve better economic

wellbeing in later life by:

1. Focusing on raising educational achievement and reducing health inequalities. These can be

achieved by developing a multi-agency approach to tackling deprivation, and ensuring services,

especially health services, are accessible where poorer families live

2. Providing parents with locally based early prevention services, such as parenting support and taking

an active interest in their children‟s learning

3. Ensuring that local professionals, e.g. teachers and those working in housing, health, adults‟ and

children‟s services, understand the links between disadvantage and poorer outcomes, and their role

in tackling these issues

4. Child poverty partnerships developing strong multiagency agreements

5. Schools acting as connecting hubs with and between services

impact on the outcomes for children, young people, their families and communities. C4EO simplifies and shares

the latest evidence of „what works‟, and offers local areas a choice of support tools and services which can be

viewed at www.c4eo.org.uk

C4EO‟s presentation included key findings from the C4EO Child Poverty Review and examples of Validated

Local Practice and Tailored Support.

Key Findings from the C4EO Child Poverty Review

C4EO‟s Child Poverty Knowledge Review is focussed on the key priority of developing and implementing a

whole-area strategy to address child poverty. The Child Poverty review identified a total of 6,000 research items

before refining and reviewing the 32 most relevant research papers, good practice guides, policy documents

and toolkits which showed evidence of „what works‟.

Key components of a whole-area child poverty strategy:

Effective multi-agency partnerships which draw on the experience, resources and expertise across

the whole area

Sufficient and sustained resources for the active participation of children, young people, families

and communities

Differentiated approaches to address the needs of different groups or areas in the community

Monitoring and evaluation focused on outcomes rather than outputs

http://www.c4eo.org.uk/



C4EO Validated Local Practice

C4EO has access to invaluable evidence from the experience and practice of front-line services and agencies.

C4EO works with local areas and services to gather examples of excellent practice. Examples are assessed

against robust criteria and those which show evidence of making a sustained difference to children‟s lives, and

which have the potential to be replicated in other areas are „validated‟. The result is a bank of quality assured

local practice which has improved the lives of children, young people or their families. Many examples are now

being costed and the Social Return on Investment determined.

Heather then talked through two child poverty examples:

Income Maximisation in Devon and Children‟s Centre Moneywise in Kirklees

C4EO Tailored Support

Heather‟s presentation also included an example of a tailored support assignment within a Metropolitan

Borough Council. C4EO‟s sector-led tailored support service offers practical „hands-on‟ support and challenge

to build capacity and improve outcomes at the front-line of local service provision. The support is delivered by

Sector Specialists, expert practitioners recruited from education and children‟s services, health, police, youth,

the voluntary sector and other agencies whilst working within a local area. They work with C4EO on a flexible

part-time basis whilst also continuing working in their locality, ensuring they remain credible and completely up-

to-date.

C4EO‟s Child Poverty Sector Specialists have been accredited and trained on the evidence and are available

to offer practical support to help local areas implement an area-wide child poverty strategy.

3. CHILD POVERTY IN POLAND

WIELISŁAWA WARZYWODA-KRUSZYŃSKA, DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE OF SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF

LODZ, POLAND

Resumé

Wielisława Warzywoda-Kruszyńska, Director of the Institute of Sociology, University of Lodz, Poland, firstly

focused on recent trends in her country. In this regard it was stressed that while income poverty and

interregional differences are shrinking, there is a tendency for poverty to petrify in some localities and to

reproduce in subsequent generations. On the positive side, not only the at-risk of poverty rate declined (2005-

2008) in all age groups except the oldest (65+), but also children are the biggest beneficiaries – decrease by

7% as compared with 4% for the total population (29% children lived in poverty in 2005; 22% in 2008). A sharp

decline in the extreme poverty is also observed in households with children, particularly those with four or more

children. In 2005 there were 43% of children in households with income under the extreme poverty threshold by

the number of children in the household, while in 2008 there were 18%. In terms of geographic areas touched

by poverty, progress in alleviating child poverty was also noticeable. The number of provinces where the share

of children living in poverty was higher than 30% decreased from 9 in 2005 to 2 three years later. Disparities in

the poverty rate between the worst and the best performing provinces (among children and among the total

population) also decreased from 25% in 2005 to 20% in 2008.

Analysing the main factors underlying a decrease in poverty in Poland, Prof Warzywoda-Kruszyńska pointed to

the country‟s growing GDP (+3.6% in 2005; +6.8% in 2007 and + 5.1% in 2008), mainly due to flows of money

sent by emigrants (around 8 mln euros per year); a massive emigration (approximately 1.5-2 million people)

and a substantial fall in unemployment (19% in 2004 and 9.6% in 2009). Moreover, other components

contributed to improve the well-being of children in Poland: a reform of family benefits (2004); a special child

benefit for the third and subsequent children (2006); the restitution of Alimony Fund; lower social insurance

contribution paid by employees (since 2006); and finally child deduction in income tax (since 2008). With

country‟s accession to the EU, an additional obligation on the Polish government to monitor the incidence of

poverty and report on progress was imposed, while the European Structural Funds offered financing for

activities improving human capital and infrastructures.

Notwithstanding the overall positive trend in Poland, Prof Warzywoda-Kruszyńska noted that the country still

has one of the highest number of children facing the risk of poverty - 22% in comparison to 19% in Europe.



Polish children suffer from deprivation in several spheres, i.e. poor housing, poor diet, inability to spend

vacation outside a place of residence, low provision of pre-school day care, etc. Particularly deprived are not

only children from rural areas, but also those living in „poverty pockets‟ in cities, where the poverty rate among

children can be twice, three and even four times higher than the average for the whole town. Poland is still

behind the EU-25 average in terms of total spending on family benefits, housing and social assistance (6% of

GDP in Poland, 12% in the EU-25); the effect of social transfers other than pensions on poverty reduction

among families with children (30% in Poland vs. 42% in the EU-25) and the contribution of social transfers to

the income of households with children (13% in Poland, 16% in the EU-25). In addition, although there has

been an increase in income, a large part of working population remains poor, while income thresholds for family

benefit and social assistance have remained unchanged since 2006 despite the legal obligation to update the

index every three years.

Among urgent issues to be still addressed in Poland, Ms Warzywoda-Kruszyńska named housing for low

income families and disparities in quality of education. A “Report Poland 2030”, an official document published

in 2009, identifies child poverty as one of the most urgent challenges to be addressed. However, it does not

provide any comprehensive strategy on how to tackle it and does not consider poverty among children as a

violation of their rights. In Poland a belief that child poverty is a family‟s private problem still prevails. In her final

remarks, Prof Warzywoda-Kruszyńska stressed that the EU‟s pressure on Member States is very helpful and it

should be therefore ensured that the National Action Plans on the Social Protection and Social Inclusion are

kept in the EU 2020 strategy.

KEY POINTS FROM OPENING PLENARY:

During the opening plenary and following discussion, common points discussed by speakers emerged. They

mainly concerned the following issues:

Regardless the economic development of European societies, an alarming number of citizens,

including children, still live/face the risk of poverty. This number is likely to increase because of the

consequences of the crisis.

In times of crisis employment no longer guarantees living in decent conditions. That is why activation

policies should not only focus on creating quality job opportunities, but also on guaranteeing necessary

conditions for combining family and professional lives. Activation policies cannot take place at price of

child well-being, nor can they penalise those parents who do not / cannot work.

In order to achieve desired results exchange of knowledge and examples of good practice is essential.

Meeting and working together not only ensures others‟ mistakes are avoided, but also helps actors

coming from different fields to find a common language.

In many European countries a belief that child poverty remains an internal matter of families still

prevails. Moreover, even if child poverty is recognised as a problematic issue to be addressed by policy

makers, it is rarely associated with children‟s rights violation. A child-rights approach should underpin

any action aiming at improving child well-being.

While many valuable actions take already place, further efforts are indispensable. The EU and its

initiatives, such as the European Platform Against Poverty, has an important role to play in this regard.

No policy should be elaborated without an active participation of people affected.

3. WORSHOPS


3. WORKSHOPS

1A - The Young People at Risk initiative - Local cross-sectoral partnerships in practice

Speakers: Angelika Krüger, YEPP – Youth Empowerment Partnership Programme & Anna Quigley,

YPAR – Young People at Risk Initiative

Discussant: Graeme Tiffany, Federation for Detached Youth Work, UK

Facilitator: Maarit Kuikka, Central Union for Child Welfare, Finland

Rapporteur: Rauna Nerelli, The Finnish Children‟s Parliament Association, Finland

Angelika Krüger presented Youth Empowerment Partnership Programme (YEPP), which is a joint initiative of a

group of European foundations, the International Academy, the Free University of Berlin and OECD. YEPP is a

transnational platform of 18 local programmes in eight European countries - Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina,

Finland, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Slovakia. In Slovakia the programme takes place in four villages and

focuses on inclusion of Roma children and Roma communities.

The mission of the programme is to develop an active civil society with disadvantaged children across Europe.

The local authorities involved in the programme have recognized that youth empowerment is not brought about

in a three years project and are committed to 10 years of the programme. The partners contribute on an equal

level. Although the focus is on local level, the programme reaches also to regional, national and trans-national

levels.

The main goals of the project are:

Youth and community empowerment in disadvantaged areas

Cross-sectoral partnerships at all levels

Advocacy for policy and systemic change

The programme underlines youth as the core of the change process giving them a possibility to participate in

decision-making processes in the communities. The idea of the programme is not to be another youth project

but to give young people a chance to be committed to the community and to achieve sustainability in their own

living environment.

The local support groups are a key aspect of the programme, where volunteers and local stakeholders

including local youth - in some cases consisting only of youth - initiate change process. Often the municipalities

are also represented in the local support groups.

The programme has the same overall concept of analysing the situation and identifying the key issues at local

level, the so call Cycle of Change. After the analysis has been made, an operational plan is formed in

cooperation, including monitoring and evaluation plan. After the evaluation of the implementation, a renewed

analysis is made and the cycle continues. All involved actors should approve the common grounds for the

cycle. The model has now been in use since two years. It has not been easy to commit local people in the

monitoring of the process, which has been a learning path. Angelika Krüger points out that it would be good if

there were young people involved in the monitoring of the process.

The programme focuses on support structures for the process of change in several ways including peer

support, working with local coordinators, transfer of know-how, regular visits to the local projects, handbooks

and other material to monitoring team and training of trainers. One joint project concentrates on media in order

to increase the skills and capacities of young people to raise their voice through documentary.

Next year the programme is celebrating its tenth year and YEPP will have an overview of policy and lessons

learned not only at local or national level but also at European level. A dissemination campaign to present the

results is planned to discuss the future of the programme along with a large consultation project with all

stakeholders.

3. WORKSHOPS


YPAR (Young People at Risk) Initiative, presented by Anna Quigley, is a protocol for coordinating inter-agency

services for 0-18 year olds in the north inner city of Dublin. The area is right in the centre city but one of the

most disadvantaged areas in Ireland. It has high levels of unemployment and a deep rooted drug problem that

started in the 1970‟s. Five, six years ago the area became more multicultural and now has a 30% immigrant

population. Youth need to heavily rely on families and neighbors in order to survive.

In the 18th century the area was rich and there was work available. Collapse of the work when factories moved

out, the municipality wanting people to move out and put offices in the houses and drug issue affected the start

of the crisis.

The area has a strong history of community responding to issues through protest, projects and partnership.

Community leaders in the area were working with youth and trying to look for fourth generation‟s youth in need

of help. A lot of services were engaging in the families, school, social services but there was no interaction or

communication transfer so there was a decision made to find a way to cooperate with an agreement from all

agencies.

The process was slow. In 2004 a steering group was set up. There was a mutual interest to work more closely

among the agencies, the YPAR interagency protocol in 2006-2007 was developed, which has been

implemented since 2008. Within the protocol the agencies meet young people at risk covering a large group of

youth at the ages 0-18.

There were 64 different services working with youth at risk and it became clear that it is important to have

information about who works with these young people. Planning team of the protocol realized that people in

different agencies are more likely to work with staff from other agencies if they have met each other and

interaction between the different agencies is being strengthened.

At the beginning of the process a discussion with a protocol coordinator is organized where both partners agree

on the protocol. The protocol coordinator then seeks consent of the parents or the guardian. Involvement of

youth and families is a core part for the success of the process. The lead agency in charge is the agency that

started the process for a protocol meeting and can invite other agencies depending on the situation for a

meeting to create an action plan together with the child, the parents as well as the agencies. Once everyone

agrees on the plan, a follow up meeting is scheduled.

Anna Quigley shares an example of a young person who had serious literacy problems. When the issue came

out, it was jointly decided that the school gives the young person extra support, an organization promised to

help with home work and the young person him/herself committed to late night programme (not spending late

evenings at street).

There are currently 70 young people in the YPAR inter-agency protocol. The protocol‟s outcomes are being

measured at the moment and the long-term impacts are looked when the programme ends. In this process it is

essential to hear young people‟s views on the impacts, their needs should be core power of the work, Anna

Quigley emphasizes.

The added-value of YPAR is to help to clear out where the gaps are and how to affect them - counseling times

not available for example when needed.

The discussant Graeme Tiffany, who has a background of a street youth worker and a philosopher talked about

power when discussing empowerment and youth participation which can be a profound example of social

change in a young person‟s life. Tiffany was fascinated of the concept of being at risk and the process of

defining who is at risk. He was concerned about analysis of indicators of youth at risk and stigmatising young

people. He stressed that youth work should emphasise young people‟s potential & strengths.

Tiffany also highlighted the essential of words and language that often needs to be developed. Youth should be

referred to more often as citizens and giving the possibility to individual youth to analyse what the real issues to

be discussed and worked with are. The values behind evaluation are also of great interest and should not only

reflect financial issues. Risk could be seen from a positive perspective as a source for real change, and Tiffany

asked also adults to take risks with youth. He claimed that we need to work with children and young people

differently and reminded of the need to protect public space that is different from the institution (e.g. school) and

home as a space for learning for youth.

Tiffany questioned the terms of partnership and asked whether there is conversation and real partnership if the

young person is demanded to do something in order to be accepted for a project or process designed to help

3. WORSHOPS


him or her.

Key points from the joint discussion:

Adults are seldom willing to give power, the process of empowerment is also a process of taking power. The

discussant suggested that it is even not possible to give someone power but the role of adults is to build young

people‟s capacity to get power.

Youth empowerment is also about taking part in decision-making and development, not solely about protection.

Youth can be frustrated of being asked about their opinions if there are no actions based on consultation. Youth

friendly methods for participation such as use of drama could be a way to avoid this before reaching the goal of

establishing a well-functioning youth forum. Also media work can be a good and attractive tool for youth

participation. Sometimes it is good to offer different activities and projects locally for the youth to gain more

information and confidence before joining decision-making groups.

The political atmosphere of the community affects youth‟s interest to participate. If the young people haven‟t

been brought along to the political awareness it requires more effort to build successful participation models.

Identifying those youth that could benefit from empowerment and participation projects but are not being

reached is essential.

Main conclusions of the workshop:

Empowerment of children and youth at the local level requires cross-sectoral partnership & should be based on

mutual agreement, a well-formulated action plan and personal contacts.

Youth participation can be best achieved when adults and organisations commit to promote real youth

participation and support young people‟s capacity to take power.

See annex 4 for workshop accompanying briefing

1B - The UK child poverty act - implementation in partnership

Speakers: Melanie Duffield & Lorraine Reid, Child Poverty Unit, UK government

Discussant: Caroline Fahey, End child poverty coalition, Ireland

Facilitator: Niamh Gallagher, Children‟s Rights Alliance, Ireland

Rapporteur: Lilia Kamenow, Eurochild Policy Assistant

The workshop presentation outlined how the UK government is working with local areas in England to

cooperate on child poverty and develop local child poverty strategies required by Part 2 of the Child Poverty

Act. Effective local action on child poverty will support the UK government in its overarching aim to eradicate

child poverty by 2020, and will rely on collaboration across a number of delivery partners and public services

including local authorities, employment and skills, police and probation, health, housing and transport.

Moreover, the session aimed to summarise the progress to date in implementing Part 2 of the Act during 2010-

11 and the lessons learned in working to support and develop local partnership arrangements.

Melanie Duffield and Lorraine Reid presented an overview of the UK Child Poverty Act and its framework for

action. The Act sets four overarching targets to eradicate child poverty by 2020 and beyond (relative low

income, combined low income and material deprivation, absolute low income and persistent poverty). It

commits the government to publisha strategy every three years as well as an annual report on actions

undertaken to reach the national targets. Part 2 of the Act requires local authorities and their delivery partners

(in England) to produce local strategies, based on local areas needs assessment. With regard to the local level,

the Act requires local authorities and the named partners to: cooperate to reduce, and mitigate the effects of,

child poverty in their local area; produce local child poverty needs assessments; and prepare joint local child

poverty strategies. Interestingly, the emphasis is not on a “top-down” approach of meeting the national targets

at a local level, but on developing local strategies that makes a difference to the deprived communities in their

3. WORKSHOPS


area. Therefore all local areas should contribute.

The recent change of government (May 2010) is resulting in a rapidly changing relationship between national

and local government, a change reflected in a greater local determination of services consisting of, for instance,

fewer centrally mandated targets and performance indicators; removing ring-fences on funding from the centre;

freeing up local delivery and greater community influence. Moreover, in terms of innovation in delivery a focus

is put on reducing any duplication and freeing up resources. Finally, when it comes to the role of the state it is

now asked how non-state services and the community can have an expanded role: e.g. challenging whether

services can be run by private or community sector. Numerous examples of innovative practice have been put

in place, the challenge being capturing evaluation evidence and sharing good practice.

Caroline Fahey, in her capacity of discussant, presented the Irish case and focused on the country‟s fight

against child poverty, which is considerably different from the UK‟s approach. In Ireland, local authorities do not

have the same role with regard to delivering services – not only provision in education, health, housing and

income support is determined by national policy, but also local authorities are supported but not required (either

responsible for) to produce local anti-poverty and social inclusion strategies. The End Child Poverty Coalition

composed of 8 National Non-Governmental Organisations in Ireland gathered together to advocate on child

poverty and promote the implementation of national target to reduce consistent poverty to 2-4% by 2012 and to

eliminate consistent poverty by 2016. Thanks to Coalition‟s activities, some success stories, like introducing a

free pre-school year, are to be noted.

Subsequently, the discussant pointed out the following issues:

Strengths of working in partnership:

- it can provide opportunity for taking a more strategic approach to advocacy;

- it can be used to amplify the voices of smaller organisations;

- it can provide „cover‟ so that individual organisations can be at a remove from criticism at government

level; and

- it allows exchange of information and expertise across different organisations.

Challenges of working in partnership:

coalitions can sometimes be run in an unsustainable manner;

accommodating divergent opinions on how to achieve shared objectives can be sometimes problematic;

some organisations may also neglect their own advocacy infrastructure;

funders (e.g. philanthropic funders) may require partnership working as a condition of providing funds (this is

not always the best motivation for partnership working!).

Lessons learned for effective partnership working:

identify key shared areas of work and policy priorities;

identify areas where working together „adds value‟ to the work undertaken by individual organisations;

identify and target audiences for different messages - on some issues individual organisation‟s voices will be

stronger than the coalition‟s one and vice versa;

be realistic as to what can be achieved;

acknowledge that it will not always be possible to come to a shared agreement/position on an issue - while

the key objectives of different organisations may be similar, organisations may differ as to how these

objectives are best achieved.

Following the UK‟s and Irish examples of implementing national targets on combating child poverty, the

subsequent discussion addressed a number of important issues, identifying the main strengths of presented

practice:

Setting an ambitious target on national level and involving local authorities in the elaboration of

3. WORSHOPS


local child poverty needs assessment (local actors being the closest to reality on the ground know the

best who and to what extent is at need) and strategies to tackle them. On the other hand, local

authorities are accountable to the government, which allows avoiding a situation, like the one in Ireland,

when local entities set their own targets irrespectively of national ones.

All local authorities are required to produce local strategies, while areas with the highest percentage of

poor children are under special focus.

Government is accountable for delivering targets, being monitored through regular reports.

The annual and three-year reports allow the government to review strengths and weaknesses of its

actions and adapt them accordingly.

Local authorities are required to cooperate with the named partners, including families, when

assessing the needs and preparing joint local child poverty strategies.

To end child poverty, a combination of income support and services is needed (including health,

education, and housing).

Involvement of all stakeholders and departments under one common objective of fighting child poverty.

Joined-up working is of crucial importance.

From the debate the following recommendations were put forward aiming at ensuring fruitful cooperation

between national and local structures, as well as delivering concrete results in the fight against child poverty:

Set at national level clear structures and processes for cross-departmental working

Adopt a joined-up approach to meeting targets

Ensure links between local and national levels with clear support structures

Ensure clarity about relationship between local - regional - national levels: how much autonomy each

level has

Ensure accountability to targets

Ensure monitoring & evaluation of impact, with a special focus on what is working

Promote participation of children and families in assessing needs, as well as in elaborating strategies

combating child poverty

1C - Services for families with children in alternative care - protecting and promoting

contact time

Speakers: Sabine Ischia, Conseil Régional du Bas-Rhin & Marie-Antoinette Nuffer, Apprentis

d‟Auteuil, France

Discussant: Geert Jorgesen, Joint Council for Child Issues, Denmark

Facilitator: Kélig Puyet, SOS Children‟s Villages International

Rapporteur: Mafalda Leal, Eurochild Policy Officer

The session presented a project led by the Bas-Rhin Regional Department and the Foundation Apprentis

d‟Auteil in Strasbourg, France, to provide support services for families with children in alternative care.

In her opening to the workshop the facilitator stressed the main principles under which the two-day work of the

conference developed: the best interest of the child and the recognition of children as subject of rights, as well

as the role of partnerships in the implementation of projects benefiting children. She also provided the wider

framework on which the conference was held, namely the new EU Europe 2020 strategy and the flagship

initiative on the European Platform against Poverty.

3. WORKSHOPS


The project is delivered in the broader context of the child protection system in France laying within the

competences of the Regional Departments, which provide services related to the prevention and assistance to

children who are placed in alternative care, at request of the families or by judiciary decision; maternal and

infant health support; and other general social services.

In France, poverty affects 2.4 million children. In the latest years there has been an increase in the number of

referrals to the child protection children - 7 children in 1,000 in 2010 against 5 in 1,000 in 1998. Possible

reasons pointed out for this rise were educational deprivation, parental conflicts/ separations/divorces, and

precarious economic and social family situation. Some 148,000 children are in alternative care placements of

which one third in institutions and the remaining in foster care.

The project, created in 2006, aims to temporarily reunite children placed in alternative care with their families,

including separated siblings, by putting at their availability an apartment for a certain period of time, provide

support from social workers in re-establishing bonds between the separated family members and, in the longer

term, facilitate the return of the children to their family of origin. It reached 23 families in 2008. Since its

inception, the professionals involved have noted an increase in the number of requests to use the service and

in the number of children who return to their families of origin. Family diversity is recognised.

Actors involved include public authorities, such as the regional department, child protection and judiciary

authorities and the Foundation Apprentis d‟Auteil. The partnership and interdisciplinary dimension was

considered a key factor for the success of the project and allowing putting in place new ideas.

The involvement of parents and children throughout the process was also pointed out as critical for achieving

the project objectives and its sustainability. Parents value the support received in reinforcing and rebuilding

their parental role and the support provided as regards social integration, including assistance in health care

and in finding a job. The project also benefits from a legal framework that considers essential to keep the links

between the families and their children placed in care, and a clearly defined action plan for children and

families.

In his analysis of the presentation the discussant valued the opportunity provided by the project to ensure a

continued strong and stable contact between children and young persons and their parents and siblings at

home, which has for many years had far too little attention from professionals. He also praised the whole family

approach and involvement of parents, the opportunity given to experience a more everyday situation, the

opportunity to realise strengths and weaknesses, and the fact that it provided the family an ownership of the

situation (for example, by having the keys of the apartment).

He mentioned two studies1 conducted in Denmark which highlight precisely the importance of relation

processes for children placed in care, including relations with family members, and the importance of the

parents‟ positive attitude to the placement on the children‟s mental health. He further welcomed the increased

focus put on children‟s rights to have a parent, the focus on inclusion, and the focus on addressing the

challenges and removing obstacles rather than on the problems.

During the discussion with the audience points raised included:

the recognition of foster parents‟ role in the best interest of the child, the need to value the support they

provide while paying attention to the non-interference in the relationships between the child and his/her

family of origin. The presenters clarified support is also provided to foster parents and agreed with the

need for training of foster parents;

concerns with the limited reach of the project – only 3 flats are available;

questions around the selection of recipient families for the service and risk assessment in relation to

the parents; response to set-backs and failures, work towards a successful rehabilitation of the family.

The project leaders stressed the importance to look at set-backs as a phase within the whole process

1 The collapse of placements of adolescents. Experiences, explanations and reasons behind, SFI, Report, 10:06;

Tina Egelund Turf Böcker Jakobsen, Ida Hammen, Martin Olsson & Anders Høst & The importance of the positive

attitude of the parents to the placement; The lives of children in alternative care, SFI, Report 93:11; Mogens

Nygaard Christoffersen.

3. WORSHOPS


rather than as a failure;

recognition of the specificities of the project and difficulties to replicate it in other countries which have

a very different context as regards children placed in alternative care, such as Bulgaria (high number of

children placed in institutions) or the UK, where the law permits the adoption of a child by foster carers

after 12 months of placement. The presenters hoped French law is changed and becomes less strict as

regards adoption since many children are placed in care for too long, with consequences for their

mental health translated, for example, in high suicide rates.

In her concluding remarks the facilitator recalled how practices such as the one presented can contribute to

break the cycle of poverty and how children benefited from the cooperation and exchange between the different

actors, and the importance of valuing participation and accept parents and children are actors of change in their

own lives.

See annex 4 for workshop accompanying briefing (in French)

1D - Integrating migrants through early childhood care and education - from pilot to policy

Speaker: Veerle Vervaet, VBKJ – Resource and research centre for early childhood care and education,

Belgium

Discussant: Éva Szomor, Sure Start Expert, Programme against Child Poverty, Hungarian Academy of

Sciences, Hungary

Facilitator: Éva Izsák, ISSA – International Step by Step Association

Rapporteur: Àgnes Lux, Children's rights ombudsman, Hungary

The speaker presented “Social inclusion in childcare provision in Brussels” – an action research project that

aimed to improve accessibility of child care provision to ethnic and cultural minorities (especially for children

between 0 and 3 years).

In Belgium there are 3 language communities, with separate governments (French community, Flemish

community and Brussels). Brussels is the community with the highest percentage of people living in poverty.

More than one out of four inhabitants in the area has to get through the day with an income just below the

'poverty line' (899€ per month for a single-person household).The social inequalities in the district are huge and

increasing. Child poverty is a consequence of parents with a low income. Just over a third of all children living

in Brussels grow up in a household where no one is working. This is twice as much as in the rest of the country.

VBJK started from the idea that good quality childcare can strongly influence the child‟s life and his

family in a positive way. Childcare can offer good opportunities for the future school life of the child, help the

family to integrate in the local community and strengthen active citizenship (through labour market participation

or other engagements). VBKJ believes that having mixed groups of children and families can offer an

opportunity to learn from each other in a positive way and can support families in building social networks.

The so-called “BON” (Brussels Welcome office for people of foreign origin) and Childcare Centres started to

work together in the project in four steps: 1. Facilitate easy access for newcomers; 2. Promote service training

for childcare centres in respect of diversity and parental participation; 3. Provide professional training and

employment for ex-newcomers; 4. Set up a structural cooperation between BON and the childcare centres.

The involved childcare centres emphasised the importance of parental participation and started to handle

childcare as a meeting place for children and families. As a first step the actors worked together as partners,

they also introduced „regular evaluative talks‟ (these are meetings between parents and the referent childcare

worker that focus on how parents feel about using childcare and how they experience the education of their

child in the centre). They worked as well in informal meetings, such as breakfast moments, coffee breaks and

“parent cafés” once a month. They started qualified training with language courses and at the same time they

started to work in one of the centres involved in the programme.

This cooperation between the BON and the childcare centres helped to raise awareness of the importance

and impact of childcare.

3. WORKSHOPS


Four ex-newcomers have received a certificate of „Childcare worker‟ and found a job in a regular childcare

provision. Some 70 children of newcomers found a place in the childcare centres involved in this process. The

childcare centres kept working on accessibility, respect for diversity and parental involvement. This

improves the overall quality of care. Structural cooperation started between BON and the childcare centres.

The Flemish community commission decided to give priority for extra subventions to those centres that have an

elaborated plan for the accessibility to vulnerable groups.

In the third phase of the project they expanded it to regional level to further deepen and broaden the

cooperation between working groups. Following a new call, they now have 62 provisions that participate and

wish to work on their social policy. To achieve this, the centres involved have been subdivided in six smaller

regional clusters (spread over Brussels). The different regional groups wrote their common social-pedagogical

project. This should result in a brochure aiming at helping intermediary partners and their clients to find a

convenient childcare provision. In 2010 Brussels policymakers together with the representatives of the different

regions investigated the possibility of a central coordinating system to meet the demands of childcare places,

taking into account the social function of childcare.

Recommendations

Promote active inclusion and respect for diversity

Involve all actors related to childcare (local and national level, decision-makers and childcare service

providers, parents and children)

Empower and strengthen parental capacities (through building partnerships)

Combine top-down and bottom-up approaches


1E - Innovative partnership and participation in practice - strengthening families and

communities

Speakers: Tove Samzelius & Annie Oliver, Single Parent Action Network (SPAN), UK

Discussant: Stuart Duffin, One Family, Ireland

Facilitator: Tony Ivens, Children in Wales, UK

Rapporteur: Dani Koleva, National Network for Children, Bulgaria

The workshop showcased examples from local work in Bristol highlighting good practice in developing

innovative services in partnership with other organisations leading to better outcomes for children and families.

It discussed the delivery of parenting support and adult education in the context of UK and how effective

partnership work can benefit all parties involved. The discussion also focused on participatory work in practice

– how organizations can involve service users in service delivery, development and campaigning and ways of

effectively engaging and supporting „hard to reach‟ families through partnership work.

Main points and outcomes of the workshop:

Partnership

The network works with various stakeholders and partners. Referrals come by parents themselves but

also doctors, social services, etc. SPAN works in partnership with local authorities, voluntary

organizations, study centres, doctors, social services, mental health, drug and alcohol organizations,

housing, family lawyers, extended school partnership, children‟s centres, youth offender‟s teams, etc.

There‟s an advisory group of parents who have a say and influence the organisation and its work.

Benefits of working in partnership

- Help each other to provide support and reach targets

3. WORSHOPS


- Cost effective

- Shared resources

- Effective way of engaging and reaching more diverse groups

- Building trust within the community

- When working well – positive outcomes

Difficulties in working in partnership

- Different organizational cultures

- Different expectations

- Communication

- Competition for funding and resources

- Monitoring and evaluation – for example different forms used by partners who all have their

demands upon service users.

Positive outcomes for children and families – measuring success

SPAN parenting support has contributed to parents‟ personal and career development. 78% of single parents

surveyed 6-12 months after completing a course said that they had increased their confidence and ability to

move forward; 30 % had moved on to employment and 74% would come back to courses at SPAN or had

moved on to further education elsewhere.

Parents highlighted the significant positive impact that the programme had on their and their children‟s lives:

- 63% found life less stressful

- 89% felt the course offered them techniques to support their children‟s behaviour

- 43.5% stated that the course had impacted on how their children socialise

The programme has also had a positive impact on their community life and increased social networks:

- 37% were now involved in community groups/events

- 95.7% felt that discussion on culture raised their awareness of culture and diversity, and also

understanding of other people

“The more parents can learn and share, the better support they can offer their children”.

Key policy implications:

Action to address child poverty and social exclusion must support partnership and cooperation with

all stakeholders. Effective partnerships benefit all parties and involvement of civil society,

practitioners, parents, children & young people themselves in policy and practice design,

implementation and monitoring ensures better accountability, stronger engagement and ultimately

better outcomes for children and families.

There‟s no one size fits all approach – the key is empowering parents and responding to

different individual needs. It‟s about listening, taking it seriously and acting. The key is NOT telling

people what they should do but giving them tools to take decisions and become independent.

There is a need to promote and support - at all levels of governance - monitoring and evaluation of the

impact on children of parenting support programmes and policies related to children and families.

3. WORKSHOPS


2A - Children and families experiencing poverty - better futures through improved

partnerships

Speakers: Bernard de Vos & Christelle Trifaux, Children‟s Ombudsman of the French speaking

community of Belgium

Discussant: Susanne Brånalt & Malin Johansson, City of Gothenburg, Sweden

Facilitator: Ninetta Kazantsis, Pancyprian Coordinating Committee for the Protection and Welfare of

Children, Cyprus

Rapporteur: Florence Grandvalet, Eurochild associate member, France

Bernard De Vos‟ presentation focused on a study on poverty in the French speaking community of Belgium.

This study involved meetings with parents, children and professionals to capture their point of view. Families

were really enthusiastic and interested in participating to the study. The main conclusion is that poverty is

impacting on all articles of the UNCRC. Another important point is how poverty is changing overtime. This

phenomenon has greatly evolved. Nowadays, we talk about „new poor‟, people loosing their job and being

caught in a vicious circle of indebtedness. These people are not used to ask for help or to be helped. We also

talk about „poor workers‟ or in-work poverty.

The conclusion and discussion then focused on how and why the social system in which we live is facing

difficulty and how we can improve that. The professionals have less time but there are more needs. Social

workers are overloaded with work. In the complexity of this system professionals and families are lost and often

help arrives when the situation has already deteriorated. The services are not enough individualised. This

system is not understood. It leads service users to confusion and lack of confidence in services. Collaborations

between professionals and families and also between professionals are not always efficient and effective.

Susanne Brånhalt and Malin Johansson (discussants) showed how the social welfare office works in the area

of Gothenburg, in the district of Lärjedalen (Sweden), with a population with a high level of needs: low

employment rate, low income, low school achievements, etc. They differentiate between short-term and long-

term support. Short-term response addresses the immediate needs of children and long-term response aims to

empower families so they can support themselves. They have a programme called „Trappa Upp‟ where there is

a high level of cooperation between professionals (police, job centres, health professionals, education system,

etc.). This programme has three phases and aims to help people to access to the labour market. The first step

is an adaptation phase including language courses; the second phase focuses on training; and the last one

focuses on access to work.

The programme has proved to be successful for both the families and the authorities. Families have improved

their access to labour market and have increased their income. The investment in the programme led

authorities to save money (they assessed that in 2009, approximately 1.58 million euros were saved). There

are also parallel effects like improved health and family welfare, better school achievements, reduced domestic

violence, etc.

Recommendations:

It is necessary to make some deep and structural changes in society and to involve children and family in this

process. Investment in the education system is one of the starting points as school is the reflection of our

society and it can be one of the most excluding places. For example, children are sent to vocational training

when they are not performing well in the academic school system. Access to schools is not always free; there is

a lack of early education and care provision. It is a school of competition, individuality and failure rather than

being the school of citizenship. Therefore, the education system needs to be deeply reviewed. It needs to work

in an open way and involve participation in all areas and for everyone.

Parents‟ access to labour market was also discussed. Parents who do not work suffer from their inactivity and it

also affects their self-esteem. Society has changed and the number of jobs has decreased. There is a will to

create jobs for everybody but the question is whether this is the only way to participate into society. The labour

market participation may not be the only route to social inclusion. There must be more ways to

3. WORSHOPS


participate in society and to „exist as citizens‟. What about to return to the traditional values of society,

including the importance of culture, exchanging services, doing volunteering work?

Professionals working with families need to cooperate closely. Often the situation comes to the attention of

professionals when it is too late and has already degenerated so much that it is difficult to act and provide

solutions.

Another point which was emphasised is the need to invest in training professionals. Their work needs to be

better defined and an important point which is often forgotten is the need to agree on the final aim. Working in

partnership just for the sake of it is not good; having a clear plan and direction is needed. This goes with

investing in communication and information. Participation must not be forgotten in the process: participation of

children is one of the most important aspects in realising children's rights and children should be

involved from the planning stage to the implementation and assessment phases of any project/legislation/rule.

See annex 4 for workshop accompanying briefing (in French)

2B - The Triple P Positive Parenting Programme - improving public health & reducing health

inequalities

Speakers: Linda de Caestecker, Public Health & Health Improvement, NHS Greater Glasgow & Stephen

McLeod, Children and Young People‟s Specialist Services, Glasgow City Council, UK

Discussant: Ansger Perquy, Gezinsbond, Belgium

Facilitator: Aagje Ieven, Eurohealthnet

Rapporteur: Kerstin Neander, Ӧrebro County, Sweden

The Triple P Positive Parenting Programme is an Australian parenting programme, implemented in Glasgow by

the NHS Greater Glasgow and the Glasgow City Council in partnership with health, education, social work,

culture and sport services and the police. The Triple P is a multi-level parenting programme ranging from

universal preventing (level 1) to enhanced behavioural family intervention (level 5).

At the heart of action is the aim to improve health and address health inequalities by focusing on early years‟

interventions, recognizing that many health problems relate to poverty and disadvantage.

The speakers pointed out that Glasgow is a city with huge social and health differences. In a study it appeared

that 72% (and 82% in the most deprived areas) of the parents in the city did not know where to turn for advice

and support. This is one of the reasons why it was important to find forms for reaching out to as many people

as possible and why Triple P, with its universal approach, is considered a good alternative. However, the

speakers underlined the fact that Triple P is not a solution to all problems – nor is it the only effort deployed to

enhance children‟s development in Glasgow.

The Triple P presentation was followed by a description by Ansger Perquy of the Flemish (Belgium) social

network Gezinsbond, targeting “all families regardless of their family situation or phase, their philosophical,

political or religious conviction”. The objectives of Gezinsbond are to defend families and children at each policy

level, offer services to its member families, and support parents in the education of their children.

Gezinsbond, which started in 1920 and comprises 1,000 units in Flanders, engages 300,000 families and

10,000 volunteers. Out of the 6 million inhabitants in Flanders 1 million are members of Gezinsbond.

Gezinsbond publishes “Letters to young parents”, “Letters to parents of teenagers” and “letters to

Grandparents”, which could be considered to correspond to Level 1 in Triple P.

The units provide many different services, among others parenting support (training in parenting skills) and

baby-sitting services by baby-sitters who are trained by the organization.

Gezinsbond procures loans at a low interest (1%) making it possible also for families lacking important financial

assets to acquire a place to live. They also have holiday houses for rent and have agreements concerning

discounts in 2,000 shops in Flanders.

3. WORKSHOPS


In the units the parents have access to a vast social network and they also have great influence on the activity.

The Facilitator of the Workshop, Aagje Ieven, Eurohealthnet, confirmed that “They have been everywhere in my

life since I got pregnant.”

The subsequent discussion addressed a number of important issues:

The importance of parenting support and how to convince the policy-makers:

The participants in the workshop agreed that parenting support is very important, since it is considered

the best means to enhance child development and health. Parenting programmes also benefit the

parents.

There is scientific evidence of universal, preventive methods being cost-effective, but then one has to

take into consideration the limits between different services in society and apply a long-term

perspective.

The benefits of universal interventions:

There was also an agreement that universal interventions are preferable in order to avoid

stigmatization. Universal Triple P includes use of radio, local newspapers, newsletters at schools, mass

mailings to family households, presence at community events, and website information.

It is very likely that parents feel questioned when offered interventions. This was experienced at the

implementation of Triple P in Glasgow when some parents asked the question”Am I a bad parent?”

upon receiving information about the programme.

A non-paternalistic approach and the relationship between the intervener and the parents:

What is described above is related to how to contact the families with one‟s information and offers

about interventions, and the speakers from Glasgow underscored the importance of a non-paternalistic

approach.

Also in the direct meeting with the parents it is essential for the intervener to have an attitude which

truly contributes to strengthening parents‟ competences and their faith in their own capacity. The

representative of Gezinsbond was of the opinion that it is often best if parents support parents instead

of professionals supporting parents.

What values do the parenting programmes reflect? What attitude to adopt towards physical

punishment?

Triple P aims at giving the parents tools so that they do not have to resort to physical punishment.

Legislation against physical punishment is desirable but, in many countries, the road leading there is

unfortunately considered to be a long one.

The requirement for interventions in relation to families who need more than the universal level:

One of the advantages of Triple P is its possibility to meet different needs with different interventions

within a common framework. The estimation is that approximately 5% of all families need the most

enhanced level (level 5).

Linking to existing structures and programmes:

In the implementation of Triple P programme, they have, as far as possible, linked it to other

programmes and existing structures. A successful example was to link their programme to a school

induction programme for parents of children entering primary school.

Working together with NGOs to reach out the most vulnerable families:

The speakers from Glasgow confirmed that they are dependent upon cooperation with the voluntary

sector in order to reach the most vulnerable families, as these organizations generally have better

contacts.

The need for quantitative and qualitative research - don‟t forget the voices of the children!

The need for evaluation of parenting programmes was brought up and stressed. In order to really take

advantage of the parents‟ experiences of participating in parenting programmes it is important not to

3. WORSHOPS


limit oneself to quantitative research, but also to use qualitative methods. And don‟t let us forget to

interview children too, so that we may partake of their experiences!

2C - Preventing institutionalisation - promoting social inclusion of unaccompanied minors

Speaker: Anneli Westling, Municipality of Varberg, Sweden; ENSA network – European Network of Social

Authorities

Discussant: Mohammed Bashir, Core Assets, UK

Facilitator: John Mckendrick, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK

Rapporteur: Sean O'Neill, Children in Wales, UK

Anneli is the Manager of family unit in Varberg, Sweden, a small coastal town with around 57,000 inhabitants

and approximately 7-800 people coming in per year. Its location is attractive for migrants and easy to get to,

being only 45-minute drive to Gothenburg and within easy reach of Stockholm. Of the 13,000 children under 20,

around 400 need help from our social institution.

The Children and Families unit provides a range of support services for vulnerable children and their families

around issues such as housing, support to access absent parents, parenting and drug use. There is also an art

programme and a buddy support all for young persons. Children with parents using drugs, in violent families, in

families with psychiatric disease and separated are the principle vulnerable groups who will receive a service.

There are 31 social workers in the unit as well as a school unit with teachers, socials workers and a youth

worker. A reception for young addicts will start in February 2011.

The principle objective is to prevent placement in institutions and social exclusion.

Fenix unit is an activity for unaccompanied teenage asylum seekers which was established in 2008. Presently

it works with 6 young people age 16-18 of both genders. Around 2,000 children are expected to arrive in

Sweden this year, via 7 major cities. They are then dispersed to 170 cities across the country.

In the Fenix unit, the priority is to provide the young people with a safe place to live, provide care and support,

give education regardless of asylum assessment, allocate a legal trustee and help the young people integrate

into Swedish society. A multidiciplinary staff team work with the young people under a common value

framework which promotes positive working, empowerment and solutions, prioritises the need to learn the

Swedish language and develop new skills and trust of adults.Key measurable staff tasks include:

Creating good conditions for knowledge in the Swedish language

Supporting to find meaningful leisure activity

Introduce and contribute to a positive start and give good experience of Sweden and

VarbergStrengthen the individual's ability to act independently

Support building positive networks to promote integration and the teenager‟s own future development

All young people will start school immediately and on an incremental basis with intensive support. A key worker

is allocated and is tasked with working with them towards independence, self-reliance and realising individual

goals, as well as a legal trustee until they reach 18.

The unit works in partnership with local authorities which, in addition to the involvement of the education

service, the health service offer support with emotional and mental health difficulties; the labour division provide

access to part-time employment or a traineeship, and a „move on‟ service is led by the Housing department.

NGOs, such as the Red Cross and the Scouts Association also provide a number of activities around leisure/

sport and meeting the young people‟s needs around their faith and religion, as well as supporting them to

find/keep in touch with their birth family.

Current situation: As of October 2010, the unit houses 8 males and 2 females; 7 have obtained resident permits

with the remaining 3 awaiting the outcome of their asylum applications. 1 young person has their own

3. WORKSHOPS


apartment and 2 are ready to also „move on‟.

The biggest challenge has been partnership working and ensuring that all external partners cooperate and

function collectively. A multi-agency group was set up to help steer the process and engagement. Asylum

seeking children was something new to many of these services so it took a while for agencies to meet this new

challenge and demands on their services. Though the Fenix Unit is has a lead role in ensuring the service

operates effectively at a practical level, local authorities also share the responsibility at a community level.

Key Learning from the workshop:

1. Safe place to stay – All children and young people-seeking asylum should be provided with supported

accommodation which safe and meets both their immediate and medium term needs.

2. Advocacy support – All children and young people-seeking asylum should be provided with key

person who will promote resilience and work alongside them to ensure their needs are met and their

aspirations and individual goals realised

3. Identify strengths – As many asylum-seeking children are very resourceful, hard-working and will

bring with them many skills, knowledge and enormous potential, professionals should ensure that these

attributions are recognised and harnessed.

4. Partnership working – A multi-agency commitment and response is essential if the needs of this

group of vulnerable young people are to be realised. Pooled resources, capacity and shared

knowledge, skills and responsibilities from a range broad range of sectors should be in place.

5. Transitional support – Services should ensure that support remains available through the transitional

phases as young people move into adulthood and settle into their new environment and community

6. Small is best – small institutions are preferred to larger establishments which can provide an intimate,

safe and personal environment, ideal to enable young people to progress and flourish.

7. Challenge stereotypes and racism – All stakeholders have a role in challenging negative

perceptions, often portrayed by the media and hostile groups. Local, National and European

Governments should lead by example.

8. Children first, asylum seekers second – Young people seeking asylum should be able to access

their rights under the UNCRC in the same way that other children and young people are expected to be

able to.

9. Safeguard culture and identity – support in isolation is insufficient. Receiving countries should ensure

that young people have their rights around identity, culture, language and heritage met and secured.

10. Integration and identity – Need to ensure that the right balance between the two is achieved

“What would we want for our own child if they had to make the same journey”.


2D - Integrated services for children & families of migrant background

Speakers: Carmela Simbari, Daniela Cardinali & Rosangela Bozza, Il Grillo Parlante, Italy

Discussant: Tine Rommens, Kind en Gezin – Child & Family, Belgium

Facilitator: Ivano Abbruzzi, Fondazione l‟Albero della Vita, Italy

Rapporteur: Agata D‟Addato, Eurochild Policy Officer

Carmela Simbari, Daniela Cardinali and Rosangela Bozza provided an overview of the care and education

activities carried out by the Grillo Parlante center, supported by the municipality of Petriano and the Marche

region in Italy. The center, which deals with children aged 12 months to 18 years, provides comprehensive

3. WORSHOPS


services particularly targeted to women and children, including reading and music labs, bio-energetic and

butterfly massage labs, self-esteem groups and meetings for parental support & developing parental skills. All

the activities are based on a participatory and empowering approach with families. A specific project called

“Prisma”, which was developed for the integration and social cohesion of children and families with migrant

background was presented, in which 50% of the services are made freely available for those families and

training is provided to immigrant women to foster self-entrepreneurship and create home kindergartens. This

was seen of the utmost importance because it grants the opportunity of getting to know each other and starting

a process of dialogue and mutual learning which involves both the children and their families.

The discussion focused around the following issues:

How can we strengthen the participation and empowerment of children and families?

How can we enhance the parental skills, work on the competences of parents and help them to

overcome the barriers to positive parenting?

How can we build on the relationship between children and parents, and stimulate their dialogue?

How to support social professions, value social work and make sure that professional standards are

met?

Participants identified the main points of success of the practice presented:

Put children and families at the centre and work around them, bring services to them rather than the

other way around.

Take a holistic approach and promote integrated services to improve children‟s well-being.

Invest in cultural capital, use arts, music, painting, foster corporal awareness and work with the

community.

Work on parents‟ competences as a starting point and strengthen parental responsibility.

Make services accessible, affordable and available for all, and couple those services with interventions

targeted to children and families most at risk of poverty and social exclusion (i.e. children and families

with migrant background).

Focus on the importance of attitudes and work on breaking prejudices, fight against discrimination and

stigmatisation.

Lessons learned were debated and recommendations put forward for action at EU, national & local levels for

delivering better outcomes for children and families:

Universally accessible quality services are a pre-condition to ensuring everybody enjoys equal

rights. Universal services must be combined with specific targeted interventions to meet the specific

needs of the most vulnerable children and families.

It is crucial to invest in services to support parents, help them to develop better coping strategies

and understand the importance and value of good parenting. This means resourcing parenting in terms

of competences, skills, information, psychological and social support.

In a time of budget cuts, early intervention and prevention services for families must be protection

and increased. Policy-makers need to have a long-term vision rather than look at short-term solutions

without recognizing that investment in children and families is also an investment in our future.

Governments must invest in training for social workers working with and for children and families,

and improve the professional prestige of social professionals.

Action to address child poverty and social exclusion must support effective partnerships between

different actors and involve all relevant stakeholders, including civil society, practitioners, parents and

children and young people themselves. Working together makes a difference to children‟s lives.

Ensure the voices and concerns of children and families are heard and taken into account is crucial.

Participation and empowerment must be an integral part of our efforts to promote children‟s well-

being.

3. WORKSHOPS


2E - Family supporters - building bridges to promote social inclusion

Speakers: Heidi Braye & Kathy Jacobs, Kind & Gezin – Child & Family, Belgium

Discussant: Pip Jaffa, Parents Advice Centre, UK

Facilitator: Melissa Jo Smith, Home Start International

Rapporteur: Anne Williams, Eurochild associate member, France

Kind & Gezin (Child and Family) is a governmental agency responsible for the promotion and organisation of

child care and welfare in Flanders, Belgium. One of the main fields of activity is preventive family support.

Preventive family support is the term used for preventive social and health services to all families with children

between 0 and 3 years and vulnerable pregnant women. Services are free and are provided from infant health

centres. Consultations and house visits are also undertaken by nurses and family supporters. The objective is

to give parents information and support regarding the care, well-being and development of their child and their

parenthood.

Supporting and empowering socially vulnerable families to give all children the best possible start in life is a

discrete policy objective within preventive family support. Strategies to increase the accessibility of services and

improve their effectiveness are central to this. Family Supporters were introduced as a „particular and

meaningful perspective‟ in this realisation. Their role is to „connect‟ services with socially vulnerable families to

improve communication and minimise misunderstandings of needs, values, proposals and recommendations

amongst the different stakeholders and beneficiaries.

The session focused on the role and function of Family Supporters showing how they „connect‟ families on

three dimensions:

to their own family „goals‟ (their individual family project)

in the interaction with their service providers

with the „organisational‟ context (bridging the gap between organisations‟ perceptions and families‟

perspectives)

Since 2008, Heidi Braye has worked exclusively on the last dimension in the newly created profile of

‘Consultant – expert by experience in poverty, migration and social exclusion’. In this capacity, she brings her

experience in the field to input into policy development to „strengthen and enlarge a platform that enables the

improvement of services for all families, including the most vulnerable‟.

Family Supporters are unique in that their experience of poverty and social exclusion is validated and

developed in a professionally recognised context. Since 2004, Family Supporters are trained in one of two

profiles:

Experts by experience of poverty and social exclusion

Inter-cultural mediators

Family supporters undertake professional training over a period of 4 years via a certificated „adult education‟

route. In addition, they undertake joint training with nurses and other health professionals with whom they work

in partnership to establish common value bases, understandings and approaches to their work. Several

methodologies are used in this approach, for example „to listen, to clarify meanings, to dialogue, to hold mirrors,

to invite to reflection and to empower‟.

3. WORSHOPS


Creating Effective Partnerships:

A cross-departmental investment is made in the joint training and continuing professional development of family

supporters and nurses. This is the foundation of effective partnership working and the policy implications are

clear.

„There has to be a long term commitment across departments to investment in training and supporting teams.

There are no short cuts to this‟ (Heidi Braye & Kathy Jacobs, Presenters).

The objective of joint training is to set the context, objectives, vision and value-base of the work. The process

builds trust, mutual respect and common understandings between professionals. It requires openness and a

willingness to reflect on personal attitudes and working practices, which is not always easy, especially when

existing working practices have continued over a number of years. The training can be emotionally demanding

and requires space and time.

„We come from a culture of professionals telling parents what‟s good for their children. This has to change. We

have to ask families what are their needs. What we can offer. And decide what we are going to do together for

the next 3 years of the child‟s life‟ (Heidi Braye & Kathy Jacobs, Presenters).

A clear vision and value base is essential. All services are underpinned by a commitment to valuing diversity,

promoting children‟s rights and empowering parents using a „positive parenting‟ approach. A „social

responsibility‟ model of poverty is used that recognises poverty as a structural issue and not the individual

responsibility of families. These values are reflected in the qualitative goals of the service, including:

anticipates health risks and health differences;

empowers people to have the strength and faith to support their children in their development and create

for them as many opportunities as possible;

alters their relationship of dependency and preserves their rights;

strengthens their self-esteem;

stimulates participation and the improvement of their situation.

Joint evaluation is a key element of service development. To date, attention has been focused on the

qualitative aspects of service and development of good practice in the field. There have been good analyses of

things that haven‟t worked! There has been no evaluation as yet of the effectiveness of services in terms of

outcomes for children and families.

Concluding comment:

„Equality, confidence and trust in partnerships are not always present in multi-agency working….. here we have

a good example……we need more „believers‟ in partnership working as the economic climate gets tighter…

(Pip Jaffa, Discussant).

3. WORKSHOPS


4. PANEL DEBATE


4. PANEL DEBATE: ADDED-VALUE OF EU ACTION ON CHILD POVERTY

Children‟s reflections

To open the afternoon session, children staged a show on the topic of child poverty and social exclusion which

had been prepared over the preceding days. The 17 young participants (aged 15-18) came from Cyprus,

Germany, Latvia and Sweden. The show provided a powerful insight into the issues of social exclusion and

bullying from a children‟s perspective.

See annex 6 for details of the youth programme and participating organisations.

The panel included a representative of the European Commission and 5 other representatives who came from

different perspectives – social services, health, education, and children‟s rights. Each has an involvement in

influencing EU agendas in different policy areas.

Chair: Jana Hainsworth, Eurochild Secretary General

Jana Hainsworth referred to the signed declaration of the EU Presidency Trio which called on the Commission

to adopt a EU Recommendation to fight child poverty & promote child well-being, which is expected in the latter

semester of 2011.

Panelists: Isabelle Maquet, European Commission, DG Employment, Social Protection and Inclusion

Lotta Persson, Chair of the Association of directors of Swedish Social Welfare Sevices (FSS)

and Social Director of Botkyrka, Sweden

Bernard de Vos, Children‟s Ombudsman of the French speaking community of Belgium

Manuel Miguens, European Network of Education Councils

Miquel Àngel Essomba Gelabert, UNESCO Centre of Catalonia – UNESCOCAT, Spain

Aagje Ieven, Eurohealthnet

Isabelle Maquet, representative of the European Commission, DG Employment, Social Protection and

Inclusion, explained what is planned in relation to the follow-up of work on child poverty at EU level. During the

European Year 2010 several important initiatives were undertaken, reflecting a genuine commitment of

Member States to child well-being and their concerns on the social dimension of the EU. More specifically the

Europe 2020 strategy was agreed by the June European Council with its inclusive growth target and its flagship

initiative ´the European Platform Against Poverty. The latter is expected to enhance cooperation among

Member States on social issues and set out actions to reach the EU headline poverty reduction target. The

Commission and Member States are currently working on the Platform‟s governance, including monitoring

process based on concrete indicators. Stakeholders were widely consulted in order to gather the most

comprehensive overview of civil society‟s expectations with regard to this flagship initiative. The proposal on the

Platform‟s structure is to be issued mid-December.

Among other issues that are currently under revision, aiming at an enhanced focus on child poverty, Ms Maquet

highlighted an improvement in the use of structural funds, so to make sure that the available funds fully address

the poverty issues. Broader and tighter partnerships will be evenly supported, through which the learning

process will be optimised. Finally, child poverty will be more strongly mainstreamed through a number of

European policy areas, including education, housing, health, etc.

Ms Maquet also underlined that a considerable European “social acquis” already exists and that now the time

has come for a stronger use of existing mechanisms and tools. It is, however, not always an easy task, as

decision takers are usually more focused on national challenges that do not always go in hand with European

initiatives. So as a real EU‟s social dimension becomes true, the way of thinking of us all needs to go into the

same “social” direction.

Aagje Ieven, Eurohealthnet, having stressed the importance of healthy ageing, which as a life course process

starts from early childhood, focused on issues that need to be urgently addressed in order to convey a positive

perception of the future and to develop a new intergenerational balance. First of all the social inclusion and

investment in children and young people need to be assured. It is crucial to close the enormous health

inequalities that exist between and within European countries, differences that risk growing due to currently

http://www.eurochild.org/fileadmin/Events/2010/09%20BE%20Presidency%20Child%20Poverty/Signed%20Declaration.pdf

4. PANEL DEBATE


introduced fiscal consolidation and austerity measures. Moreover, as health and the economy are so closely

correlated - the level of disease is strongly influenced by factors such as employment, income, length of

education and ethnicity - a close cooperation of all stakeholders, especially in times of crisis is deemed

necessary. While the prevailing paradigm of economic growth should be altered, actions are possible within the

already-existent structures and should focus on fighting health inequalities, due to which every year 140 billion

euros are lost.

Lotta Persson, Chair of the Association of directors of Swedish Social Welfare Services (FSS) and Social

Director of Botkyrka, a municipality near Stockholm, pointed out a number of priority issues, such as setting up

of a universal welfare model with a focus on young people, improving the housing situation of vulnerable

people, ensuring education for social workers, as well as following European developments in social welfare.

With regard to all those activities, the importance of measuring their results in order to be able to assess what

works and what does not was underlined. In addition, working together is very important in achieving commonly

desired results as it allows to avoid others‟ mistakes.

Subsequently, referring to the financial crisis Ms Persson pointed out that it placed an extra burden on service

providers in Sweden. As quality jobs are an important factor of escaping from harsh consequences of the

economic downturn, efforts should be focused on activation policies, while guaranteeing parents the necessary

conditions for combining their family and professional lives. In order to improve child well-being, it should also

be ensured that children are fully and seriously taken into consideration in all stages of the decision-taking

processes, especially those having an impact on their lives.

Bernard de Vos, Délégué Général des droits de l‟enfant, Belgium, started his intervention by stressing the

intolerable situation in which more and more people live. Acknowledging the efforts and valuable work of the

European Commission, Mr de Vos highlighted, however, the need for further efforts of the European institutions

in setting guidelines and pushing national governments for concrete actions aiming at fighting poverty and

social exclusion. Similarly to previous speakers, a need of shifting the overall society‟s perception was also

pointed out. This is the area where efforts of all of us are awaited.

Mr de Vos also highlighted that while thanks to early years education and care much of the financial resources

could be saved, educational structures should promote equality and tolerance. Referring to the growth

paradigm, Mr de Vos affirmed that for many years employment has been seen as the main way of escaping

from poverty and increased consumer spending has been promoted as a means of contributing to economic

growth. This model, however, is no longer valid, as employment as such, especially in times of the economic

and financial crisis, does not guarantee decent living conditions. This is why politicians‟ efforts should not only

focus on creating quality job opportunities, but also work in itself should become a value contributing to the

sake of the whole society. Active participation of all citizens, especially of those most vulnerable, including

migrant families constitutes also an issue that should be treated with the highest attention and followed by

concrete measures. Nevertheless, rather than establishing a common top-down system, effective practices

bringing fruits at local levels should be raised and unified into a comprehensive and already tested framework.

Manuel Miguens, European Network of Education Councils, stated that an equal access to education, being

crucial for a child‟s development, should become a material concretisation of the universal right of a child to

education. In this regard, dissemination of good practice examples of ensuring an equal access to education is

crucial. By meeting and working together actors coming from various working fields can exchange their

respective experiences and learn from each other. Moreover, it is equally fruitful to promote educational values

through different areas of professional activity. Thanks to wide networks, it is possible to identify different

means of cooperation, all leading to positive results in terms of child development. In order to enable the latter,

the protection of children´s rights should become an overarching priority of all entities working within the

educational field.

Miquel Àngel Essomba Gelabert, UNESCO Centre of Catalonia – UNESCOCAT, Spain, referred to the

growing diversity faced at school. As a „melting pot‟ of children coming from different social environments, with

different origins, cultures, etc., schools need strong cooperative ties with other institutions like communities, the

latter being competent in the education field. A special attention should be paid to the most vulnerable children,

who need to be helped within a class and/or a family. Taking them away from their educational entities is not

only harmful for them, but also counterproductive.

While smart and inclusive growth is extremely important for the economic development, a special focus should

be put on people‟s competencies, enabling them to profit from labour opportunities. These competencies should

be transmitted and learnt from an early childhood. Inclusive educational systems are therefore one of the key

4. PANEL DEBATE


elements leading to the economic prosperity. When it comes to installing these structures, the question we

should focus on is not who should be doing it, but how we could achieve it together? One of the biggest

challenges in this regard is to mainstream the issue of child well–being in all European policies. Globally, we

need sustainable models of cooperation, which will not only allow us to effectively act today, but also will

influence society‟s perception and positively influence child well-being in the future. As numerous examples of

good practice exist, they should be collected and reported to the EU to be subsequently disseminated among all

stakeholders. Their involvement is crucial, as the expertise lies in their hands as well as in researchers‟ ones.

4. PANEL DEBATE


5. CLOSING SESSION


5. CLOSING SESSION

Chair: Mária Herczog, Eurochild President

Jana Hainsworth, Eurochild Secretary General, read the concluding statements (see annex 9). The final

conclusions consist of 9 recommendations to the three main groups of actors: the EU, the Member States and

the NGOs/stakeholders community. Those recommendations, as well as events such as Eurochild‟s 7th Annual

Conferences, are crucial in times of the economic and financial crisis, whose consequences considerably

jeopardise children‟s rights.

1. PHILIPPE COURARD, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SOCIAL INTEGRATION AND THE FIGHT AGAINST

POVERTY, BELGIUM

Philippe Courard, Secretary of State for Social Integration and the Fight Against Poverty, Belgium, presented

the main activities and priorities of the Belgian EU presidency with regard to the fight against child poverty.

Firstly, the Secretary of State highlighted the Belgian Presidency‟s commitment to the issue, which should not

be treated as a short-term challenge, but as part of a broader long-term policy of combating social exclusion.

Mr Courard referred to the conference “Who cares? A roadmap for a Recommendation to fight children‟s

poverty”, organized by the Belgian presidency on 2-3 September 2010. This conference, prepared in a wide

cooperation with Eurochild and Unicef produced a set of detailed recommendations aiming at improving child

well-being in Europe.

The Secretary of State welcomed subsequently the forthcoming Hungarian presidency‟s and the

Commissioner‟s Andor engagement to continue the fight against poverty at the European level. It should focus

on marginalized children, their vulnerability determining their whole future lives. It was moreover recognized

that a quality employment remains a main tool for combating poverty. Nevertheless, in times of economic crisis,

when access to the labour market is troubled, having a job does not longer guarantee a decent life. That is why

a further focus is put by the Belgian presidency on the policy of minimum income. Poverty is a multidimensional

phenomenon and requires multidimensional solutions.

Common efforts bring already fruits, the declaration signed during the September conference by the Trio of EU

presidencies (Spain, Belgium and Hungary) is one of them. The declaration urges the Commission to adopt a

Recommendation on child poverty and well-being in 2011. The Belgian Presidency will also make sure that the

fight against child poverty finds its place within the Declaration closing the European Year 2010 and further

within the European Platform Against Poverty. The latter should encompass a quantity target of reducing child

poverty. Among other crucial issues that should be tackled at the EU level, the Secretary of State referred to

the elaboration of a scoreboard to monitor the progress of Member States in the fight against poverty as well as

to the need of creating appropriate structures for stakeholders‟ involvement. In his final comments, Mr Courard

stressed the importance of listening to children, as well as the need to unify forces so as to debate the issue

and move forward.

2. GÁBOR SZENTIVÁNYI, AMBASSADOR OF HUNGARY IN SWEDEN

Gabor Szentivanyi, Ambassador of Hungary in Sweden, focused on the state of play of the Hungarian

preparations to their forthcoming EU presidency. Starting his intervention, the representative of the Hungarian

government expressed the country‟s commitment to combating child poverty. Signing the TRIO declaration, the

Hungarian government engaged itself to the European fight against child poverty and will work on this during its

EU presidency. It was then pointed out that the country‟s priorities widely overlap with the European ones. The

Hungarian presidency‟s agenda consist of six main priority areas, out of which at least three are linked to child

poverty. Namely, the economic policy with the EU 2020 strategy and its ecological and sustainable

development dimensions, secondly the social policy with employment, education and fundamental rights

policies and thirdly a more citizen friendly Europe. Within actions undertaken in the field of these priority areas,

a special attention will be paid to the employment and inclusion of Roma (especially of Roma children) and

other excluded minority groups.

5. CLOSING SESSION


Concluding his intervention the Ambassador acknowledged efforts and valuable work accomplished by the

Belgian Presidency. The Hungarian government´s commitment to a Commission Recommendation on child

poverty and wel-being was then expressed, as well as its commitment to the European Platform Against

Poverty. The Europe‟s 2020 strategy flagship initiatives should become operational as soon as possible, as well

as they should be accompanied by close monitoring processes. While the prime responsibility in the social field

lies within the Member States, a strong European agenda is extremely needed in order to boost European

governments to a greater devotion to child poverty.

3. CHRISTER LENKE, HEAD OF UNIT SOCIAL WELFARE, ÖREBRO REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Christer Lenke, Head of Unit Social Welfare, Örebro Regional Development Council, underlined the growing

engagement of the Örebro Regional Development Council into the Eurochild‟s work since 2007 when it became

its member. The issue of social inclusion affecting all Member States should be a genuine European priority.

The Swedish municipality has an ambition to become an active region in promoting high quality of living

conditions and prioritizing child well-being, paying a particular attention to the most vulnerable ones. A mutual

learning process is essential in this regard. As many European countries have a lot to learn from each other,

exchange of knowledge and examples of good practice should be strongly promoted.

Mária Herczog, Eurochild President, pointed out regional integration, solidarity, listening to children and

treating root causes of poverty as particularly important in combating child poverty. In this regard Eurochild

plays a crucial role, enabling many professionals working for and/or with children to meet together and

exchange their respective experiences. Any change can be sustainable only if commonly agreed upon and

followed by common efforts.

ANNEX 1 – LIST OF PARTICIPANTS



Austria

Stefanie Friedlmayer Vienna Youth and Welfare Office

Sabine Skop Vienna Youth and Welfare Office

Belgium

Martin Banks Parliament Magazine

Heidi Braye Kind & Gezin

Philippe Courard Secrétaire d'Etat à l'intégration sociale et à la lutte contre la pauvreté

Rudy De Cock Kind en Gezin

Bernard De Vos Délégué général de la Communauté française aux droits de l'enfant

Aagje Ieven EuroHealthNet

Kathy Jacobs Kind en Gezin

Jean-Marc Jalhay Attaché au Cabinet de Philippe Courard

Hywel Jones European Alliance for Families / GOPA-Cartermill

Ansger Perquy Gezinsbond

Kélig Puyet SOS Children's Villages International

Tine Rommens Kind en Gezin

Steven Strynckx EXPOO

Nele Travers EXPOO

Christelle Trifaux Délégué général de la Communauté française aux droits de l'enfant

Veerle Vervaet DECET-VBJK

Bulgaria

Dani Koleva National Network for Children

Antonia Petkova Social Activities and Practices Institute

Nelly Petrova-Dimitrova Social Activities and Practices Institute

Ivanka Shalapatova For Our Children Foundation

Nadia Stoykova Social Activities and Practices Institute

Cyprus

Yiannis Constantinou Youth in Action Project

Anthoulla Fella Cyprus Children's Parliament

Ninetta Kazantzis PCCPWC

Andreas Kontidis Youth in Action Project

Kyriacou Neophytos Youth in Action Project

Anna Onoufriou Youth in Action Project

Chryso Pallari-Kyriakou Youth in Action Project

Michael Panayi Youth in Action Project

Marianna Tavella Cyprus Children's Parliament

Stella Tavella Youth in Action Project

Alkisti Trachilou Youth in Action Project

Maroulla Vasileiou PCCPWC

Czech Republic

Chris Gardiner VZD.cz "In the interest of the Child"

Lucie Sanderova Domus



Denmark

Geert Jorgensen JCCI

Susanne Pade Bureau 2000

Estonia

Ene Tomberg Estonian Union for Child Welfare

EU Commission

Isabelle Maquet DG Employment, Social Protection and Integration

Eurochild

Björn Becker Communications Officer

Agata D'Addato Policy Officer

Marie Dubit Membership officer

Jana Hainsworth Secretary General

Lilia Kamenow Policy Trainee

Monique Kesteloot Office and Events Manager

Mafalda Leal Policy Officer

Malin Senneval Communications Trainee

Finland

Tanja Henttonen Federation of Mother and child homes and Shelters

Maarit Kuikka Central Union for Child Welfare

Sari Laaksonen Federation of Mother and Child Homes and Shelters

Lainiala Lassi The Family Federation of Finland, Väestöliitto

Rauna Nerelli The Finnish Children's Parliament

France

Carmen Duarte Aide et Action

Florence Grandvalet Association Samuel Vincent

Hélène Hollederer Fondation des Apprentis d'Auteuil

Sabine Ischia Conseil général du Bas-Rhin

Jean-Christophe Nougaret Aide et Action

Marie-Antoinette Nuffer Fondation des Apprentis d'Auteuil

Anne Williams Williams Consulting

Germany

Angelika Krüger International Academy at the Free University of Berlin - Youth

Empowerment Partnership Programme YEP

Philipp Spiegelberg Youth in Action Project

Norbert Struck Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Kinder- und Jugendhilfe - AGJ

Hohle Sven Youth in Action Project

Lars Wingen Youth in Action Project

Greece

Christoforos Pavlakis Youth Council of Attica



Hungary

Mária Herczog Family Child Youth Association

Judit M. Ifko National Association of Large Families

Éva Izsák International Step by Step Association

Zsuzsanna Kormosné

Debreceni

National Association of Large Families

Péter Tamás Kovács Association of Large Families (NOE)

Agnes Lux Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Civil Rights

Glória Anna Römer National Association of Large Families

Éva Szomor Program to Combat Child Poverty

Ireland

Monica Cassidy One Family

Stuart Duffin One Family

Caroline Fahey Society of St Vincent de Paul National Office

Hugh Frazer National University of Ireland Maynooth

Niamh Gallagher Children's Rights Alliance

Geraldine Kelly One Family

Anna Quigley YPAR

Italy

Ivano Abbruzzi Fondazione L'Albero della Vita ONLUS

Caterina Benincasa Ferrara City Council

Marco Benini Marco Benini

Rosangela Bozza Il Grillo Parlante Societa' Cooperativa Sociale

Daniela Cardinali Il Grillo Parlante Societa' Cooperativa Sociale

Beatrice Irene Gemma CIFA Onlus

Francesco Grandi Synergia

Alessandro Negro Amici dei Bambini

Carmela Simbari Il Grillo Parlante Societá Cooperativa Sociale

Kosovo

Agim Bejta Humanitarian Society for Care of Handicapped Children Qendresa•

Shpresa Kurteshi - Osmani Humanitarian Society for Care of Handicapped Children Qendresa

Latvia

Inete Ielite Youth in Action Project

Karlis Kleimanis Youth in Action Project

Lauma Salina Youth in Action Project

Olafs Vandans Youth in Action Project

Elïna Zalgaucka Youth in Action Project

Eliza Zalgaucka Youth in Action Project

Malta

Sina Bugeja Foundation for Social Welfare Services



Netherlands

Dominique Danau SAGO Research

Doeko de Vries Humanitas

Jean Anne Kennedy IFCO (International Foster Care Organisation)

Caroline Vink Netherlands Youth Institute

Norway

Esmail Faraji Bydel Sagene

Ann-Sophi Glad Ministry of Children and Equality

Ane Hagen Kjørholt Save the Children Norway (Redd Barna)

Louice Lindhom-Larsen Bydel Sagene, Oslo kommune fakturasentralen

Merethe Løberg Norwegian Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion

Terje Ness Nav Sagene, Oslo, Norway

Poland

Beata Jasko SOS Children's Villages Association in Poland

Gabriela Kuhn The Nobody's Children Foundation

Wielisława

Warzywoda-Kruszyńska

University of Lodz

Portugal

Olga Fonseca CEBI Foundation

Manuel Miguéns EUNEC / Conselho Nacional de Educação

Romania

Maria Roth Babes-Bolyai University

Spain

Sònia Bardaji Fedaració Catalana de Famílies Monoparentals

Miquel Angel Essomba Centre Unesco de Catalunya

Eva Gonzalez Martin FEDAIA

Manel Martin Tarraga FEDAIA

Sonia Martinez Marfil FEDAIA

Conxi Martinez Martinez FEDAIA

Cristina Puig Federació Catalana de Famílies Monoparentals

Maria von Bredow UNICEF Spain

Sweden

Laila Åberg Skärholmens stadsdelsförvaltning

Eva Andersson Gryningen, Örebro läns landsting

Håkan Andersson Hallsbergs kommun

Ingmar Ångman Regionförbundet Örebro - Örebro Regional Development Council

Karin Bengtsson Riksorganisationen Haro

Ann-Christine Berg SOS Childrens Villages

Erik Bergman Regionförbundet Örebro

Vibeke Bing



Katarina Björklid Arbetsmarknand och familjeförvaltningen, Eskilstuna kommun

Sylvia Blomberg Youth in Action Project

Susanne Brånalt SDF, Lärjedalen

Elinor Brunnberg Mälardalen University

Marie Cesares Olsson Public health in Northern part of Örebro county

Carina Dahl Regionförbundet Örebro - Örebro Regional Development Council

Brynge Elisabet Youth in Action Project

Ann-Louise Gustafsson Regionförbundet Örebro - Örebro Regional Development Council

Marie Gustafsson Regionförbundet Örebro - Örebro Regional Development Council

Ingrid Gustafsson Örebro Kommun - Örebro Municipality

Ann-Britt Hagel Junis, IOGT-NTOs Juniorförbund

Lena Holm The Mayflower Charity Foundation

Susanne Holmsten Västmanland Association of Local Authorities

Ulf Hölke Youth in Action Project

Therese Jakobsson Youth in Action Project

Eva Järliden Örebro Municipality

Engman Järva Youth in Action Project

Malin Johansson SDF Lärjedalen

Luyirika Kiri Youth in Action Project

Linnéa Kristensen Youth in Action Project

Pernilla Landin Nacka församling

Bodil Langberg Stiftelsen Allmänna Barnhuset

Maria Larsson Minister for Children and the Elderly

Irén Lejegren Örebro Regional Development Council

Christer Lenke Örebro Regional Development Council

Carina Lillbäck Larsson Riksorganisationen Haro

Mary Lind Dalevi Degerfors Kommun

Maria Lindborg Örebro Kommun - Örebro Municipality

Cecilia Ljung Folkhälsoförvaltningen, Karlskoga och Degerfors kommuner

Jon Loxbo Youth in Action Project

Peter Löfsäter Regionförbundet Örebro - Örebro Regional Development Council

Eva Mårdberg Socialförvaltningen, Degerfors kommun

Mikael Mattsson Flink Skärholmens stadsdelsförvaltning

Mariana Mauritzon Familjhem i Fokus

Mila Medic Örnstedt Riksorganisationen Haro c/o Mattias Renman

Elisabet Nasman Department of Sociology, Uppsala university

Kerstin Neander Psychiatric Research Centre, Orebro County Council

Lotta Persson Socialchef, Botkyrka Kommun

Anna Philipson Department of Community Medicine and Public Health Örebro County

Council

Waafa Rahbi Stockholm City Mission

Susanne Rydén Regionförbundet Örebro - Örebro Regional Development Council



Anna Ryott SOS Childrens Villages

George Said Youth in Action Project

Tapio Salonen Linnéuniversitetet - Institutionen för socialt arbete

Britta Schölin Forum för Familjevard

Jan Sjogerud Church of Sweden

Maria Svanström Gryningen, Örebro läns landsting

Urban Svensson Örebro Kommun - Örebro Municipality

Ann Tjernberg Västmanland Association of Local Authorities and County Council

Britt-Louise Toresson-Blohm Örebro University

Mimmi Westanau Arbetsmarknand och familjeförvaltningen, Eskilstuna kommun

Anneli Westling Socialförvaltningen Varbergs kommun

Eva Windelhed Stiftelsen Allmänna Barnhuset

Switzerland

Elena Gaia UNICEF - Regional Office for CEE/CIS

United Kingdom

Mohammed Bashir Core Assets Ltd

Richard Carter Richard Carter

Jeffrey Coleman British Association for Fostering and Adoption

Linda de Caestecker Public Health & Health Improvement - NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde

Melanie Duffield Child Poverty Unit England

Lynne Hill Children in Wales

Tony Ivens Children in Wales

Catherine (Pip) Jaffa Parents Advice Centre (Northern Ireland)

Peter Johnstone ISP Sussex

Pauline Leeson Children in Northern Ireland

John McKendrick Glasgow Caledonian University

Stephen McLeod Children and Young People's Specialist Services

Kate Mulley Action for Children

Annie Oliver SPAN

Sean O'Neill Children in Wales

Jenny Pearce University of Bedfordshire

Lorraine Reid Child Poverty Unit England

Heather Rushton Centre for Excellence in Outcomes

Tove Samzelius Single Parent Action Network (SPAN)

Emmanuel Sherwin IFCO

Melissa Jo Smith Home-Start International

Graeme Tiffany Dynamo International

ANNEX 2 – CONFERENCE PROGRAMME



WEDNESDAY, 3 NOVEMBER

9.00-17.00 Thematic working group workshops (EUROCHILD MEMBERS ONLY!)

(9.30-17.00) Children in alternative care (Bernadotte room)

(9.00-17.00) Family and parenting support (Blanka room)

(14.00-16.00) Participation of children and young people (Magnus room)

18.00 Opening ceremony at Örebro Castle

Irén Lejegren, Chairwoman, Örebro Regional Development Council

Mária Herczog, Eurochild President

Lena Holm, Secretary General, The Mayflower Charity Foundation

”Dancers of the Brighter future” Young dancers from Örebro led by the dance consultant Mia Eklund

19.00-20.00 Reception at the Elite Hotel, courtesy of Örebro Municipality hosted by Vice Mayor Anna Ågerfalk

THURSDAY, 4 NOVEMBER

OPENING PLENARY (Room Rikssalen)

09.00-09.45 Welcome

Chair: Mária Herczog, Eurochild President Maria Larsson, Swedish Minister for Children and the Elderly.

László Andor, EU Commissioner for employment, social affairs & inclusion

09.45-10.30 Chair: Hugh Frazer, Adjunct professor, Department of Applied Social Studies, National University of Ireland, Maynooth

The faces of child poverty in Sweden – Tapio Salonen, Professor in Social Work and leader of a research group on Citizen Participation and Social Inclusion at Linnaeus University, Sweden

11.00-11.45 Sector-lead model in the UK to improve outcomes for children – Heather Rushton, Deputy Director, Centre for Excellence in Outcomes

Discussion

11.45-12.30 Child poverty in Poland - Wielisława Warzywoda-Kruszyńska Director, Institute of Sociology, University of Lodz

Discussion

WORKSHOPS: WHAT KIND OF INVESTMENTS WORK BEST FOR CHILDREN? HOW DO DIFFERENT PROFESSIONS AND SECTORS WORK TOGETHER?

14.00 – 15.30 WORKSHOP SESSION 1

1A - The Young People at Risk initiative - Local cross-sectoral partnerships in practice (Room Bernadotte) - Angelika Krüger, YEPP – Youth Empowerment Partnership Programme & Anna Quigley, YPAR –Young People at Risk Initiative

1B - The UK child poverty act - implementation in partnership (Room Blanka) - Melanie Duffield & Lorraine Reid, Child Poverty Unit, UK government

1C - Service d'accueil pour les parents et leurs enfants placés hors du foyer familial - protéger et promouvoir leur contacts - Services for families with children in alternative care - protecting and promoting contact time (Room Rikssalen / FR-EN-FR translation) - Sabine Ischia, Conseil Régional du Bas-Rhin & Marie-Antoinette Nuffer, Apprentis d‟Auteuil, France

1D - Integrating migrants through early childhood care and education - from pilot to policy (Room Viktoria) - Veerle Vervaet, VBKJ – Resource training for early childhood education, Belgium

1E - Innovative partnership and participation in practice - strengthening families and communities (Room Länssalen) - Tove Samzelius & Annie Oliver, SPAN – Single Parent and Action Network, UK



16.00 – 17.30 WORKSHOP SESSION 2

2A - Enfants et families vivant dans la pauvreté - un avenir meilleur à travers de partenariats efficaces - Children and families experiencing poverty - better futures through improved parterships (Room Rikssalen / FR-EN-FR translation) - Bernard de Vos & Christelle Trifaux, Délégué Général de la Communauté Française aux Droits de l‟Enfant, Belgium

2B - The Triple P Positive Parenting Programme - improving public health & reducing health inequalities (Room Blanka) - Linda de Caestecker & Stephen McLeod, NHS Greater Glasgow and Health and Glasgow City Council, UK

2C - Preventing institutionalisation - promoting social inclusion of unaccompanied minors, (Room Bernadotte) - Anneli Westling, Municipality of Varberg, Sweden; ENSA network – European Network of Social Authorities

2D - Servizi integrati per bambini e famiglie di migranti - Integrated services for children & families of migrant background (Room Länssalen / IT-EN-IT translation) - Carmela Simbari, Daniela Cardinali & Rosangela Bozza, Il Grillo Parlante, Italy

2E - Family supporters - building bridges to promote social inclusion (Room Viktoria) - Heidi Braye & Kathy Jacobs, Kind & Gezin –Child & Family, Belgium

19.30-23.00 Conference Dinner at the Elite Hotel hosted by Örebro Regional Development Council Music entertainment

FRIDAY 5 NOVEMBER

STUDY VISITS

09.00–12.00 Study visits organised by the Örebro Municipality (see separate programme)

In parallel : Special Seminar for Swedish participants, chaired by Bodil Langberg, Secretary

General, Stiftelsen Allmänna Barnhuset (Children‟s Welfare Foundation) (Room Rikssalen)

PLENARY SESSION (Room Rikssalen)

14.00–14.30 Conference feedback from young people

14.30–15.30 Panel debate – added value of EU action on child poverty

Chair: Jana Hainsworth, Eurochild Secretary General

Panelists: Isabelle Maquet, European Commission DG Employment, Social Protection and Integration

Lotta Persson, Chair of the Association of directors of Swedish Social Welfare Sevices (FSS) and Social Director of Botkyrka

Bernard de Vos, Délégué Général des droits de l'enfant, Belgium

Manuel Miguens, European Network of Education Councils

Miquel Àngel Essomba Gelabert, UNESCO Centre of Catalonia – UNESCOCAT

Aagje Ieven, Eurohealthnet

CLOSING SESSION (Room Rikssalen)

16.00–17.00 Closing session

Representatives of the EU Presidency Trio: Philippe Courard, Secretary of State for Social Integration and the Fight Against Poverty, Belgium - Zoltán Balog, Representative of the

Hungarian Government

Christer Lenke, Head of Unit Social Welfare, Örebro Regional Development Council

Mária Herczog, Eurochild President

ANNEX 3 – WORKSHOPS SUMMARIES



1A - The Young People At Risk Initiative - Local Cross-Sectoral Partnerships in Practice

Abstract

The Youth Empowerment Partnership Programme (YEPP) implements a Concept of Change which recognises

young people as agents of change and promotes and advocates for youth and community empowerment in

disadvantaged areas across Europe. YEPP brings together local actors including youth to assess local

challenges and resources. This so called Local Support Group is a cross-sectoral body which includes

representatives from the public and independent sector and when possible also the private sector. YEPP is

currently being implemented in 19 Sites in 8 European countries.

In Dublin, Ireland, the YEPP Concept is being implemented by the Young People at Risk Initiative (YPAR).

YPAR has been able to solidify cross agency co-operations through the development of the YPAR Interagency

Protocol aiming at integrating services. Since its inception in March 2008 in the North East Inner City of Dublin,

over 15 agencies have formerly signed-up to operate the Protocol. To date the Protocol has been used on a

pilot basis with over 20 young people resulting in a number of inter-agency referrals being made, resulting in

better overall care for the children involved. The feedback from the agencies and young people involved has

been very positive.

The session will share YEPP‟s success in creating cross-sectoral partnerships at the local level, it will explain

the concept of the YPAR Protocol and the procedures used for implementation and how the YPAR Protocol

works and has contributed to further increasing cross-sectoral partnerships.

Speakers

Angelika Krüger was one of the initiators of the Youth Empowerment Partnership Programme (YEPP) and has

been the Programme Director since the programme started in 2001. Since 1996, she has been the Director of

the Institute for Community Education at the International Academy for Innovative Education, Psychology and

Economy (INAgGmbH) at the Freie Universität Berlin, a not for profit limited company which she co-founded.

Previously she has worked in educational research and innovation, as lecturer in teacher training and

consultant to the European Foundation Centre (EFC) and a number of German and international foundations.

She has established and worked for local, national and international support agencies and networks. Angelika

graduated from the Freie Universität Berlin with a degree in Educational Science/Pedagogy, Psychology and

Sociology.

Anna Quigley is the YPAR coordinator. Anna has worked in the North East Inner City of Dublin for a number of

years. Prior to coming to YPAR she worked with Citywide for twelve years as coordinator of the activities of

Citywide Drugs Crisis Campaign. Anna was also the Community representative on the National Drugs Strategy

Team. Before that Anna worked for the Dublin Inner City Partnership and Lourdes Youth and Community

Services.

Discussant

Graeme Tiffany has a background in youth work, community education and community development. Since

2000, he has been a freelance researcher, trainer, lecturer and education consultant with special interests in

detached and street-based youth work, informal education and young people‟s participation in decision-making.

Graeme is also a leading innovator in the use of philosophical tools to support learning. He is Project Director of

the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Community Philosophy Project, and leads a philosophy-inspired programme

for Sunderland City Council, in the North-east of England

As Vice-Chair of the Federation for Detached Youth Work, Graeme represents the UK in Dynamo International,

an international network of street educators. He is the author of Reconnecting Detached Youth Work:

Guidelines and Standards for Excellence (2007) and Learning from detached youth work: democratic education

(2008), published by the Nuffield Review of 14-19 education, for which he has been a Core Group member and

advisor to its Engaging Youth Enquiry.

Graeme is a part-time PhD student in philosophy of education at the Institute of Education, University of



London, where he is researching the link between the „celebration of Uncertainty‟ and democratic education.

Facilitator: Maarit Kuikka, Central Union for Child Welfare, FI

Rapporteur: Rauna Nerelli, The Finnish Children‟s Parliament Association, FI

1B - The UK Child Poverty Act - Implementation in Partnership

Abstract

The session will look at the UK Child Poverty Act outlining the work of the UK Government with local areas in

England to cooperate on child poverty and develop local child poverty strategies as required by Part 2 of the

Act. Effective local action on child poverty will support the UK Government in its overarching aim to eradicate

child poverty by 2020, and will rely on collaboration across a number of delivery partners and public services

including local authorities, employment and skills, police and probation, health, housing and transport. It will

summarise the progress to date in implementing Part 2 of the Act during 2010-11 and the lessons learned in

working to support and develop local partnership arrangements.

Speakers

Melanie Duffield joined the Government Economic Service in 2000 after having studied for a BSc in

Economics at Nottingham University. Between 2000 and 2006. Melanie held a number of posts in the

Department for Work and Pensions on labour market pensions policy and analysis, and completed an MSc in

Economics at Bristol University in 2003 specialising in areas of poverty and inequality. Melanie moved across

to the Treasury in September 2006 to lead on cross-cutting strategy and analysis on pensions followed by skills

and higher education policy. Since December 2010 Melanie has held the post of Head of Implementation in the

Child Poverty Unit (a cross DfE, DWP, HMT Unit) and has been leading the Unit‟s work on supporting delivery,

implementing the new local duties, managing the programme of child poverty pilots, and measurement of child

poverty.

Lorraine Reid joined the Civil Service in 1984 after having studied for a BA in History at Leicester University.

Lorraine has had numerous posts in various Government Departments but has specialised in children's

services since the mid 1990s working on policy and improving delivery in relation to children leaving care,

residential care and safeguarding. Three years ago Lorraine joined the Child Poverty Unit working on

supporting delivery, implementation and managing the local authority child poverty innovation pilots.

Discussant :

Caroline Fahey is Social Partnership Liaison Officer at the Society of St Vincent de Paul‟s (SVP) National

Office in Dublin. The Society of St Vincent de Paul is the largest charity of social concern and action in Ireland,

with over 9500 voluntary members and 500 staff. Caroline represents the Society at Social Partnership and on

the End Child Poverty Coalition, and is responsible for the collection and analysis of statistical information on

the needs and profile of the individuals and families being assisted by the SVP.

Prior to this Caroline worked with Jesuit Refugee Service Ireland, providing support to teachers in inner city

schools with large numbers of children from a migrant background; and in the Children‟s Research Centre,

Trinity College Dublin. Caroline is a graduate of University College Dublin and Trinity College Dublin.

Facilitator: Niamh Gallagher, Children‟s Rights Alliance, IE

Rapporteur: Lilia Kamenow, Eurochild Policy Assistant

1C -Services for families with children in alternative care - protecting and promoting

contact time

Abstract

The workshop will present a hostel service managed by the Foundation Apprentis d‟Auteuil which allows



families with children placed in alternative care to be temporarily reunited. During such periods, varying from a

few days a week to weekends or holiday periods, families live in apartments put at their disposal allowing them

to share daily routines and re-establish family bonds. During the placement children are under the responsibility

of their parents. The programme allows the family to gradually get custody rights and helps to prepare children

to return home.

The placement is decided beforehand, setting clear objectives and rules by common agreement with the

parents, child protection and judiciary authorities and the Apprentis d‟Auteil. The service is a particularly

innovative way of working between child protection services, judicial authorities and the Foundation Apprentis

d‟Auteil and clearly designed towards hosting not a child but a family, which in its turn receives its child or

children.

In 2009, more than 30 families were hosted over 600 days of presence. Every year, this service allows families

to get back together with their children placed in alternative care. An evaluation is underway (scheduled for late

June 2010), carried out by two social scientists from the University Paris X, on the educational practice of the

service, including interviews with service professionals, parents, social workers and users of SAJF services.

Speakers

Sabine Ischia has a Masters in Social Development and was the Director of Children and Social Integration

before becoming Director of Children and Family in the Bas-Rhin Departement. Trainer at the University of

Strasbourg, and at the Institute of Preparation for General Administration, she also works with social and health

training schools of the Bas-Rhin Department.

Initially trained as a special education teacher, Marie Antoinette Nuffer has worked in several associations in

the field of child protection and at the Bas-Rhin Department as a socio-educational consultant, responsible for a

team of social workers. Specialist on vulnerable children, she is now a trainer at the social workers school in

Strasbourg. From 2005 to 2008 she worked for the Fondation Apprentis d‟ Auteuil in the implementation of the

pilot and innovative project of the hosting service for children and their families which aims to support the

primary role of parents of children placed in institutions or foster care.

Discussant

Geert Jorgensen is president of the Joint Council for Child Issues in Denmark and director of the National

Organisation of Group Homes, Residential Homes and Special Schools.

Up till 1997 he gained a broad and lasting experience on children at risk through his work as director of different

schools and group homes. Since 1997 he has been working at an organisational level on development and

policy making in the social field with a special focus on children at risk. He has been member of official

committees regarding children in alternative care and juvenile delinquency. He is chair of a foundation that runs

a drop-in center for adults who have been placed in alternative care during their childhood and is a chair and

board member in several other organisations in the social field.

Facilitator: Kélig Puyet, SOS Children‟s Villages

Rapporteur: Mafalda Leal, Eurochild Policy Officer


Abstract

The session will present an action research project developed in Brussels under the authority of the

Commission of the Flemish community to increase the accessibility in early childhood care and education for

vulnerable groups of parents of young children. The project was developed and is implemented by the

Resource and Training Centre for Early Childhood Education (VBJK) in Flanders, the Belgian partner of

DECET - Diversity in Early Childhood Education and Training - a European network of teachers, professionals,

researchers and policy makers promoting and studying democratic childcare, while acknowledging the multiple

(cultural and other) identities of children and families.

Due to a persistent shortage of funded places in childcare, traditionally vulnerable families have little access to



quality child care provisions and consequently mothers have few opportunities for attending training, language

courses or applications for a job. The project facilitated facilitated access for newly arriving immigrants with

young children to child care centres and provided intensive in-service training on issues of respect for diversity.

Staff from ethnic minorities was recruited and offered qualifying training, in order to make the staff reflecting the

Brussels‟ population; and a structural collaboration between childcare provisions and the organisations

delivering guidance and training for newly arriving immigrants was set up.

The initial pilot phase included six child care services and promoted changed in visioning child care from „a

necessity for working parents‟ to a „meeting place‟ for children, parents and local community. Today the project

evolved into a structural project including 60 services in Brussels with concrete impact at policy level, such as

the decision by the Flemish government to allocate at least 20% of childcare places to vulnerable families.

The aim of the session is to show it is possible to move beyond pilot projects towards structural policy impact

and to discuss opportunities and pitfalls of such type of projects.

Speaker

VBJK Research and Resource centre for ECEC, Belgium is a resource, research and training centre in early

childhood education and care. It set up action research and participate in innovative projects in both national

and international contexts. Diversity, accessibility, quality in childcare and childcare in the city are core themes.

VBJK also develops educational material for people working in early childhood education and care: books,

folders and movies. VBJK is co-founder of DECET and is partner of the European Network Children in Europe.

Veerle Vervaet coordinates and manages action research on putting the social function of childcare into

practice. Accessibility, respect for diversity, parents participation and social participation are the key words in

this context. Veerle represents VBJK in the European DECET network. She is involved in several VBJK

publications.

Discussant

Éva Szomor is an early childhood development expert and specialist of the Hungarian Sure Start Program.

Since 2006 she works on the Hungarian program against child poverty, to bring children houses in

disadvantaged areas for very young children.

Éva has previously worked abroad namely in Mozambique, where she supported the establishment of a pre-

primary school for deaf children, and in Israel, as a development therapist and an expert for families with small

children taking part in a program to support disadvantaged areas.

Facilitator: Éva Izsák, ISSA – International Step by Step Association

Rapporteur: Àgnes Lux, Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Civil Rights in Hungary and

Ombudsman for children

1E - Innovative partnership and participation in practice: strengthening families and

communities

Abstract

Situated in one of the most deprived wards in the UK, Single Parent Action Network (SPAN) is a well-respected

NGO that has worked to improve the lives of disadvantaged families and children for more than 20 years.

SPAN has developed significant expertise in developing innovative and successful partnerships with numerous

stakeholders ranging from statutory agencies such as Jobcentre Plus, children‟s centres and the local library

service, to the voluntary sector, including large national organisations like Shelter and small grassroots

organisations such as Refugee Women of Bristol.

SPAN is a leading provider for group based parenting support through the delivery of the Strengthening

Families, Strengthening Communities programme, acting as a bridge between the large statutory sector and

the small organisations in the community. The session will showcase examples from local work in Bristol

highlighting good practice in developing innovative services in partnership with other organisations leading to

better outcomes for children and families. It will discuss the delivery of parenting support and adult education in

http://www.decet.org/

http://www.childrenineurope.org/



the context of the UK; how innovative and effective partnership work can benefit all parties involved;

participatory work in practice – how organisations can involve service users in service delivery, development

and campaigning; and ways of effectively engaging and support „hard-to-reach‟ families through partnership

work. The session will further present outcomes of the projects developed and delivered through partnership

work between statutory and voluntary sector organisations.

Speakers

Tove Samzelius, is the Director of SPAN Study Centre – a ground-breaking multi-cultural support and learning

centre for families situated in one of the most deprived and ethnically diverse areas of Bristol. Tove has

extensive experience of managing and developing innovative projects designed to empower and support

parents experiencing poverty and disadvantage. She has designed and managed participatory research

projects focusing on the experiences of single parent families experiencing poverty and social exclusion. Before

joining SPAN, Tove worked as a researcher specialising in gender and migration. She has also worked in the

European Parliament and is a fluent speaker of five languages. Tove has Master degrees in Social Science

Research Methods and in Sociology. She is a mother of two young children and spent her childhood in Örebro,

Sweden.

Annie Oliver is Single Parent Action Network‟s Parenting Support Manager. Annie has 19 years-experience of

working for SPAN in developing parent support services. Annie managed and developed SPAN‟s DSCF funded

Helpline with a team of single parent volunteers supporting parents in the most deprived wards of England and

Wales. Annie moved on to manage and deliver the Strengthening Families Strengthening Communities (SFSC)

parenting programme in the South West in partnership with the Race Equality Foundation, with flagship work in

the region. Annie has piloted work in partnership with schools and children‟s centres. Annie manages 200

Families Strengthening Communities facilitators across the South West. Annie has management and adult

teaching qualifications and is a parent of a disabled child as well as being a foster carer.

Discussant

At One Family Stuart Duffin is head of service for education and employability. Stuart began his career in

working with community based housing associations. He moved into academia as a research fellow at the

University of Glasgow where he developed an interest in social finance, community economic development and

community engagement. This led to appointments at the Universities of Roehampton; London Metropolitan;

Brunel and the London School of Economics and Political Science. Returning to Scotland he headed up

chambers of commerce at a time when the Scottish Civic Forum (for which he was appointed treasurer) was

pioneering a new approach to civic engagement; he also was chair of Social Responsibility Scotland. Moving to

Ireland, Stuart has held roles in the community and voluntary sector particularly in the field of capacity building;

local employment services and most recently as manager of the InnerCity Renewal Group. Currently, he

is Leader of the Community Development Strand in the Adult Learning Bachelor of Arts Programme in All

Hallows College; Chair of Chrysalis Community Drugs Project and adviser to the New Communities

Partnership. He is a graduate of the Universities of Cambridge; Heriot-Watt; Edinburgh and UCL (Belgium).

Facilitator: Tony Ivens, Children in Wales, UK

Rapporteur: Dani Koleva, National Network for Children Association, Bulgaria

2A - Children and families experiencing poverty - better futures through improved parterships

Abstract

The national and international indicators are worrisome. Until a few years ago, the first victims of poverty were

the elderly. The previous century has partly sheltered the elderly from poverty, and now the concern is more on

children.

As part of participatory work, the institution of the General Delegate for the Rights of the Child went out to meet

welfare professionals and persons benefiting from social aid to collect their testimonies on the realities they

were living. To reach out to people concerned, a partnership was formed with five youth aid district councils,

gathering teachers, youth aid providers, general welfare services, etc. In this way, they were able to reach

social assistance beneficiaries living in urban, semi-urban, rural or semi-rural districts.



It has been noticed that few articles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child stand the test of poverty. On

the contrary, a whole set of basic rights is being violated. Recipients of social assistance, considered as experts

on poverty issues, reported dysfunctional aid systems and shortcoming and made recommendations in various

areas: care, support for poor families, training, leisure, access to benefits, participation, school, etc…

This work resulted in a written report that was handed over to Belgian authorities in November 2009 and in a

video tool accompanying the report and highlighting the difficulties faced by families and youth living in poverty.

On the basis of the report, the institution decided to study some of the areas at greater depth (poverty and

school, how to contribute to reducing social inequalities?, etc…) in order to propose concrete changes in

practice to the political authorities. Many of these proposals aim at explicitly improving cooperation between

services and stakeholders from various subsidizing authorities.

The session will present the written report and the video prepared in the framework of the project described.

Speakers

Bernard De Vos is a specialized educator and holds a special degree in Islamic studies. Since March 2008 he

is the children‟s ombudsman of the French speaking Community of Belgium. He is author of several books

relating to issues of childhood and youth including "Les Apaches des parkings, adolescents des villes et des

ghettos" published by Labor in 1999. Director for fifteen years of the NGO SOS Jeunes-Quartier Libre in

Brussels, he initiated many innovative devices for the support and protection of youth (Samarkand asbl

Solidarcité, Synergy 14, ...) . He served several terms in decision-making or consultation bodies on the same

subjects.

Holding degrees in law and criminology, Christelle Trifaux has been working within the children‟s

ombudsman‟s office of the French speaking Community of Belgium for nearly 10 years. As part of her duties

she is responsible for the issues related to juvenile delinquency, sexual delinquency and child poverty. She is

also engaged in other activities, for instance within the Youth Committee of the Human Rights league.

Discussants

Susanne Brånhalt, is head of division at the social welfare office in the district of Lärjedalen in Gothenburg.

She has worked in the area since 2000 as a social worker and from 2007 as Head of division for the unit on

youth and families with income support. The main focus is to help them to become self-supporting and by this

improve the family situation. In her decision making work at the social welfare office she always takes the best

interest of the child into consideration.

Malin Johansson, is a social worker at the social welfare office in the district of Lärjedalen in Gothenburg. She

has worked in the area since 2000 mainly with families living on income support. She has also worked as

supervisor on a device of families and single households with health problems. During 2010-2012 she is project

manager of a safety project to improve the employees working situation at the social welfare office.

Facilitator: Ninetta Kazantsis, Pancyprian Coordinating Committee for the Protection and Welfare of

Children, CY

Rapporteur: Florence Grandvalet, Eurochild associate member, FR

2B - The Triple P Positive Parenting Programme - improving public health & reducing health

inequalities

Abstract

Glasgow has major public health challenges including lower life expectancy than other parts of the UK,

significant overconsumption of alcohol and wide disparities in health between the most affluent and most

disadvantaged. Many of these health problems relate to poverty and disadvantage and there are relatively high

rates of children living in low income families. In some areas of the city, 68% of children live in low income

families and 41% in out of work families.

An important aspect of their endeavours to improve health and address inequalities in the city is to have a



stronger focus on interventions in the early years of life. This includes implementation of a parenting framework

which has been agreed between the NHS and the local authority. This framework adopts the Positive

Parenting Programme Triple P as their preferred programme. This programme was chosen due to its strong

evidence base that includes trials in USA and Australia showing population level improved outcomes of

reduced child behaviour problems, non-accidental injuries and out of home placements. The Triple P Positive

Parenting Programme has both universal and targeted aspects with a range of levels, intensities and modes of

delivery.

The programme was launched in Glasgow in May 2010 with a media and information campaign. Existing staff

across a range of agencies are being trained in delivering the programme with families at seminars, in groups

and in one to one contacts. A seminar programme is also being rolled out for all parents of children entering

primary school.

The planning and implementation of the programme has involved effective partnerships with Health, Education,

Social Work, Culture and Sport services and the Police. All of these partners have agreed to prioritise the early

years to improve health, reduce social problems and reduce crime.

The presentation will describe the approach being taken by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde in partnership

with Glasgow City Council to provide universal access to the evidence based positive parenting programme

Triple P. The presentation will describe the commitment by local agencies to the importance of the early years

to address Glasgow‟s major health challenges and the rationale for adopting Triple P. The programme,

including the universal campaign, the different levels of the intervention and the leadership and organisation of

the programme in Glasgow will be explained. The speakers will then report on the challenges they have

encountered in implementing evidence based practice with a multi-disciplinary workforce and how they have

been overcome as well as describe their evaluation methodology.

Speakers :

Linda de Caestecker is Director of Public Health with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. She is a joint Director

of Public Health with Glasgow City Council. She was previously a consultant in public health with a special

interest in maternal and child public health. She has also held the post of Head of the Child and Maternal

Health Unit of the Scottish Executive Health Department. Her clinical background is in obstetrics and

gynaecology and she held a variety of posts in this specialty in the UK and in West Africa. Her research

interests are in early childhood interventions and in the management of change in large organisations. She

leads the planning and evaluation of the Parenting Framework in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. She is an

Honorary Professor of the University of Glasgow.

After completing his degree in economics and social policy Stephen McLeod worked in the social housing

sector and for statutory and voluntary sector housing providers in some of the most deprived areas of the West

of Scotland. He moved on to develop and manage services for vulnerable young homeless people before

moving to the voluntary sector delivering community mental health services to roofless young people and adults

in Glasgow. For the last 11 years he has held posts developing policy and strategy for mental health services

for vulnerable children and young people. In 2003 Stephen moved to the NHS to plan specialist child health

services for children and young people and in April 2008 Stephen became General Manager of NHS GGC

Children and Young People's Specialist Services and manages a wide range of specialist community health

services.

Discussant

Ansger Perquy, graduated as special educator in 1988 at IPSOC, Kortrijk (Belgium). Studied at the University

of Gent from 1990 until 1994 and holds a master in the psychology, a master in pedagogic and a master in the

orthopedagogic. He worked from 1988 until 1996 with children with physical disabilities. From 1996 until 2004

he was active in the sector of adult education. From 2004 until now he works for Gezinsbond. Gezinsbond

works with 10 000 volunteers and Ansger is responsible for the support of the volunteers in there engagements

in the region south of West-Flanders. He also supports the volunteers witch started the project „Family‟s

support Family‟s‟, a project which helps families of new Belgians and families with less opportunities to develop

their social network.

Facilitator: Aagje Ieven, Eurohealthnet

Rapporteur: Kerstin Neander, Ӧrebro County, SE



2C - Preventing institutionalization - promoting social inclusion of unaccompanied

minors

Abstract

The ENSA network aims to encourage exchanges between diverse cultural models and experiences in the

social care sector, to deepen the dialogue concerning social policies with the European Institutions and to

participate in innovative European projects. A range of social care issues are addressed through five thematic

groups, namely: „Child‟; „Youth‟; „Disability‟; Elderly; and „Social Inclusion‟.

The Child working group particularly focuses on issues around children and their families, such as combating

violence, promoting children‟s rights, social inclusion and high-quality education. The working group has

organised study visits, submitted a successful Daphne project (“Transnational local support programme to

prevent violence against and abuse of children in families”) and taken part in several exchanges on topics

including alternative strategies to the institutionalisation of children that are victims of abuse, unaccompanied

minors, and assistive technologies for children with disabilities.

The administration of social services in Varberg has been a member of the ENSA network from the beginning

of 2009 and has proved to be an important part of their work to develop new actions & improve social services.

The municipality of Varberg is a medium-sized municipality, situated in the west cost of Sweden, 75 km south

of Gothenburg. It has around 57 000 inhabitants. The social services in Varberg work for financial and social

security for its inhabitants. It is responsible for elderly and disabled care and support, advice and other services

for children, young people and adults facing social and financial difficulties.

In this workshop they will provide an introduction to the ENSA network and how Varberg has and is benefiting

from being a member of this network. This will be followed by an outline of the work undertaken in Varberg to

protect children with social difficulties, with a particular focus on unaccompanied children and children

experiencing problems in their home environment to avoid placement in institutional settings.

Speakers

Anneli Westling graduated in social science in 1984 and in 2001 trained as a family therapist. She is a social

worker, mainly working with immigrants, children and their families. She worked in different Swedish

municipalities, Falun in Mid Sweden, Göteborg and Varberg on the west coast. Since three years she has been

working as the head of a unit of family work in the department of Social Service of Varberg Municipality. In 2008

she has been given the opportunity to start a home for unaccompanied children refugees.

Discussant

Mohammed Bashir has been working in the field of social work for a total of eighteen years, thirteen of those

years of social work experience in a range of settings including residential child care, statutory child protection

and voluntary children and families teams. His current role at Core Assets is as a children‟s cultural advisor,

this entails developing services for separated children, which includes designing and delivering training for staff

and foster carers, advice and consultation, research and enhancing the support provided to children and foster

carers. He is also involved in national research in an advisory capacity for the British Association for Adoption

and Fostering (BAAF) looking at the experiences of unaccompanied minors in foster care. In addition, he is also

a visiting lecturer in a number of Universities in England in relation to separated children. Finally, his role also

involves supporting the international teams in Finland and Sweden with training, advice and guidance for both

foster carers and staff.

Facilitator: John Mckendrick, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK

Rapporteur: Sean O'Neill, Children in Wales, UK



2D - Integrated services for children & families of migrant background

Abstract

The center Il Grillo Parlante (the Talking Cricket) deals with children aged 12 months to 18 years. Supported by

the municipality of Petriano and the Marche region (Italy), it provides comprehensive services, including reading

and music labs (Suzuki method), bio-energetic and butterfly massage labs, self-esteem groups and meeting for

parental support. The activities, aimed in particular at women and children, are carried out through a process of

body awareness.

The team working at the center has chosen an approach based on families involvement and on an active

participation of parents in the Grillo Parlante‟s projects. This has led to a double learning path, both of the

children and of the parents, limiting costs to the children care, providing parents with practical skills and making

them feel the joy of parenthood.

Gallo di Petriano, where the center Grillo Parlante carries out its activities, is a village with a high percentage of

immigrants. From an analysis they have conducted, those immigrants did not benefit from services in the past,

since they deemed them to expensive. That is why Il Grillo Parlante presented a project to make 50% of the

places freely available for immigrant children, starting at the same time a training activity to foster self-

entrepreneurship for immigrant women to create home kindergartens.

Thanks to the support of the Pesaro Urbino province and the Marche region, all services are free for the

immigrant families, thus making the center a room for cohesion, dialogue and skills sharing. This is of the

utmost importance because it grants the opportunity of getting to know each other and starting a process of

mutual learning which involves both the children and their families.

The center Grillo Parlante has also submitted the “Evergreen EAR (Emotion and Respect)” (Daphne

programme), through which an international network has been built that encompasses organisations from

Spain, Italy and Romania, being a huge opportunity for mutual learning. This fruitful partnership will continue

independently from the economic support.

The workshop will be divided into three main parts:

1) The viewpoint of the child: theoretical and practical hints at the bio-energetic game with a body

approach, working on emotional first aid and on how to cope with traumas (the support of videos and

other materials will be used).

2) The care relationship – resources and possibilities: stories from families, building a group fairy-tale,

working on how to prevent hyper-protection.

3) Building a national and international network and the presentation of the Evergreen EAR project.

Speakers:

Daniela Cardinali since 2004 is a founding member and educator at Il Grillo Parlante in Petriano (Italy). As a

teacher she is in charge of most of the recreational / teaching activities with children. She also deals with the

organizational aspects of the center and ensures that the services offered are easily accessible to users. She is

involved in the administrative and financial issues too.

Rosangela Bozza graduated in law in 2005 and held a master degree in human rights and family law at UNAM

(National Autonomous University of Mexico) in 2008. She had her legal practice focusing on family law and

children‟s rights. In 2008, she undertook a research on "A comparative analysis of adoptions in Italy and

Mexico". In 2009/10 she became responsible of the legal unit and international relations at CDEA (Centre for

Research and studies on adoptions). She undertook studies on adoptions in many countries of Latin America.

She also cooperated with national authorities to streamline legislative measures and make the procedures

related to the adoption in Mexico more flexible. She participated in several conferences and seminars on topics

related to international protection of the rights of children and young people, adoptions and family policies. She

cooperates actively with The Talking Cricket.

Carmela Simbari graduated in humanities in 1994 at the University of Urbino where she also carried out

research activities. In 2004 she founded The Talking Cricket where she is counselor. She is specializing in

conducting classes of bioenergetic exercises at the Institute of Psychology, somatosensory relationships in



Milan. She is the creator and manager of the "Tell me, I'm listening" project to support parents, which promotes

an approach based on body awareness. She is editor in chief of the quarterly magazine Prisma, published by

The Talking Cricket centre, which aims at promoting a culture of childhood. Educational coordinator and legal

representative of the Centre is mainly in charge of enhancing the local and international networks and

fundraising.

Discussant:

Tine Rommens is staff member of the team „Diversity and Children‟s Rights‟ of Kind en Gezin - Child and

Family. Child and Family is a Flemish governmental agency with responsibility for young children and families

in Flanders (northern part of Belgium). Its main task is to implement government policy in the fields of

preventive care, child care services, family support, diversity and children‟s rights. Tine works for Kind en Gezin

- Child and Family since 2004. She studied educational sciences at the University of Leuven.

Facilitator: Ivano Abbruzzi, Fondazione l‟Albero della Vita, IT

Rapporteur: Agata D‟Addato, Eurochild Policy Officer

2E - Family supporters - building bridges to promote social inclusion

Abstract

Kind en Gezin - Child and Family is a governmental agency charged with the promotion and organization of

child care and welfare in Flanders (Belgium). One of the main fields of activity is preventive family support.

Preventive family support is the umbrella term for preventive social- and health services to families with children

between 0 and 3 years and vulnerable pregnant women. The free preventive family support is provided from

the infant health centres in Flanders. Child and Family realises that poverty and social exclusion mortgage too

frequently the future of many families and their children. Therefore it is crucial to look at strategies to raise the

accessibility of services and improve their effectiveness.

To anticipate well-coordinated on the support questions and to „connect‟ the services with the needs of socially

vulnerable families, Child and Family introduced working with Family Supporters - experts by experience in

poverty and social exclusion as well as intercultural mediators - as a particular and meaningful perspective in

the implementation of the preventive family support.

The core function of the family supporter is `to connect‟. The existing gap between socially vulnerable families

and the society is echoed in the service of Child and Family among others by reciprocal mis- or no

understanding of needs, values, proposals or recommendations. Here the family supporters who have

themselves the experience of poverty and exclusion, plays an important role. They can support the families by

paying attention to the social and complex situation of deprivation, migration or exclusion. Furthermore they

contribute - by their function-specific training and their personal experience - in a unique manner to insert the

perspective of poverty and thereby to bridge the gap.

The family supporter „connects‟ on three dimensions in the service and the organisation, using several methods

to „connect‟ for example listening, clarifying meanings, holding mirrors, stimulating reflection and fostering

empowerment: (1) by connecting each social vulnerable family in their family project; (2) by connecting in the

interaction between each social vulnerable family and their service provider(s); (3) by connecting the

organisation and the socially vulnerable families. Since 2008, one family supporter works exclusively on the

latter dimension in the new created job profile of „consultant – expert by experience‟. This consultant function, in

addition to the family supporters working in the field, contributes to strengthen and enlarge a platform that

enables the improvement of the services for all families, including the most vulnerable.

Speakers

Heidi Braye is a staff member of the department „Preventive family support‟ and a Consultant– Expert by

experience in poverty, migration and social exclusion at the Kind en Gezin - Child and Family. She graduated in

Youth and disabled care in 2003 as a specified Expert by experience in poverty and social exclusion. As such

she started to work at the Kind en Gezin – Child and Family in 1996 to become since 2008 a pioneer in the

implementation of a new function within Child and Family: Consultant – Expert by experience. In addition, she

is a freelance worker and trainer on „Clarifying the meaning of poverty and social exclusion.‟



Kathy Jacobs is a staff member of the department „Preventive family support‟ at the Kind en Gezin – Child and

Family. She graduated in Social Educational sciences, University of Leuven in 1994. After obtaining her

diploma, she worked as a social worker in residential settings of Youth Care (1995-2004) to become a

coordinator of EI-project (participator in European Triple E-project) (2004-2006). In her current position she is

responsible for the implementation in the preventive family support of several themes, strategies, perspectives

related to diversity and child rights.

Discussant

Margy Whalley has managed multi-disciplinary early years services in Brazil, Papua New Guinea and

England. She was the founding Head of the Pen Green Centre for Under 5‟s and their families and has worked

there since 1983. She is currently Director of the Research, Development and Training Base at the Pen Green

Centre and is involved in research, training and consultancy work nationally and internationally. Margy‟s team

evaluated the Corby Sure Start programme and developed a range of innovative methods for practitioners

committed to researching their own practice. Margy and the Research team are currently developing practice

based consortia in Northamptonshire using practitioner led research projects to inform and improve practice.

All of the research team‟s work has a strong outcomes focus. Most recently, research base staff have been

invited to support Northamptonshire County Council‟s project with the DCSF (DfE) on Narrowing the Gap.

Facilitator: Melissa Jo Smith, Home Start International

Rapporteur: Anne Williams, Eurochild associate member, FR

ANNEX 4 – WORKSHOPS ACCOMPANYING BRIEFINGS



1A - The Young People at Risk initiative - Local cross-sectoral partnerships in practice

1A.What is YPAR?

YPAR (Young People at Risk) is an interagency initiative in the North Inner City that works to support, facilitate

and implement an integrated approach to meeting the needs of young people at risk in the North Inner City

community.

YPAR defines a young person at risk as a child/young person aged 0 to 18 years experiencing significant

personal, family, educational or social problems.

YPAR is run by an interagency Steering Group, which is made up of representatives from the statutory,

voluntary and community sectors:

HSE, Dublin City Council, an Garda Siochana, Probation Service, CDYSB, NEWB, Irish Youth Foundation,

NYP1, NYP2, CASPr Afterschools Project, Wexford Centre, Inner City Renewal Group, Inner City

Organisations Network, Ozanam House Resource Centre, Lourdes Youth and Community Services, Hill St.

FRC

In order to ensure that the work of YPAR can be carried out, five agencies - HSE, DCC, Probation, CDYSB, IYF

- have committed to contribute to funding the salary of the YPAR Co-ordinator.

What is the role of YPAR?

The role of YPAR is to support, facilitate and implement an interagency approach to meeting the needs of

young people at risk in the North Inner City. So what does this mean?

In the North Inner City, there are lots of different projects, agencies and services that work with young people

and their families e.g.

Youth Projects

Community Development Projects

Afterschools Projects

Drug Projects

Family Support Projects

Community Training Workshops

Youthreach

Childcare Services

Public Health Nurses

Social Services/Social Workers

Specialist services e.g. early intervention, pyschological

Garda e.g. JLO service

Youth Diversion Projects

Probation Services

School services (Home School Liaison, School Completion etc.)

Education Welfare services

Housing welfare services

Residential services

Aftercare services

Respite services

If all of these services co-operate with each other and know what each other is doing, then the young people they

work with and their families will get a better service and the overall community in the North Inner City will benefit. It

is YPAR‟s job to bring the services together so that they can work together more effectively and efficiently.



How does YPAR carry out this role?

There are three key elements that YPAR is working to put in place to support and facilitate interagency working.

1) Information 2) Relationships and networking 3) Practical tools

1. Information

In order to be able to work together, agencies need to know what each other is doing, how they do it and who

does it. YPAR„s role is to ensure that clear, relevant and up-to-date information is available, accessible and in

wide circulation on all existing services.

2. Relationships/networking

Agencies need to build good working relationships with each other; YPAR‟s role is to provide ongoing and

regular opportunities for contact, networking and joint training amongst all relevant agencies.

3. Practical tools for interagency working.

Agencies need to have practical guidelines for working together that set out key principles and practices. YPAR

is currently working with two key tools, the YPAR Protocol and the Strengthening Families Programme(SFP).

Key elements of YPAR Protocol.

Starting point – agency contact with a young person at risk

Taking on the role of the lead agency

Obtaining consent of the family

Identifying and contacting other agencies

Setting up Protocol meetings

Agreeing plan with consent of all parties

Active role of all agencies in delivering on plan

Confidentiality

Record keeping/Data Protection

Review

Strengthening Families Programme

Strengthening Families Programme(SFP) is a skills based programme for teenagers and parents, which is

being delivered in the North Inner City as an interagency initiative.

Interagency planning, training and implementation

Interagency facilitation of all sessions

Referrals of families from across a range of agencies

Interagency evaluation

Contact details

Anna Quigley, Co-ordinator - 087 691 4154

Frank Mulville, Protocol Co-ordinator - 086 843 1421

[email protected]

Ballybough Community Centre, Ballybough Road, Dublin 3

mailto:[email protected]



1C - Services for families with children in alternative care - protecting and promoting

contact time

Pôle Aide à la Personne - Direction de l‟Enfance et de la Famille - Service d‟accueil du Jeune

et de la Famille

I. Présentation du dispositif

1.1. Création du SAJF :

La Fondation d‟Auteuil a ouvert en janvier 2006 à Strasbourg, 8 avenue de la forêt noire, le Service d‟Accueil

du Jeune et de la Famille (SAJF), conventionné et financé par le Conseil Général dans le cadre de sa mission

d‟aide sociale à l‟enfance.

La création du SAJF dans le Bas-Rhin vient répondre à un besoin repéré dans le cadre de l‟état des lieux

fondant les orientations dégagées par le plan d‟actions enfance famille 2005-2009. Il était en effet relevé que

certains parents avaient tendance à démissionner dans le cadre de placements administratifs, tandis que

d‟autres ne trouvaient pas leur place dans la prise en charge de leur enfant dans le cadre de placements

judicaires.

Par ailleurs, il est apparu que l‟exercice des droits d‟hébergement pouvaient régulièrement poser problème à :

- des familles dont les parents ne remplissaient pas les conditions de logement nécessaires pour

accueillir leurs enfants : logement précaire (squatt, logement chez un tiers...), trop exigu, en CHRS

ou CADA, à l‟hôtel, absence de logement pour les parents séparés qui vivent loin et viennent voir leur

enfant dans le département...

- des familles qui avaient besoin d‟être accompagnées socio éducativement quelques temps

pour une reprise de vie commune entre parents et enfants (familles ayant bénéficié de droits de

visites médiatisées à Espace Rencontre et pour lesquelles le juge accorde les droits d‟hébergement,

familles recomposées pour lesquelles un temps et un espace pour l‟un des parents avec ses enfants

semblent nécessaire pour la bonne intégration de chacun dans la cellule familiale...).

Souvent ce sont des situations temporaires qui correspondent à une période de changement et de fragilité pour

les parents : séparation du couple, changement d‟emploi, chômage, déménagement, problème de santé, fin

d‟incarcération voire liberté provisoire quand les parents gardent le droit d‟hébergement...

Aussi, il a semblé nécessaire de développer l‟accompagnement des parents afin de permettre le maintien du

lien nécessaire à la construction de l‟enfant et favoriser si possible un retour de l‟enfant dans sa famille

d‟origine.

Dans ce contexte, le SAJF a été autorisé par le Conseil Général du Bas-Rhin à compter de janvier 2006. Il

s‟inscrit dans l‟axe n°6 et la fiche d‟action n°40 du plan d‟actions du Conseil Général du Bas-Rhin en faveur de

l‟enfance et de la famille. Il s‟agit de «maintenir les liens» et « favoriser le développement du lien

parent/enfant » en créant « des structures d‟accueil permettant l‟exercice du droit d‟hébergement».

La loi du 5 mars 2007 vient confirmer l‟inscription du SAJF dans les orientations nationales relatives à

l‟évolution de la protection de l‟enfance. Celle-ci vise en effet à renforcer les droits, devoirs et implications des

parents ainsi qu‟à favoriser le maintien des liens entre frères et sœurs à moins que ce ne soit contraire à leur

intérêt supérieur.

En 2006, le SAJF exerçait son activité au sein d‟un appartement. En 2007, au regard des demandes

croissantes et du bilan positif de l‟année 2006, le Conseil Général a autorisé et financé l‟ouverture d‟un second

appartement. Le nombre de journées d‟ouverture et de groupes familiaux accueillis est en constante

augmentation depuis l‟ouverture.

1.2. Caractéristiques de la prestation :

Le SAJF intervient en direction des familles dont les enfants sont confiés au Conseil Général du Bas-Rhin au

titre de la protection de l‟enfance dans un cadre administratif et judiciaire et dont les parents ne peuvent

exercer dans des conditions satisfaisantes leur plein droit d‟hébergement et de sortie à leur domicile. Le SAJF



met à disposition des parents et de leur(s) enfant(s) un appartement leur permettant de se retrouver dans un

cadre chaleureux, tout en leur apportant un accompagnement socio-éducatif.

L‟objectif premier du SAJF est de favoriser et développer le lien parents-enfants par un travail sur la parentalité

et la responsabilité parentale. L‟objectif est de recréer des liens familiaux entre les parents et leurs enfants et

de les accompagner vers l‟hébergement autonome avec retour de l‟enfant dans sa famille.

Deux éducateurs spécialisés intervenant chacun à hauteur de 0,5 ETP assurent l‟accompagnement des

familles. Ils accueillent les familles à leur arrivée, leur rappellent les objectifs et règles du week-end et les

aident à s‟installer. Ils interviennent ensuite si besoin sur le déroulement du week-end pour des conseils d‟ordre

éducatif, des idées d‟activités, un rappel du cadre. Le départ est marqué par un temps d‟échange permettant

de réaliser le bilan du séjour, de prévoir les prochains et d‟organiser les modalités de leur mise en œuvre.

Les travailleurs sociaux bénéficient de l‟encadrement d‟un chef de service expérimenté à hauteur de 0,13 ETP.

Les familles effectuent des séjours variant d‟une demi-journée pour des parents bénéficiant d‟un droit de sortie

à 2 jours pour des parents bénéficiant de droits d‟hébergement. Ces séjours permettent au groupe familial de

vivre ensemble un moment de vie en dehors de leur quotidien tout en conservant un cadre et des règles à

respecter.

Depuis février 2009, le SAJF a quitté les deux appartements avenue de la forêt noire pour intégrer un pavillon à

Lingolsheim. Le pavillon, dispose de 3 niveaux, chacun ayant été aménagé en appartements autonomes afin

d‟accueillir jusqu‟à 3 groupes familiaux en simultané. Il est par ailleurs entouré d‟un jardin permettant les

activités extérieures.

1.3. Financement et activité du SAJF:

Depuis 2006, les bilans d‟activités de la structure ont démontré l‟adaptation de la réponse aux besoins du

Service de Protection de l‟Enfance. Aussi, le Conseil Général a renouvelé la convention de financement du

SAJF en 2007 puis en 2008-2009 et en 2010-2011.

La dotation du Conseil Général a régulièrement augmenté afin de pendre en compte les augmentations

annuelles de l‟activité du dispositif :

Années Montant de la dotation

2006 53018€

(dont 6425€ de frais de 1ère

installation non renouvelables)

2007 46593€ + 12322€

(avenant au 1er

octobre 2007 pour l‟ouverture du second appartement)

2008-2009 98572€

2010-2011 101000€

Nombre de Réalisé 2006

(1 apt)

Prévision 2008-09

(2 apts)

Réalisé 2008 Réalisé 2009

(au 31/09/09)

Journées réalisées

196 381 526

420

(activité prévisionnelle de 630

journées en 2009)

Séjours des groupes

familiaux 98 200 268

210

(activité prévisionnelle de 315

séjours en 2009)

Groupes

familiaux accueillis 16 20 23 29

Le plan d‟action prévoyait l‟ouverture d‟un appartement pour 40 séjours, l‟activité du SAJF a donc largement

dépassé les prévisions du plan en essayant de maintenir une régularité des séjours pour les groupes familiaux

et en permettant l‟occupation des appartements (de 150m2) par deux groupes familiaux à la fois lorsqu‟il s‟agit

d‟un parent et d‟un seul enfant par exemple. Dans ce cas, les parents sont toujours associés à la démarche.

Cette occupation d‟un même appartement par plusieurs groupes familiaux favorise par ailleurs les rencontres



et échanges entre parents.

Les groupes familiaux effectuent en moyenne un à deux séjours par mois d‟une durée de deux jours. La durée

de prise en charge peut varier d‟une famille à l‟autre entre quelques mois et 2 ans selon la situation de la

famille au moment du premier accueil. Une vigilance particulière est portée à l‟évolution de la situation des

parents comme critère de poursuite ou de fin de mesure (démarches effectuées pour l‟accès à l‟exercice

autonome du droit d‟hébergement, progression dans la relation parent-enfant). Il ne s‟agit pas pour la famille de

« s‟installer ».

Par ailleurs, le service est très sollicité par le SPE. Les travailleurs sociaux se sont bien appropriés le projet et y

font régulièrement appel.

II. La plus-value du dispositif:

2.1. L‟évolution des situations familiales

Ce service répond de fait à un véritable besoin qui a pu être satisfait au delà des prévisions grâce à un travail

de partenariat entre l‟équipe du SAJF et le SPE. Une évolution positive de la situation des parents est

constatée. Ils reprennent leur place auprès de leur enfant au fur et à mesure des séjours. Concrètement, on

note :

- la transformation des droits de sorties en droits d‟hébergement

- l‟élargissement des droits d‟hébergement

- l‟accès à l‟exercice des droits d‟hébergement de façon autonome

- des mainlevées de placements

En 2008-09, sur 13 groupes familiaux sortants, on note une évolution positive pour 10 d‟entre eux :

- 5 parents exercent leur droit d‟hébergement à leur propre domicile.

- 5 familles ont pu assumer un retour à temps complet des enfants au domicile.

Le SAJF œuvre ainsi à la préservation et au maintien du lien parent-enfant au travers du soutien des

compétences parentales. Il s‟inscrit dans une finalité de sortie du dispositif.

2.2. La complémentarité de l‟offre avec l‟existant

Le SAJF travaille en étroite collaboration avec le Service de Protection de l‟Enfance ainsi que les structures

d‟accueil auxquelles sont confiés les enfants (établissements, assistantes familiales).

Une prise en charge complémentaire à l‟offre d‟Espace rencontre des associations financées par

le Conseil Général et des établissements :

Espace-Rencontre de ces associations et les établissements habilités ASE mettent en œuvre les visites

médiatisées pour les enfants confiés aux assistantes familiales et aux structures d‟accueil du département.

Le SAJF permet d‟apporter une réponse complémentaire à l‟exercice des droits des familles en permettant aux

parents qui bénéficient d‟un droit de sortie ou d‟hébergement d‟être néanmoins accompagnés dans l‟exercice

de leur fonction parentale. Dans ce cadre, le SAJF participe à la construction d‟un parcours vers l‟autonomie

des parents dans la prise en charge de leur enfant. Il peut permettre de consolider le travail entamé dans le

cadre de visites médiatisées et une relation existante entre le parent et l‟enfant, dans un espace intime à l‟abri

du regard des autres.

Un travail de responsabilisation du parent dans le cadre d‟une mesure de placement:

L‟intervention du SAJF est construite de façon complémentaire au travail éducatif et avec la famille réalisée par

le lieu de placement ou le Service de Protection de l‟Enfance. Si la mesure de placement reste en vigueur

aussi bien dans un cadre administratif que judicaire, l‟action du SAJF, en parallèle, vise à maintenir ou rendre

au parent sa place d‟adulte auprès de son enfant.

Dans cet objectif la notion de « parent accueillant » est mise en avant par l‟équipe éducative du SAJF. Le

parent est valorisé. Un travail sur la confiance est recherché, tout en imposant un cadre à respecter, le temps

nécessaire à la construction ou reconstruction de la relation.

Pendant toute la durée de l‟accueil, les enfants sont sous la responsabilité de leurs parents qui exercent



pleinement leur autorité parentale. Ils sont reconnus dans leur fonction de parents, même si cet ancrage dans

la réalité les renvoie tant à leurs responsabilités qu‟à leurs capacités réelles et à leurs difficultés. Cette prise de

conscience devient alors un élément moteur pour permettre aux parents d‟avancer. Ils se remobilisent pour un

« après ».

L‟appartement, organisé comme un lieu familial et autonome, est une aide permettant au parent de se mettre à

l‟aise, de créer un « chez soi ». Il organise son temps avec l‟enfant selon ses souhaits sans les contraintes

horaires imposées dans les institutions, ou la proximité de celle-ci lui rappelant la mesure de placement. Il

redevient responsable de l‟enfant à travers des tâches quotidiennes (activités, préparation du repas,

organisation de la toilette, du lever et du coucher…).

III. Perspectives :

Suite à autorisation du Conseil Général, la Fondation d‟Auteuil a ouvert en août 2008, la maison d‟enfants à

caractère social St François d‟Assise pour l‟accueil de 62 enfants (fratries, adolescents et jeunes majeurs).

Aussi, au terme de ces ouvertures de places, une réflexion pourrait être menée quant à l‟intégration du SAJF à

l‟établissement St François d‟Assise.

L‟intégration du SAJF en tant que service de la MECS permettrait de pérenniser un dispositif qui fonctionne

actuellement sur la base d‟une subvention arrêtée pour la période couvertes par la convention de financement

et qui, de ce fait, ne prend pas en compte l‟activité réelle du dispositif très sollicité par les équipes du Service

de Protection de l‟Enfance.

Il s‟agirait de reconnaître une structure qui a fait ses preuves au cours des 3 derniers exercices et de

mutualiser les moyens en terme de personnel (direction, astreintes, secrétariat).

Par ailleurs, l‟intégration du SAJF à St François d‟Assise pourrait s‟inscrire dans une identité forte développée

par la Fondation d‟Auteuil dans ses structures autour du maintien des liens familiaux. Ainsi la MECS a pour

spécificité d‟accueillir principalement des fratries. Par ailleurs, pour les enfants d‟une même fratrie pris en

charge dans différents lieux de placement, dont les parents ne bénéficient pas de droits d‟hébergement ou de

sortie permettant aux enfants de se retrouver dans un cadre familial, la MECS a par ailleurs ouvert un « accueil

relais » dont l‟objectif est de favoriser le maintien du lien fratrie. Un pavillon prévu à cet effet permet ainsi à des

fratries de se retrouver dans un lieu neutre sur des temps de week-end et de vacances scolaires.

La réflexion quant à l‟intégration du SAJF à la MECS est en cours au niveau de la Fondation d‟Auteuil qui a

indiqué qu‟elle prendrait contact avec le Conseil Général afin de lui proposer un projet permettant la

pérennisation de la structure.


From pilot to policy: Social inclusion in childcare provisions in Brussels

Veerle Vervaet, VBJK, DECET

This article wants to highlight the effort that was made in Brussels to enhance the accessibility in childcare

centres for vulnerable groups,although the places available in childcare in Brussels are scarce.

The story in Brussels begins in 2003. The department of ethnic cultural minorities of the VGC, the Flemish

community commission (Vlaamse Gemeenschapscommissie) puts the question to the Welfare department:

how comes that newcomers that want to follow an integration course cannot make use of childcare? The two

departments get together and start up the experiment “Childcare and integration of newly arriving

immigrants.(2004-2006). They want to offer quality childcare to all families involved. At first three childcare

initiatives take part in this project. They engage themselves and offer 5 childcare places to parents following an

integration course. The management of the childcare initiatives focuses on a collective enrolment and language

policy in close cooperation with BON, Brussels Welcome office for people of foreign origin. At the same time,

several teams get together and focus on respect for diversity and parental involvement in order to lift the

barriers that parents come across.

During the last working year of this „Experiment‟, new financial input of the Federal Impulse Fund for Migration



offers 3 childcare initiatives the possibility to take part in the project. By the end of 2006, 70 children of

integrators have obtained a place in one of these initiatives. The cooperation with BON proofs to be successful

and stimulates other intermediary organisations, working with families that have less accessibility in childcare to

take part in this story.

In 2007 VGC invites all Brussels based childcare centres to enrol in the ad hoc working group „Social Policy‟.

This is a platform for persons responsible in childcare: they get together and reflect on the accessibility for the

socially vulnerable. From then on, taking part in such an ad hoc group or holding a well-built plan on social

inclusion is a criterion for structural growth or supplementary funding. This measure causes quite a lot of

resistance with those in charge: because of the lack of childcare places, they are used to offer most of their

places to good organised, working parents: double income households. In other words: the economical function

of childcare prevails and this leads to the so-called Mattheüs effect.

During the first months the ad hoc working group mainly discusses the various functions of childcare. The

importance of the social function for children, parents and the local community is continuously in the spotlights.

As soon as the resistance decreases and disappears, 29 childcare centres start creating their own plan on

social inclusion. At first they analyze the neighbourhood and the population of the centre. From that point

onwards they look for possibilities to work together with local partners and intermediary organisations.

Focus on the regions

In 2008-2009 VGC continues to support regional meetings. The Brussels based initiatives are split into 5

regions. This broadens the process. The best advocates in favour of participation are the responsibles

themselves. They manage to persuade many of their colleagues. Some 60 childcare centres are currently

participating in regional groups. They are working together across structural differences and strive towards a

collective social pedagogical project. They are analyzing the demographical composition of their region and

how it is reflected in the childcare centres. They offer each other support in the adaption of their enrolment

policy, their cooperation with intermediary organisations and they redirect towards one another.

The most striking results of these local forms of cooperation are clear. The initial question “why work on social

inclusion?” has been replaced by “how do we work on social inclusion?”. All childcare initiatives are now

working on accessibility. They answer or even exceed the 20%-measure that was imposed by the government

(in December 2008) to prioritise vulnerable groups. Responsibles are convinced of the added value of a

cooperation with other initiatives and intermediaries from the welfare branch in their region. They consider

collective discussions to be inspiring and encouraging. This offers them a chance to find a collective solution for

more complex childcare questions.

In the childcare centres themselves the teams also witness change. The changing population forces them to

start questioning obvious things: how can we improve the communication with parents who do not speak our

language? What sort of place do we offer to children‟s home languages and cultural habits? Is there any

possibility for occasional childcare or cooperation with intermediaries? The responsibles seek support in

formation and training. Together with the team members they want to work on their vision of childcare. That‟s

how we notice that „childcare as a necessity for working parents‟ turns into „childcare as a meeting place‟. The

focus lies on cooperating with parents. They are partners in education, not just customers. There is an

increasing sensitivity for positive learning processes while dealing with diversity between children, parents, the

team and the neighbourhood.

Accessibility for all families 2010

Next to the region work, we created this year a think-tank: Brussels policymakers together with the

representatives of the different regions investigate the possibility of a central coordinating system to answer the

demands of childcare places, taking in account the social function of childcare.

Top down or bottom up?

During the Experiment „Childcare and integration of newly arriving immigrants‟ childcare initiatives were free to

participate. This meant a major engagement from the participants and the willingness to change things. The

positive results directed the policy (VGC) towards a more directive attitude for other initiatives. Working on

social inclusion became one of the essential conditions for growth or financial support. This caused a lot of

heave in Brussels based initiatives. Nevertheless contestants later admitted that without this pressure, they

never would have given priority to develop a social policy in their childcare centre. They also favoured major

change and became the advocates for participation by non-participants.



Working on social inclusion requires thorough reflection on all aspects of childcare centre policy. The policy

towards children, parents and the neighbourhood needs to be scrutinized carefully. This is a major challenge

for the responsibles, in cooperation with the team.

2A - Children and families experiencing poverty - better futures through improved

partnerships

Les incidences et les conséquences de la pauvreté sur les enfants, les jeunes et leurs familles

Par Bernard DE VOS, Délégué général de la Communauté française aux droits de l’enfant Et Christelle

TRIFAUX, Collaboratrice du Délégué général

Introduction

Dans l‟histoire de l‟institution, c‟est la première fois qu‟un tel rapport a été rendu pour diverses raisons. Les

indicateurs nationaux et internationaux sont inquiétants. Jusqu‟il y a quelques années, les premières victimes

de la pauvreté étaient les personnes âgées. Le siècle qui vient de passer a mis nos aînés (en partie) à l‟abri de

la pauvreté et c‟est au niveau des enfants que les inquiétudes des spécialistes se concentrent désormais. Les

dossiers individuels dont ils ont la charge sont révélateurs. Le Délégué général a le sentiment que la pauvreté

constitue souvent la toile de fond sur laquelle se développent d‟autres problématiques sociales, scolaires,

mésentente en famille,… Dans les rapports annuels, les maltraitances et les violences visibles sont mises en

évidence. Le Délégué général souhaitait mettre en évidence d‟autres violences plus invisibles, plus insidieuses,

ce que l‟on appelle les violences institutionnelles dont la pauvreté fait partie. 2009 était aussi l‟année

européenne de lutte contre la pauvreté, et, puisque la Belgique préside actuellement l‟UE, il semblait important

au DGDE d‟avoir déjà des constats et quelques propositions à faire valoir au cours de cette année 2010. C‟était

aussi l‟occasion pour l‟institution de rencontrer des acteurs locaux ainsi que d‟avoir un positionnement

institutionnel relativement clair sur cette question de la pauvreté.

Il n‟y a pire chose que les violences institutionnelles, telles les violences d‟Etat. La situation dramatique des

enfants qui dorment dans des gares est une violence d‟Etat puisque des solutions existent mais ne sont pas

mises en pratique.

1. La méthodologie

Dans le cadre d‟un travail participatif, le Délégué général a voulu aller à la rencontre des professionnels et des

personnes bénéficiant de l‟aide sociale pour voir comment se vivaient les réalités, sur le terrain. Cela a été

réalisé en association avec 5 conseils d‟arrondissement de l‟aide à la jeunesse. C‟est, en effet, un des rares

lieux où l‟on parle de l‟enfance et de la jeunesse et où se rassemblent à la fois des enseignants, des acteurs de

l‟aide à la jeunesse, les CPAS, des acteurs de l‟AWIPH…

Dans ce travail, il y a eu plusieurs temps forts : une première recherche en interne et la détermination des

questions spécifiques sur lesquelles le DGDE souhaitait se pencher ; une deuxième phase de rencontre avec

les professionnels ; une troisième étape : les conférences citoyennes, la rencontre avec les personnes

bénéficiant de l‟aide sociale (dans 5 arrondissements assez éclatés qui permettent de couvrir l‟ensemble de la

Communauté française). Ensuite le DGDE a rédigé un premier rapport et réalisé le premier montage du film

vidéo qui accompagne le rapport. Enfin, il est retourné vers les personnes qui avaient fait part de leur

témoignages afin de vérifier que leurs propos étaient conformes à ce qu‟ils leur avaient dit avant de finaliser le

rapport écrit et le film vidéo.

2. Les constats généraux

Les constats généraux sont l‟enthousiasme et l‟intérêt suscités par la démarche. Partout, un grand nombre de

personnes, tant au niveau des professionnels que des bénéficiaires, ont voulu parler de ces réalités. Dans

certains arrondissements, c‟était bien au-delà de ce qui avait été imaginé.

Par ailleurs, il y a une très grande convergence entre les professionnels et les bénéficiaires. Il n‟y a pas de

discours ostracisant d‟un côté ou de l‟autre. Tout le monde se rassemble pour dénoncer des mécanismes, des



systèmes plutôt que critiquer les personnes. Nous avons décelé une grande compréhension mutuelle, très

encourageante pour la suite.

Si, au premier abord, le Délégué général avait l‟impression que la Belgique était plutôt bonne élève en matière

de respect des droits de l‟enfant, désormais, il estime que cette affirmation doit être plus nuancée. Il n‟y a pas

beaucoup d‟articles de la convention qui résistent à l‟épreuve de la pauvreté. Au contraire, on constate qu‟il y a

tout un ensemble de droits élémentaires qui, dans la pratique ; sont bafoués. Par exemple, le droit à la santé.

Un ensemble de frais (frais d‟orthodontie, de lunettes, logopédie, psychomotricité, kiné) semblent réservés à

une population qui a les moyens financiers suffisants pour les avancer. Il en va de même au niveau des frais

de scolarité. La gratuité scolaire reste un mythe même si elle est inscrite dans les textes. La relégation dans les

filières scolaires les moins valorisantes est plutôt réservée aux jeunes précarisés, certains enfants sont

envoyés dans l‟enseignement spécialisé non pas pour un retard intellectuel mais pour un retard pédagogique

qui n‟a pas pu être comblé.

Il existe également des différences significatives entre arrondissements urbains et ruraux. Dans ces derniers,

les difficultés de mobilité renforcent l‟isolement des personnes précarisées.

Par ailleurs, il n‟y a plus exclusivement cette forme de pauvreté « trans- et inter-générationnelle », ou ce qu‟on

appelait auparavant « le quart-monde ». La pauvreté est désormais multiforme : il y a d‟autres types de familles

qui sont confrontées à la pauvreté tels les gens du voyage, ceux qui ont perdu leur emploi et qui se retrouvent

du jour au lendemain sans rien, ou encore la problématique des jeunes adultes ou celles des gens qui

travaillent mais dont les revenus ne sont pas suffisants pour avoir un niveau de vie correct et décent pour toute

la famille.

3. Les constats des professionnels

Les constats des professionnels convergent et indiquent qu‟il y a de plus en plus de demandes. Ils mentionnent

régulièrement le fait que les conditions d‟accueil des bénéficiaires se sont détériorées et se détériorent encore,

constamment. Il y a également un surcroît de paperasserie préjudiciable. D‟autre part, l‟aide est de plus en plus

contractualisée, ce qui, en termes de relations de confiance entre ces personnes bénéficiaires et les

travailleurs sociaux, est extrêmement négatif. Le manque de clarté des dispositifs, la superposition des

dispositifs, ne permettent pas d‟avoir des collaborations suffisantes, ce qui a pour conséquence que les

bénéficiaires ont des parcours difficiles, et sont souvent renvoyés dans le vide faute d‟avoir une orientation

positive ou une prise en charge adéquate. Finalement, ils se retrouvent encore plus dans la misère qu‟avant.

Les professionnels estiment que les placements hors du milieu familial sont trop nombreux et le regrettent.

Même si la pauvreté n‟est pas le seul motif, elle est encore un motif prédominant dans cette problématique.

Ils contestent encore le fait que les familles pauvres soient plus maltraitantes mais déclarent que le principe du

marquage social de ces familles est beaucoup plus important que d‟autres et que les situations de

maltraitances sont plus vite mises à jour dans ces familles.

Les professionnels s‟entendent pour dire qu‟il faut soutenir les familles de façon pertinente et durable mais

avec des dispositifs re-pensés. Soutenir ces familles, c‟est respecter les enfants. Les enfants qui font partie de

ces familles qui ne sont pas suffisamment respectées ne se sentent pas eux-mêmes respectés et vice-versa.

La problématique des familles étrangères sont souvent des situations d‟extrême précarité. Peut-on imaginer

des familles qui vivent avec un chèque-repas de 6€ par jour et par personne dans des lieux extrêmement

exigus, voire renvoyées à la rue faute de places dans les hôtels ?

Par ailleurs, beaucoup de difficultés sont constatées, par les professionnels, avec l‟institution scolaire.

4. Les constats des bénéficiaires

a. Un système d‟aide qui fonctionne mal

Parmi les constats des bénéficiaires, il y a d‟abord la dénonciation d‟un système d‟aide qui fonctionne mal. Les

bénéficiaires estiment que les aides financières dont ils peuvent disposer n‟arrivent pas en temps utile : les

bourses d‟études sont payées en fin d‟année, il n‟existe pas d‟avance pour toute une série de frais médicaux,

etc… L‟accueil, pour ces familles, est toujours considéré comme insatisfaisant ; il y a aussi, la honte, la peur



d‟aller vers un dispositif d‟aide sociale. Les bénéficiaires réclament plus d‟humanité et plus d‟écoute à travers

ces dispositifs.

Par ailleurs, le système est trop peu égalitaire au niveau du logement, même si des critères ont été établis,

mais c‟est encore trop flou.

En outre, le système d‟aide méconnait souvent le système « D » mis en place par les bénéficiaires. Ainsi, on

demande aux bénéficiaires de se mobiliser, mais s‟ils le font, s‟ils trouvent des systèmes « D » pour survivre,

les aides institutionnelles auxquelles ils ont droit sont diminuées, voire supprimées. Le système d‟aide

décourage les bénéficiaires à trouver du travail. En effet, pour rechercher du travail, il faut que les enfants

soient gardés, ce qui coûte cher. Cela a pour conséquence qu‟il est pratiquement impossible pour des mères

précarisées de suivre des formations et de trouver un emploi.

La question de l‟individualisation des droits est également omniprésente puisque les personnes rencontrées

disent qu‟elles ont le choix entre renoncer à une vie de famille, ou vivre sous le seuil de pauvreté.

Quant au système d‟aide, il n‟est pas assez accessible. Il y a beaucoup trop de formulaires. L‟écrit n‟est, en

général, pas le fort de ces familles précarisées. Finalement, l‟Etat en sait assez sur nous pour déterminer qui a

droit à tel ou tel avantage ? Le système d‟aide dépend aussi beaucoup de la mobilité et de l‟information dont

peuvent disposer les personnes. Concernant cette dernière, elle est très critiquée par les bénéficiaires qui ont

l‟impression d‟avoir soit trop d‟information et ne peuvent en faire le tri, soit pas assez ou encore disposent

d‟une information inadaptée à leur réalité. Les bénéficiaires se plaignent aussi des dispositifs téléphoniques,

avec renvoi, où les attentes sont parfois très longues et où, in fine, les communications reviennent très chères.

En définitive, le système d‟aide est souvent perçu comme une sanction, surtout les placements qui ne sont pas

considérés comme une aide temporaire mais bien comme une perte de responsabilité et de lien. Les familles

demandent en général qu‟en cas de placement de leur enfant, celui-ci ait lieu dans de petites structures de

façon à maintenir ce lien.

b. Les manques

Les bénéficiaires mettent aussi en évidence des manques. L‟impossibilité de faire garder son enfant en journée

est considéré, par exemple, comme quelque chose de très préjudiciable. Les parents ne peuvent pas

s‟adonner à d‟autres activités, ne peuvent pas se réaliser eux-mêmes, ce qui les met dans des situations

psychologiques difficiles. Les personnes rencontrées estiment qu‟elles ne sont pas suffisamment encouragées

à suivre des formations, sur le plan financier notamment, car celles-ci ont un coût certain : il est nécessaire de

faire garder son enfant, de se déplacer, etc… L‟indemnité dont ces personnes peuvent bénéficier est, à leurs

yeux, insuffisante.

Les bénéficiaires réclament donc des structures de proximité, plus accessibles, surtout dans les

environnements ruraux où ils doivent faire des gros déplacements. En matière de jeunesse, ils réclament plus

d‟AMO, plus de structures accessibles et de proximité.

« Le plus pénible, ce n‟est pas d‟avoir rien, c‟est d‟être considéré comme rien. » C‟est une plainte qu‟il a très

souvent entendue, exprimée par des gens qui étaient extrêmement satisfaits d‟avoir participé au travail du

Délégué général car, pour une fois, ils avaient le sentiment d‟avoir été entendus, écoutés, alors

qu‟habituellement, on décide pour eux, et que leur participation n‟est pas toujours la bienvenue.

Quant aux constats sur l‟école, appelée école de la relégation, les relations entre les enfants et les enseignants

sont littéralement polluées par des questions d‟argent. Pour un enfant dont les parents sont relativement aisés,

amener de l‟argent pour le théâtre, une activité sportive, des classes vertes, ça peut être valorisant, mais

quand on doit assumer la pauvreté de ses parents, ce n‟est pas facile.

La relégation est malheureusement une réalité confirmée par tous les acteurs de terrain mais aussi par les

familles elles-mêmes. Les enfants des familles précarisées sont plus facilement relégués, à cause d‟un

handicap non intellectuel mais pédagogique. Les enfants sont, en secondaire, redirigés vers l‟enseignement

technique et professionnel qui, paradoxalement coûte plus cher que le général.

Les parents sont également conscients du fait qu‟ils n‟ont pas toujours le bagage nécessaire pour aider leur

enfant quand il rentre de l‟école et un grand nombre souhaite que la re-médiation soit faite le plus possible au

sein-même des classes, et que les écoles de devoirs qui peuvent suppléer soient suffisamment nombreuses et

accessibles.



Les situations d‟exclusion scolaire auxquelles sont confrontés les enfants des familles précarisées semblent

plus importantes. La défense semble plus difficile à assumer par des parents précarisés qui n‟ont pas toujours

les moyens pour défendre correctement leur enfant. Ces exclusions sont très lourdes de sens parce que les

enfants sont dirigés vers une autre école avec les conséquences que cela peut avoir, en termes de frais

supplémentaires.

Il existe également des abus dans l‟exécution des contrats d‟apprentissage où les enfants ne font pas toujours

ce pour quoi ils devraient être là. Il reste dans le chef des parents, de nombreuses inconnues quant aux limites

qui peuvent être acceptées ou pas, et là encore, nombreux sont ceux qui ne sont pas toujours aptes à défendre

adéquatement leur enfant.

Enfin, la problématique des poux. Ce n‟est pas un problème dans les milieux favorisés ou aisés, par contre,

dans les milieux précarisés, c‟est nécessairement un stigmate de la pauvreté. Les enfants vivent très mal les

contrôles au sein des classes. Les familles estiment, en général, ne pas être aidées par rapport à cette

question. Les enfants sont parfois exclus de la classe pendant plusieurs semaines et ne peuvent revenir

qu‟après avoir fourni un certificat médical.

5. Conclusions

En conclusion, il existe un discours convergent entre les professionnels et les bénéficiaires de l‟aide sociale

rencontrés. C‟est un encouragement face à la difficulté de la tâche, face à l‟ampleur de la problématique de la

pauvreté qui touche les enfants. Les personnes précarisées rencontrées ont également fait preuve d‟une

grande capacité de prendre de la distance par rapport à leur situation personnelle. Cela confirme l‟idée qu‟un

travail participatif est tout à fait opportun et doit se poursuivre. Ce sont les mécanismes, les systèmes d‟aide et

le management de l‟aide sociale qui doivent être attaqués de front et pas les personnes.

2C - Integrated services for children & families of migrant background

Strategy to meet poverty and social exclusion for unaccompanied children in Varberg,

Sweden.

Anneli Westling, Municipality of Varberg, Sweden; ENSA network – European Network of Social Authorities

Varberg is a city on the Swedish west coast with approximately 57.000 inhabitants. There are about 13.000

children under the age of 20. About 400, (3%) need help from the social administration where I work.

We are divided into different specialities and sections.

The section of assignment receives applications and notifications, evaluates and makes decisions on what

actions to be initiated. The actions will be served by the department of social service.

My unit, for children and their families, is structured like this. One group receives all applications and

notifications, another group investigates, a third group is responsible of all foster homes and at last, a fourth

group works with family law.

The section of social service offers, amongst others, family support in many different ways. It is also

responsible for the activity regarding unaccompanied children refugees. Fenix was started this in 2008.

The children are received by local authorities instead of the governmental offices.

We offer good housing, good care and support, education, legal trust and work for integration.

These teenagers need to be able to trust grown-ups again in order to assimilate in the new country and they

need to learn the language. They need to develop their skills like any child in any country of their age would as

being social with others, ride the bike, swim, sing and dance, laugh, cry, play or watch football etc, etc.

We cooperate with local authorities and NGO´s. My staff has academic degrees, they have different life

experience and ethnical background. They are both men and women. The approach is normalizing and

salutogenic.



The staff works toward following goals:

Good conditions for knowledge in the Swedish language

Support to find meaningful leisure activity

Contribute to a positive start and give good experience of Sweden and Varberg

Strengthen the individual's ability to act independently

Support building positive networks to promote integration and the teenager‟s own future development

Everyone starts school as soon as they arrive. They are offered tuition in Swedish, English, maths and sport.

Every child has his own contact of the staff to support them to a good life in Sweden. The staff has to push the

teenagers forward, motivate to do things by themselves, not be too helpful.

The staff is motivating everyone to do their homework and keep in touch with the teachers.

Fenix is their home. And the staff has to re-establish the trust for grown-ups. You have to be very sharp, distinct

and honest.

We have today fairly good relations with the local authorities. This activity assumes cooperation with different

authorities in order to give these children the support which they need.

Fenix has good relations with sport clubs and other associations to motivate and help the teenagers to a good

recreation and to find themselves in wanted contexts. Especially football clubs are important.

18 teenagers have passed Fenix since 2008 and today 10 teenagers live here. 7 of them have got their

residence permit and chosen to stay in Varberg. 3 teenagers are still waiting for their permit.

A big challenge was to make external partners cooperate with us. The partners are representing important

areas as housing, education, health and leisure activities.

We still have hard times to come to reasonable agreements. The school says it doesn´t have enough money to

offer the teenagers enough lessons, the housing company says it does not have enough apartments to help

with the housing and so on. We are facing attitude problems. Even though the decision to start this activity was

made by the municipal board, the responsibility was, and still is, unclear for some authorities.

Cooperation is a hard task. Even inside my own unit. And cooperate with organisations outside my own

department is harder.

There has been no racism against the teenager refugee in Varberg. The way we work with these teenagers in

Varberg, I hope, will prevent poverty and exclusion for this particular group of children. A group that is, by

natural reason, very exposed.

ANNEX 5 – STUDY VISITS SUMMARIES



The study visits were organised to illustrate examples of good practice under four policy priority areas2: early

years education and care; children in alternative care; family and parenting support and children‟s participation.

EARLY YEARS

„Violen‟ – The Violet

Public day care centre for pre-school children aged 12 months up to five years (38

children in total).

Participants will hear about how staff work with children´s participation and

influence, environment and open air activities, gender.

Guide: Maria Svanström

Meeting point: Clarion Hotel - Transportation: Bus Nr 4 from Våghustorget

Bollen – The Ball Public child day care centre for preschool children in a multi-cultural area,

Brickebacken in Örebro. This preschool has implemented the „International Child

Development Programme‟ as a method in their daily work. ICDP aims to draw

attention to the child and influence the interactions that are constantly going on in

meeting with teachers in preschool and school. It is a health promoting approach

based on treating children and adolescents according to the UNCRC.

Guide: Eva Andersson


CHILDREN IN ALTERNATIVE CARE

Child protection &

foster care in Örebro Örebro Municipality Social Welfare Office. We will get a presentation of the

Swedish BBIC-system, Children´s Needs In Focus, based on the British ICS-

system. The BBIC is a framework for assessment, planning and reviewing in child

welfare. We will also get a presentation of the municipality´s organization for foster

care.

Guide: Ingmar Ångman

Meeting point: Elite Hotel - Transportation: Walking

Open team for family

support A visit to an open center for family support, a part of the social welfare system in

Örebro Municipality. We will meet a social work team working with family therapy,

environmental therapy and social support for families with children at risk and

families with special needs.

Guide: Kerstin Neander

Meeting point : Clarion Hotel - Transportation: Bus Nr 8 from Våghustorget

Pionjären – The

Pioneer Pionjären is one of two homes for unaccompanied asylum seeking children in

Örebro. You will visit this home and get a presentation how Örebro Municipality

works with these children.

Guide: Urban Svensson

Meeting point: Elite Hotel - Transportation: Bus Nr 21 from Resecentrum

Örebro Women‟s

Shelter & Save the

Children

A visit to a women shelter. The visit includes a presentation on how they meet and

work with children in the shelter and how they work together with Örebro´s local

Save the Children to implement a child perspective in the shelter.

Guide: Lilian Ivansson - Sporrong

2 These are the four topics addressed by Eurochild‟s thematic working groups



Meeting point: Örebro Castle, Entrance Borggården - Transportation: Walking

FAMILY AND PARENTING SUPPORT

Family center

Baronbackarna A visit to an open family centre in Baronbackarna, a part of Örebro where 75% of

all children have foreign background. The family centre is an integrated centre

with maternity healthcare, child health, open pre-school and social work activities.

The centre is a meeting place where parents and children meet for play and social

interchange and to get social support when needed.

Guide: Marie Cesares Olsson

Meeting point: Elite Hotel - Transportation: Bus Nr 26 from Resecentrum

Knuffen (The Push)

open youth clinic A visit to an open clinic for teenagers and young adults offering support and

counselling. Knuffen will give a presentation of how different professionals reach

and how they work with young people at risk of psychological or mental health

problems.

Guide: Anna Philipsson


Sputnik/ Unga

mammor och pappor

(Young mothers and

fathers)

A visit to a centre in central Örebro offering support and counselling for young

mothers and fathers and to children in families with drug problems. The centre is

part of Örebro Social Welfare.

Guide: Håkan Andersson


Perrongen - The

Platform Perrongen is a center for refugees arriving to Örebro. Children, young people and

parents come to Perrongen for a first assessment before getting a placement in

the ordinary school system with possibility to get special education services and

mother tongue training.

Guide: Peter Löfsäter


Örebro University -

School of Health and

Medical Sciences

Researcher and senior lecturerer in Public health at Örebro University, Agneta

Tinnfält, will give a presentation of a study on adolescent Children of alcoholics'

perspectives on identification and support.

Guide: Mary Lind Dalevi


PARTICIPATION

Ungdomsdialogen –

The Youth Dialogue

Visit to Örebro City Hall in the city center. A meeting with young people and

politicians with information about the municipality´s work with youth dialogue and

with Örebro Youth Parliament.

Guide: Maria Lindborg


Örebro University –

ICU, Interests in

Children´s

Understanding -

Young students as

partners in research

In this seminar you will meet young students active as partners in research. A

research circle with students from primary and secondary schools and Jeanette

Åkerström, Phd student, will present the results of a study with 100 other students

which they conducted in some primary and secondary mainstream and special

schools in Örebro. The study is about participation and vulnerability in school.

Guide: Elinor Brunnberg - Meeting point: Clarion Hotel - Transportation: Bus Nr 4

from Våghustorget

ANNEX 6 – YOUTH EVENT PROGRAMME



Project Brighter Futures together with Friends in Europe

Supported by the YOUTH IN ACTION Programme, Action 1 - Youth for Europe, Sub-Action 1.1 - Youth Exchanges

Saturday 30th of October: Arrival day

Saturday 6th of November Departure day

The 17 young participants are active in the following organisations:-

Children‟s Forum of Latvia

St Johannis GmbH Germany, member of the YES Forum

Västmanlands Läns Landsting, Sweden

Cyprus Children‟s Parliament

Sunday 1/11 Monday 2/11 Tuesday 3/11 Wednesday 4/11 Thursday 5/11 Friday 6/11

9.30 - 12.00 Getting to get

to know one

another.

Planning of the

week.

Choosing how

to work.

Professional art

leader(s) assist

the discussion

and help the

group to be

organized.

Initial

preparations &

discussions for

the presentation.

Collect their work

and decide how

to present this to

the Eurochild

conference.

Discussions in

groups

Presentation

from Eurochild

Workshop

activities dance

drama writing or

film according

to the

participants

choice.

Final

preparations.

13.30 17.00 Afternoon walk

about the

Örebro city

and visiting the

castle.

Young

participants

reflect on the

theme of the

conference –

child poverty

and social

exclusion and

working

together

Evaluate the

days activities

Preparation

working groups

Evaluate the

days work

Visit the town

hall and meet

local government

officials

responsible for

young peoples

issues In the

afternoon

Participation in

Eurochild

conference

workshops.

PRESENTATION

TO THE

PARTICIPANTS

IN THE

EUROCHILD

CONFERENCE

Evening Evening social

activities at the

Youth hostel

Visit to the

Örebro

Theatre

Opening

ceremony of the

Euochild

conference

Official dinner

of Eurochild

conference

Closing event

ANNEX 7 – SWEDISH SEMINAR PROGRAMME



Friday 5th November - 9h00-12h00 - Parallel Seminar for Swedish Participants organised by the Stiftelsen Allmänna

Barnhuset (Children‟s Welfare Foundation)

Chair: Bodil Långberg, Secretary General, Stiftelsen Allmänna Barnhuset

09h00-9h15 - Jana Hainsworth, Secretary General, Eurochild

Jana Hainsworth will give a brief introduction to Eurochild and its work on child poverty and social

exclusion at a European level. She will particularly focus on Eurochild’s influencing strategy and

examples of how members benefit from the networks activities.

09h15-10h15 Does child poverty exist? Exploring children´s social and economic welfare in Sweden

Elisabet Näsman, Professor of Sociology, Uppsala

Elisabet Näsman's fields of interest are children, childhood and parenting in various fields, with a focus

on children's perspectives, agency and rights, related to the discourses on the childhood life phase and

including a gender perspective.

10h45-11h45 „Suburb kids - concrete kings! - Children and young people's opportunities and living

conditions of poor families'

Pernilla Landin, Deacon & social worker in Källan Fisksätra advice and support center and Waafa

Rahbi, Social Educationist, Stockholm´s City Mission.

Källan is a collaboration between the Swedish Church in Nacka, Stockholm's City Mission, St Konrad's

Catholic Church and Muslim association in Nacka. Källan - Fisksätra advice and support centre offers

support or practical assistance to people in difficult life situations. This includes:

Families living in hiding in Sweden, whose children are in very fragile life situations.

Single parents who may also be unemployed or on long-term sick leave

Families in which a parent may have chronic pain, suffer from chronic fatigue due to illness or anxiety

about the future

Families in which no one speaks Swedish or understands the Swedish society in which they live

Pernilla will describe some of the realities of the vulnerable people that come for support in Källan-

Fisksätra. She will also give examples of how Källan uses dialogue across cultural and religious

boundaries and cooperation with other local players to empower people and identifty individualized

solutions.

11h45-12h00 Conclusions and closing remarks - Bodil Långberg,

ANNEX 8 – EUROCHILD POLICY BRIEFING


ANNEX 8 – EUROCHILD POLICY BRIEFINGi

WHERE WILL ACTION AGAINST CHILD POVERTY & SOCIAL EXCLUSION FIT

WITHIN THE NEXT EU 10-YEAR STRATEGY?

1. WHAT ARE LATEST POLICY DEVELOPMENTS AT EU LEVEL?

Background

2010, the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, is a turning point in the fight against

poverty and social exclusion. It aims to raise awareness about the persistence of the problem, to give voice to

the concerns of those experiencing poverty and social exclusion and to renew political commitment of the

European Union (EU) and its Member States.

This Year is also a milestone for the EU as a whole, with the EU Lisbon Treaty that entered into force in

December 2009, the appointment of the new European Commission, the evaluation of the Lisbon

strategy – which started in 2000 and comes to an end –, and the design of the “Europe 2020” strategy for

the coming decade. The latter process is a window of opportunity to give social inclusion a more central place

in the overall strategy of the Union and to ensure that the EU as well as all its Member States develop smart

and sustainable social inclusion policies alongside inclusive economic policies.

On the 3rd March 2010, the European Commission presented Europe 2020 and its proposals for a new post-

2010 strategy (European Commission, 2010b). The proposals established 5 priority targets, including a poverty

target, reducing by 25% the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion (living on less than 60% of

the median income). On June 17 2010, the European Council endorsed the proposals from the Employment,

Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO), of a poverty reduction of 20 million people,

based on an aggregate of 3 indicators (at-risk-of poverty, material deprivation and jobless households)

(European Council, 2010b). The target will consist of lowering the number of people in the EU who are at risk of

poverty and/or materially deprived and/or living in jobless households. The targets are to be delivered through 7

European Flagship Initiatives. A European Commission Communication on the flagship initiatives is expected

by the end of the year. The flagship initiative “European Platform Against Poverty” is expected to ensure

“economic, social and territorial cohesion”.

The Social Open Method of Coordination (OMC) – which is the mechanism through which EU Member States

and the European Commission have been cooperating in the field of social policy since 2000 (Eurochild, 2009c)

– is now under revision. The reflection on the experience of tackling poverty and social exclusion over the last

decade through the Social OMC and in particular its social inclusion strand should inform the plans for the post-

2010 and strengthen efforts in this area at the national and/or EU levels to lead to more concrete outcomes on

the ground (Frazer et al., 2010). 2

The need to strengthen EU coordination in the social field has become even more urgent because of the

increased status given to social issues in the EU Lisbon Treaty. Of major significance is the “horizontal social

clause” in Article 9 which states that: “In defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall

take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of

adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and

protection of human health” (European Union, 2009). A major political and legal challenge will now be to give a

concrete meaning to this new social clause.

On April 27 2010, the European Commission proposed a set of 10 Guidelines to deliver on the Europe 2020

strategy, 4 of them fall under the employment articles of the Treaty Integrated Guidelines (European

Commission, 2010c). A Guideline on poverty and social exclusion, which sets out policies to reach the

proposed EU headline target on poverty reduction, has been included under the Employment Guidelines

(Guideline 10: Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty). The proposed guideline is drawn in a

reasonably broad matter, reflecting the main strands of the existing Social OMC and, importantly, stressing the

key role of social protection systems.



2. WHY IS IT IMPORTANT FOR THE RIGHTS AND WELFARE OF CHILDREN & YOUNG PEOPLE AT

NATIONAL/REGIONAL LEVEL?

The outcome of this year will determine what EU action on child poverty and social exclusion is possible, and

how it will be achieved. The social pillar of the new Europe 2020 agenda provides an important opportunity to

adopt a systematic, comprehensive EU approach to tackling child poverty and child well-being as a key political

priority for the Union. The Social OMC has proven to be an important instrument for making progress. It is

crucial that the architecture of the new Europe 2020 strategy reinforces this instrument and creates a space for

child poverty and well-being to be addressed systematically and coherently over time and across the EU.

A comprehensive Commission „Recommendation on Child Poverty and Child Well-Being‟ will provide an

important boost to this work by setting out common principles, supporting common objectives and monitoring

frameworks, facilitating mutual learning and exchange. A lot of work has been done on defining the content of a

Recommendation on Child Poverty and Well-being (Eurochild, 2009d; UNICEF and Eurochild, 2010), but

before this is possible the right structure needs to be in place to enable Member States‟ commitment and

engagement in delivering specific thematic priorities.

The strengthening of the social dimension of the EU, and in particular the delivery of the EU 2020 targets will

depend significantly on the proposed EU 2020 flagship initiative, the European Platform Against Poverty.

Eurochild‟s perspective on the external links of this Platform and internal content and processes are presented

in the below schema, and described in more detail below. 3

- Links to other policy areas

The Platform Against Poverty has to play a central role in ensuring that all other strands of EU policy making

(i.e. economic, competition, education, migration, health, innovation, justice and environmental policies)

contribute to achieving the EU‟s social goals, including the EU target on poverty reduction.

A key priority will be to mainstream issues of adequate social protection, including the fight against child

poverty, promoting child well-being, and children‟s rights across all relevant EU policy areas and programmes,

including the Structural Funds. The European Platform Against Poverty should play an important role in

monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the social impact assessment process and on the extent to

which the other strands of Europe 2020 are contributing to the goal of reducing poverty and social exclusion.



- Links to main EU funding mechanisms

Currently there is a review ongoing of all aspects of the EU budget. This will be followed by negotiations to

determine the composition of the next Financial Perspective of the EU from 2014 to 2020.

Structural funds are the most important tool for promoting cohesion in Europe. As the Lisbon strategy was set

on “growth and jobs” the Structural Funds have mainly covered economic objectives. In order to move towards

an EU strategy which delivers more on the social pillar and environmental sustainability, we must make sure

that broader objectives are integrated in the Structural Funds (Eurochild, 2009e). Adjustments to the Structural

Funds post-2013 should be instrumental in meeting the EU‟s social inclusion objectives. In particular, there

should be a guarantee that the Structural Funds priorities correspond to the objectives 4 and targets set up by

the flagship initiative and contribute to delivery of the concrete actions to lift people out of poverty and social

exclusion.

There should be much closer alignment between the EU‟s and Member States‟ social inclusion objectives and

the use of Structural Funds and other EU funding instruments. Proper monitoring and evaluation process

should be ensured.

Action to ensure child poverty and well-being objectives are integrated into the development, implementation

and monitoring of the Operational Programmes within the Structural Funds should be taken.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is a system of subsidies and support programmes for agriculture

operated by the EU. CAP combines direct payments to farmers together with price/market supports. It currently

accounts for about 62% of the EU‟s budget. The EU‟s common agricultural policy ensures that farming and

preservation of the environment go hand-in-hand. It helps develop the economic and social fabric of rural

communities and plays a vital role in confronting new challenges such as climate change, water management,

bioenergy and biodiversity.

Member States should be encouraged to further use the existing options under the EU rural development policy

and CAP (i.e. school milk and fruit schemes).

- Building on a reinforced Social OMC

The European Plaftorm Against Poverty should build on the processes developed through the OMC.

National reports: Member States will have to report on progress towards the Europe 2020 targets. The debate

is open as to whether this report will replace the reports currently required under the Social OMC focused on

poverty and social inclusion, long-term care and pensions. Eurochild believes focused national reports remain

important. If real progress is to be made in reducing poverty in Europe in the next decade, then it is essential

that in the EU 2020 agenda social inclusion should receive the same prominence as the other EU objectives

(Atkinson, 2010). The specificity gathered through the social inclusion and social protection reports needs to be

retained and a transparent process which provides opportunity for stakeholders‟ involvement – including

children and young people – must be ensured.

Indicators: Rigorous benchmarking, monitoring and evaluation should be made a central and visible feature of

the EU process at both national and EU levels. Apart from the EU and (sub-)national targets, this could inter

alia involve a more rigourous, intensive and visible use of the commonly agreed indicators underpinning EU

coordination in the field and the commitment of all Member States to set the goal of improving their

performance in a set of indicators covering each relevant social protection and social inclusion domain,

including child poverty and social exclusion.

Research and analysis: The OMC has provided opportunities for research and analysis. Numerous studies

have been supported through the PROGRESS programme that supports the OMC but there is much room for

improvement in order to reinforce analytical tools and enhance statistical capacity and data collection.

Mutual learning: Exchange of good practices and policy learning should be enhanced as an integral element in

the EU Social Inclusion Process and strengthened with more systemtic clustering of activities (i.e. peer reviews,

studies, exchange projects, EU funded networks). It is essential to boost ownership through peer reviews and

mutual learning exercises as well as support new tools to share best practices between Member States. 5

Social Protection Committee (SPC): The SPC, which is the body that is responsible for overseeing the

implementation of the EU‟s Social Protection and Social Inclusion process, should remain the main interlocutor



and be the main Member States‟ body for monitoring and influencing the Platform Against Poverty.

Governance and stakeholders‟ involvement: Involvement of stakeholders in the European Platform Against

Poverty needs to be broadened and deepened.

The Social OMC has set important guidelines and benchmarks for involvement of civil society. This needs to be

further developed in the next phase. This includes continued support for and strengthening of EU-wide civil

society networks, a transparent and open process for the development of national reports – with a timetable of

action programmed well in advance to ensure all actors can play an active role, and genuine dialogue with

stakeholders – including children and young people – who will be able to influence upcoming priorities, their

implementation and monitoring.

A particular weakness of the Social OMC so far has been the lack of engagement of regional and local

authorities, which often have considerable autonomy in relation to implementation of social policies. This

shortcoming should be overcome in Europe 2020 by ensuring that they take ownership of reach targets –

through complementary targets at different levels of government. There has been very little (no) attention given

to children‟s own experiences of poverty and social exclusion in the Social OMC to date. This should be

addressed through innovative approaches carried out at national, regional and local level, complemented by

European events that can bring these messages to EU level policy makers.

- Concentrating work around thematic priorities

The European Platform Against Poverty should focus on thematic issues to facilitate long-term exchange and

mutual learning on key EU priorities. The immediate priority area should be child poverty and social exclusion,

which has emerged as an important issue for the EU and has become an increasingly high level political

concern.

Eurochild deems the following action crucial for a breakthrough in the fight against poverty and the promotion of

child well-being.

1. A European Commission Recommendation on child poverty and well-being should be adopted, which

would provide the necessary boost to Member State action and the needed weight in enforcing national

policy reform.

2. To keep track of developments an annual scoreboard on child poverty and well-being should be

developed for the EU-27.

3. Links with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) reporting process

including the Committee‟s concluding observations and their implementation by Member States should be

made whenever possible.

4. Assuming that the NAPs/Inclusion are kept in the coming 10-year strategy, all Member States should be

obliged to make child poverty and social exclusion a key part of their reporting process.

5. We need additional commitment from Member States and involvement at different levels of governance

to raise awareness of EU action and increase the participation of stakeholders at regional and local level,

including civil society organisations and children‟s ombudspersons. Broadening stakeholders‟ participation

will help to better identify problems and design more effective policies. 6

3. WHAT ARE WE ADVOCATING FOR?

- Get the framework of the European Platform Against Poverty right

A first challenge is to ensure that by the end of 2010 a clear political commitment on poverty and social

exclusion in general, and child poverty and social exclusion in particular, is in place.

The European Platform Against Poverty should create a framework of genuine accountability for Member

States to achieve anti-poverty targets and objectives. We want a more robust Social OMC (within the Plaftorm

Against Poverty) which should give greater weight in targeting setting and monitoring at national level, more

rigorous follow-up of the thematic priorities, better governance – in particular strengthening links between

national and sub-national level, and broadening the involvement of stakeholders.



- Thematic priority on child poverty

A key challenge is that child poverty and social exclusion are identified as the first specific priority on the EU

social agenda, with a clear work programme on indicators, policy analysis and mutual learning.

To date, the work on child poverty and social exclusion has evolved in a rather ad hoc and piecemeal manner.

The challenge now is to build on the work done and to develop, as an integral part of the renewed EU

coordination in the social field, a more systematic and structured approach to achieving the overall 2020

political objectives in a series on incremental steps.

- Children‟s participation and involvement in the process must be strengthened

It is crucial to ensure policies addressed at tackling child poverty and social exclusion reflect the views and

suggestions of children themselves, including those most marginalized.

4. WHAT ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY MEMBERS?

Contact your Member State representative on the Social Protection Committee to ask for their support in

setting a EU and a (sub-)national (if it hasn‟t yet been set) target for the reduction of child poverty and social

exclusion with a view to its extinction – accompanied by broader indicators to measure child well-being.

Advocate for countries to use and to promote within the EU specific (sub-)national targets on child poverty and

social exclusion.

Give feedback on what will be effective action needed at EU level to ensure progress nationally.

Lobby the forthcoming EU Presidencies – Hungary, and the next trio (Poland, Denmark and Cyprus) to

continue to make the fight against child poverty and social exclusion a political priority.

5. RESOURCES

Atkinson A.B. (2010), Poverty and the EU: the New Decade, Lectures on European Economic Policy, Working

paper n. 24, Dipartimento degli Studi sullo Sviluppo Economico, University of Macerata.

Eurochild (2009a), Measuring and monitoring: a child-rights perspective, Paper delivered at the December

2009 Paris Peer Review meeting on “Measuring the impact of active inclusion and other policies to combat

poverty and social exclusion”, Brussels: Eurochild. 7

Eurochild (2009b), Ending Child Poverty within the EU? A review of the 2008-2010 national reports on

strategies for social protection and social inclusion, Brussels: Eurochild.

Eurochild (2009c), Open Method of Coordination on social inclusion & social protection – A Renewed OMC for

the post-2010 Lisbon strategy, Policy briefing n. 1, update March 2009, Brussels: Eurochild.

Eurochild (2009d), Call for EU action on child poverty and well-being, Policy position, Brussels: Eurochild.

Eurochild (2009e), Indicators: an important tool for advancing child well-being, Policy briefing n. 5, Brussels:

Eurochild.

Eurochild (2010a), Eurochild Response to the European Commission Consultation on the future “EU2020”

Strategy, Brussels: Eurochild.

Eurochild (2010b), A scoreboard to assess the Belgian Presidency‟s achievements for children, Brussels:

Eurochild.

European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN) (2009), A Europe we can trust: Proposals on a new EU post-2010

strategy, Brussels: EAPN.

European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN) (2010a), EAPN Proposals for New Integrated Guidelines for Europe

2020, Brussels: EAPN.



European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN) (2010b), EAPN Proposals on the „European Platform against Poverty‟,

Brussels: EAPN.

European Commission (2010a), Lisbon Strategy evaluation document, Communication Staff Working

Document SEC(2010) 114 final, Brussels: European Commission.

European Commission (2010b), Europe 2020 – A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive

growth, Communication COM(2010) 2020, Brussels: European Commission.

European Commission (2010c), Proposal for a Council Decision on guidelines fro the employment policies of

the Member States Part II of the Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines, Communication COM(2010) 193/3,

Brussels: European Commission.

European Council (2010a), European Council 25/26 March 2010: Conclusions, Brussels: European Council.

European Council (2010b), European Council 17 June 2010: Conclusions, Brussels: European Council.

European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (2010a), Child poverty and children‟s well-being, Opinion

SOC/384, Brussels: EESC.

European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (2010b), The open method of coordination and the social

clause in the context of Europe 2020, Opinion SOC/381, Brussels: EESC. 8

European Union (2009), Consolidated Version of the Treaty of Lisbon, Brussels: European Union, Brussels:

European Union.

Frazer H., Marlier E. and Nicaise I. (2010), A social inclusion roadmap for Europe 2020, Antwerpen: Garant.

Platform of European Social NGOs (2009), Five Recommendations for an effective Open Method of

Coordination on social protection and social inclusion, Brussels: Social Platform.

Platform of European Social NGOs (2010), Five Recommendations to ensure that the “European Platform

against Poverty” delivers concrete actions reducing poverty and promoting social cohesion, Brussels: Social

Platform.

UNICEF and Eurochild (2010), Call for an EU Recommendation on Child Poverty and Child Well-being,

Background Paper to the September 2010 EU Belgian Presidency Conference on “Child Poverty and Child

Well-Being”.

__________________________________

i Eurochild policy briefings are prepared by the Eurochild secretariat to support the advocacy work of its members. They

provide an outline of key policy developments at EU level and their relevance to national and regional action aimed at

promoting the rights and welfare of children and young people. They suggest specific follow-up actions to be taken by

member organisations. This policy briefing was drafted by Agata D‟Addato (Policy officer).

ANNEX 9 – CONCLUDING STATEMENTS


ANNEX 9 - CONCLUDING STATEMENTS

Brighter futures for many children in Europe are currently threatened. Decisions taken by governments‟ across

the EU in response to the crisis, risk jeopardizing millions of children‟s quality of life and their overall life

chances. In this era of austerity measures it is more important than ever that organisations committed to

children‟s rights and welfare work in partnership and promote a common message.

Every child has equal rights, to all rights, as defined in the UNCRC. Children‟s rights are indivisible and this

understanding must underpin policies to fight child poverty. Policies make a difference. Governments have a

responsibility to support families to protect and promote their children‟s best interest, as well as ensuring every

child can access high quality education, health, housing, leisure, sports, culture and arts. A child rights

approach recognizes and nurtures children‟s own agency and evolving capacities. Involvement and

empowerment of children and families is therefore a key component of successful policy and practice

intervention.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE EU

1. Organisations working for the rights and welfare of children recognize the importance of the European Union

as a key driver of reform within Member States. Entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty is an important step

forward as it makes protection of children‟s rights a specific objective of the EU. It is crucial the EU respect this

obligation and now adopts a comprehensive and ambitious EU strategy on the rights of the child ensuring

all relevant EU policy and programmes reflect the principles enshrined in the UNCRC, and supporting EU

member states in their efforts to apply the UNCRC at national level.

2. The introduction of commitment to lifting 20 million people out of poverty over the next 10 years in the

Europe2020 strategy is welcomed. However, the seeds of poverty and social exclusion are sown in childhood,

and a specific priority is necessary to address inequalities faced by children from their youngest years. The EU

should pressure member states to adopt specific targets to reduce child poverty and provide policy guidance

through the adoption of a Recommendation on child poverty and well-being. In particular we acknowledge

the value and importance of cross-country comparisons and benchmarking tools to monitor and push for

progress.

3. The EU policy framework to fight child poverty must promote a multi-dimensional approach based on a

clear understanding of children‟s rights. It is important to demonstrate evidence that child poverty cannot be

tackled through a focus on labour market activation alone. Many parents cannot work and across the EU in-

work poverty is growing. A child rights approach protects and promotes children‟s best interest regardless of

their parent‟s employment situation. A common framework against child poverty should focus on families‟

access to adequate income (including but not limited to access to the labour market), as well as children‟s

access to high quality services. The importance of listening to and empowering children in all types of policy

intervention must be emphasized.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE MEMBER STATES

4. In times of fiscal consolidation and public spending cuts, it is crucial that budgets targeting on children and

families are protected and increased. Investment in universal, high quality education, early years, family

support and health promotion (among other services) provide the bedrock of a more equal society and will save

costs in the future. Universal services must be coupled with targeted interventions for the most vulnerable

ensuring a strong safety net for all children. Governments can and should strive to improve service efficiency

and impact, but never at the cost of undermining their ability to deliver a quality service to all. Governments

must invest in training and capacity building of professionals working with and for children and families.

5. Member states should strengthen cooperation and exchange at an EU level on child poverty and well-

being and lend their support to the Trio Presidency declaration calling for a Commission Recommendation in

2011. In setting their Europe 2020 targets, member states should adopt a specific target on the reduction of

ANNEX 9 – CONCLUDING STATEMENTS


child poverty. Targets must be accompanied by realistic, achievable national, regional and local strategies to

fight child poverty and social exclusion.

6. National action to address child poverty and social exclusion must support partnership and cooperation

with different stakeholders. Coordination across different levels of governance and across different

departments is essential. Involvement of civil society, practitioners, parents and children and young people

themselves in policy and practice design, implementation and monitoring ensures better accountability,

engagement and commitment and ultimately better policies and outcomes for children.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO EUROCHILD & ITS MEMBERS

7. Children‟s rights are still poorly understood and applied in policy making across the EU. The Eurochild

network can raise awareness of the UNCRC and its influence on decision-making among policy makers,

practitioners, parents and children. The fight against child poverty and social exclusion cannot be separated

from children‟s rights. It is important to show how recognition of children as subjects of rights changes policy

design and implementation and produces better outcomes for children.

8. Focusing Eurochild‟s work on the UNCRC creates a uniting force that brings together stakeholders across

all sectors and professions. The conference has demonstrated with many interesting good practice examples

how working together makes a difference to children‟s lives. The Eurochild network aims to provide a platform

for all organisations and individuals committed to the rights and welfare of children and young people in

Europe. This diversity is its strength.

9. Eurochild has an obligation to ensure the voices and concerns of children and young people

themselves are heard and taken into account. This conference – as previous Eurochild events – has

demonstrated the creativity, insights and energy brought by children and young people to the debate. We also

heard how different projects successfully empower and involve children to find the best long-term solutions to

poverty and social exclusion. Children‟s participation must be an integral part of our work and our efforts to

promote children‟s well-being and inclusion.

For further reading check the Conference website: http://tinyurl.com/64qg24u

http://tinyurl.com/64qg24u

7th Annual Conference Report - Brighter Futures Building ... · 1. OPENING CEREMONY 7th Annual...

Documents

Transcript of 7th Annual Conference Report - Brighter Futures Building ... · 1. OPENING CEREMONY 7th Annual...