ESPN -

ESPN Thematic Report on Progress in the implementation of the 2013 EU Recommendation on “Investing in children: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage” Hungary 2017

Fruzsina Albert June 2017

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Directorate C — Social Affairs Unit C.2 — Modernisation of social protection systems Contact: Giulia Pagliani E-mail: [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

European Social Policy Network (ESPN)

ESPN Thematic Report on Progress in the implementation of the 2013 EU Recommendation on “Investing in children: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage” Hungary 2017 Fruzsina Albert (Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Centre for Social Sciences and Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church of Hungary)

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion 2017

The European Social Policy Network (ESPN) was established in July 2014 on the initiative of the European Commission to provide high-quality and timely independent information, advice, analysis and expertise on social policy issues in the European Union and neighbouring countries. The ESPN brings together into a single network the work that used to be carried out by the European Network of Independent Experts on Social Inclusion, the Network for the Analytical Support on the Socio-Economic Impact of Social Protection Reforms (ASISP) and the MISSOC (Mutual Information Systems on Social Protection) secretariat. The ESPN is managed by the Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER) and APPLICA, together with the European Social Observatory (OSE). For more information on the ESPN, see: http:ec.europa.eusocialmain.jsp?catId=1135&langId=en

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

LEGAL NOTICE This document has been prepared for the European Commission, however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http:www.europa.eu).

© European Union, 2017 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged

Progress in the implementation of the EU Recommendation on “Investing in children”

Hungary

Contents SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 3 1 OVERALL SITUATION WITH REGARD TO CHILD POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION .......... 4 2 ASSESSMENT OF OVERALL APPROACH AND GOVERNANCE ............................................. 6 3 PILLAR 1 – ACCESS TO RESOURCES............................................................................ 7 4 PILLAR 2 – ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE QUALITY SERVICES .............................................. 8 5 PILLAR 3 – CHILDREN’S RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE ........................................................ 10 6 ADDRESSING CHILD POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND CHILD WELL-BEING IN THE EUROPEAN SEMESTER ............................................................................................. 11 7 MOBILISING RELEVANT EU FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ................................................ 11 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 13 ANNEX: SUMMARY TABLE – PROGRESS SINCE FEBRUARY 2013 ........................................ 15

2


Hungary

Summary Since 2013 the situation recorded by EU poverty indicators has improved significantly in Hungary, for both the total population and also its demographically most at-risk population, children. Despite this improvement, more than one-third of Hungarian children are still at risk of poverty and social exclusion, and all four poverty indices are significantly higher in respect of children than the population average, especially for children in lone-parent families and Roma children. The child-specific material deprivation rate in Hungary is the third highest among EU member states. There is therefore room for improvement in the situation. The basis of the fight against child poverty, which is still a policy priority, is the evidencebased, multi-dimensional, integrated National Strategy ‘Making Things Better for our Children’. The strategy remains in place, and initially involved regular, substantive policy evaluations, but it is no longer a source of new initiatives. Equally, although there are a number of consultative bodies, they contain few members who are likely criticise the overall situation on child poverty or the measures proposed to tackle it. Some of those who were previously critical have resigned, claiming that their advice was not taken seriously in practice. The timeframe allowed to provide feedback on proposed legislation is considered completely insufficient, rendering consultation processes a mere formality. The involvement of relevant stakeholders could be significantly improved, both in formal terms and – in particular – in terms of allowing a substantive effect on policy decisions. Employment levels have significantly improved in recent years, and several efforts have been made to enhance the labour market participation of parents. Regarding policies to promote adequate living standards, the overall picture is mixed. There have been both positive developments (for example, the extension of the school meals programme) and negative ones (for example, changes in the tax system). Since 2008 there has been no increase in the level of social benefits, including several child-related benefits, thus further undermining their adequacy. Regarding affordable good-quality services, the main relevant target of government measures in this field is the expansion and reinforcement of good-quality education in early childhood (new legislation for crèches, and compulsory kindergarten). There are serious gaps in healthcare provision; and although several significant changes have been introduced in the system of family support and child protection since 2013, their positive impact is yet to be seen. Provision of basic child welfare services still needs to be improved. Though government expenditure on education started to increase in 2014, its positive impact on either student achievement or reducing inequality is yet to be seen, and the latest figures actually indicate a deterioration. The rate of early school-leaving has further worsened. Universal and targeted policies (for example, in education) are not always co-ordinated and are thus not effective. The child rights approach is not dominant, and no visible effort has been made to support the involvement of children in policy-making affecting them. The funding of projects designed to tackle social exclusion, including child poverty, comes predominantly from EU sources. Absorption rates, especially in the field of social exclusion, seem quite low. Lack of continuity in state funding for projects causes many problems, including the loss of staff and the undermining of the projects’ credibility, and there have been several complaints regarding the very slow pace of the project application system. Several policy measures are favourable to families with children, but they are often most favourable to families in better financial situations. The erosion in value1 of social benefits harms low-income families most. Recommendations:

1

For details see the first paragraph of Section 3.b.

3


Hungary

Unfortunately, I must repeat a number of recommendations made previously (Albert 2013), most importantly: The level of social benefits is still insufficient and has further decreased during recent years. This should be reconsidered, and benefits (for example, family allowance) should be increased, especially for lone-parent and/or poor families, who stand to gain the least from other measures that have been introduced, such as modifications to the tax system. The potential of the school system to offset social disadvantage and provide equal opportunities should be significantly increased. The availability of social housing stock should be increased, and the construction of subsidised rental housing should be supported. The unlawful practice of removing children from their families because of a lack of adequate financial resources should be eliminated, and effective tools should be provided to social workers to help families in such situations. Programmes should be introduced to increase the accessibility and availability of primary healthcare, and improve the quality of healthcare in disadvantaged regions.

1

Overall situation with regard to child poverty and social exclusion

For the Hungarian population overall, all indicators showed poverty reaching a peak in 2013, but improving since then (Figure 1). For children aged 0-17, the same was true for both the AROPE (risk of poverty and social exclusion) and SMD (severe material deprivation) indicators (Figure 2). In 2013, 755,000 Hungarian children lived at risk of poverty and social exclusion, but by 2016 this number had fallen to 568,000. The AROP (risk of poverty) rate for children was highest in 2014, and by 2016 had decreased to a similar level to the severe material deprivation rate. In 2012, 283,000 children lived in households with low work intensity, falling by almost one-half, to 154,000, by 2016. Although all these indices show a significant decrease in the number of Hungarian children in poverty, the number is still very high; children are the age group most at risk, especially those in lone-parent or Roma families. All four indices (AROPE, AROP, SMD and QJ) show a higher rate of poverty among children than for the whole population. The AROPE rate for children in 2015 was 36.1%, 7.9 points higher than the national average; their AROP rate was 22.7%, compared with 14.9% nationally; and 24.9% were affected by severe material deprivation, compared with 19.4% nationally. As many as 6.6% of children suffered from both relative poverty and severe material deprivation and also lived in quasi-jobless households, compared with 3% nationally. In 2016 30% of all households had dependent children in them: the AROPE rate was 31.1% for these households, rising to 42% for those with two adults and three or more children, and 56% for lone-parent families. The child-specific material deprivation rate2 for Hungary (see statistical annex to Frazer, H. and Marlier, E., 2017) is also the third highest in the EU, at 47%, only Bulgaria and Romania having worse figures in this regard. The Central Statistical Office in Hungary has terminated the calculation of the minimum subsistence level, on the grounds that it is inadequate as a measure of poverty. Although the government emphasises that the number of disadvantaged students in public education has halved3 in six years, this is misleading as it is partly due to a definitional change: in 2013, the legal criteria of disadvantaged and multiply disadvantaged (HH and HHH) children became stricter. Also, one component of the definition is the labour market participation of parents, which has improved significantly due to the public work

This index records the proportion of children suffering the enforced lack of at least three out of 17 essential items (only available for EU-SILC 2014). This indicator is proposed by Guio et al. (2012) as a way to measure child deprivation at the EU level, based on the 2014 EU-SILC ad hoc module on material deprivation. 3 http://www.kormany.hu/hu/emberi-eroforrasok-miniszteriuma/parlamenti-allamtitkarsag/hirek/hat-ev-alattmegfelezodott-a-koznevelesben-a-hatranyos-helyzetu-gyermekek-szama 2

4


Hungary

programme without significantly improving their household income. Another criterion is entitlement to regular child protection benefit: but 80,000 families in poverty have lost entitlement to this in the space of two years as a result of (among other things) an increase in the minimum wage, which itself did little to significantly improve their living conditions (Farkas 2015). Figure 1: Trends in number of people (whole population) at risk of poverty or social exclusion, thousands, 2008-2016, Hungary

Source: Statistical annex to Frazer, H. and Marlier, E. (2017).

5


Hungary

Figure 2: Trends in number of children aged 0-17 at risk of poverty or social exclusion, thousands, 2008-2016, Hungary

Source: Statistical annex to Frazer, H. and Marlier, E. (2017).

2

Assessment of overall approach and governance

Since 2013, fighting child poverty and promoting parents’ labour-market participation have continued to be among the most highlighted policy objectives. The basis of the fight against child poverty is the evidence-based, multi-dimensional, integrated National Strategy ‘Making Things Better for our Children’. This is a multi-generational programme (20072032) adopted by Parliament in 2007 and then integrated into the National Social Inclusion Strategy. The strategy remains in place, and initially involved regular, substantive policy evaluations, but it is no longer a source of new initiatives. Several consultative and monitoring bodies exist, including the evaluation committee of the National Strategy, and the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Social Inclusion and Roma Matters (for more details see Albert 2013). However, the composition of these committees has been changed, so that they are now dominated by government officials: the limited number of civil sector representatives is mainly from churches and religious organisations, and the remainder are often not the most relevant stakeholders4. Few members are likely to criticise the overall situation on child poverty, or proposed measures to deal with it. Some of those who were previously critical have resigned5, claiming that they had no real influence and did not want to be part of legitimising certain measures6. A few scientists are members, but often in a non-voting capacity. The timeframe allowed to provide feedback on proposed legislation is considered completely insufficient by participants, rendering the process a mere formality. The involvement of relevant stakeholders could therefore be

“The number of potential opponents is minimal” – quote from a conversation with a member. Most recently, Berki Judit left the Educational Roundtable. 6 “There are committees but they do not function, they cannot fulfill their original goal.” – quote from a conversation with a member. 4 5

6


Hungary

significantly improved, both in formal ways, but also especially in terms of their substantive influence. The annual report of the National Strategy evaluation committee used to provide substantial data regarding child poverty, but not any more: it is now focused not on problems but only interventions, and does not call attention to new problems. A civil ‘shadow report’7 on child poverty used to exist but there are currently no resources for further editions. An indicator system for child poverty, developed by TÁRKI Ltd., has been adopted by the Central Statistical office, but the system has not been developed further and not all the necessary splits of data are available. It would be useful, for example, to set up a system to monitor early school-leaving, or the development of children who attended Sure Start Children’s Houses (Balás et al. 2016). For the above reasons, there has not been much improvement in the availability of evidence-based analyses, especially regarding the overall situation. The assessment of the impact on children of policies introduced in response to the crisis could also be enhanced, although there seems to be an increasing number of specific studies – see several such studies prepared for the State secretariat for social affairs and social inclusion of the Ministry of Human Capacities (for example, Balás et al. 2016, Kopasz 2017, Bernát-Kozma 2017, and Gábos-Szívós 2016). The children’s right approach is not dominant, and no visible effort has been made to support the involvement of children in policy-making affecting them. Universal and targeted policies (for example, in education) are not always co-ordinated and are thus not effective.

3

Pillar 1 – Access to resources a) Policies to support parents’ participation in the labour market

Employment levels have significantly improved in recent years in Hungary, which has been reflected in the continuous decrease in the proportion of quasi-jobless households. The Childcare Allowance Extra programme, designed to promote the employability of parents with young children, was introduced in 2014 and then extended in 20168. Employers of mothers with three or more children also receive further tax reductions. Childcare provision facilities have also been improved (see next section). The public works scheme has been significantly extended in recent years, mainly in order to provide employment for those on the periphery of the labour market. In 2016, the average number of those on public schemes was 223,470, it activated 41.6% of registered jobseekers.9 Thus, it has become the most important employment scheme for vulnerable people, among them the Roma, with public scheme workers comprising 4.9% of all employed people in Hungary10. The system has been often criticised for being inefficient at reintegrating people into the primary labour market, and for providing less income than the minimum wage. There are now plans to alter the system, to prevent it becoming a permanent solution for those involved, and especially for those under 25.

Civil jelentés a gyermekesélyekről, 2011. Eds: Ferge Z. és Darvas Á., Budapest 2012. http://gyere.net/downloads/Civil_jelentes_2011.pdf 8 In 2015, employment among mothers aged 15-64 with children aged 0-3 increased by 15%, from 11.8% to 13.6% (Magyarország 2015:28). Despite some criticisms of this programme, it has had a positive impact, especially on those who can find permanent full-time employment. 7

9

http://kozfoglalkoztatas.kormany.hu/download/e/f4/b1000/Havi%20t%C3%A1j%C3%A9koztat%C3%B3_2016 _dec.pdf p.4. 10 Data from the Labour Force Survey of the Central Statistical Office, fourth quarter 2016.

7


b) Policies to provide adequate living standards combination of cash and in-kind benefits

through

Hungary

an

optimal

The overall picture is mixed: there have been both positive and negative developments. Since 2014, there have been modifications to the tax system that positively affect the children of several groups of low-income families11, but the 11.2% of children who live in quasi-jobless households do not benefit from these changes. An often-highlighted negative feature is that since 2008 there has been no improvement in the adequacy of social benefits, including the family allowance, child care assistance, regular child protection benefit, and benefits for people of working age – which have thus suffered a significant, (around 30%) drop in their purchasing value. Moreover, no improvement in their adequacy and coverage is expected in the coming year either. The employment replacement subsidy has remained EUR 76 (22,800 HUF) per month, and the adequacy of the minimum income scheme has not improved. In the fight against child poverty, the introduction/extension of free or discounted meals in crèches, kindergartens and primary schools for children from low-income families or with three or more children may be considered one of the most successful measures. There have also been programmes to support the nutrition of poor children during the summer holidays for a number of years: since 2016, they have been almost universally provided to those aged 0-5, and municipalities are legally obliged to provide food for all disadvantaged children. The programme should also be extended to secondary school students, and could even be an element of the strategy against early school-leaving. In summary, several policy measures are favourable for families with children, but they are often more favourable for families in better financial situations. The loss of value of social benefits affects low-income families the most negatively. Even the best local programmes cannot act as a substitute for state interventions and universal policies, but they should support these.

4

Pillar 2 – Access to affordable quality services

The main relevant targets of government measures in this field are the expansion and reinforcement of good-quality education in early childhood, and integrated pedagogical programmes in kindergartens. There has been a slow and moderate, but steady, growth in the availability of crèches for children under 3, but the level of availability is still very low. Previously only municipalities with a population over 10,000 were obliged to provide daycare for children under 3, but according to the new legislation in effect from 1 January 2017 this has been extended to all settlements with more than 40 children under 3, or where it is requested by the parents of at least five children. The previous system has been recategorised into ‘family crèche’12, ‘mini crèche’, ‘crèche’, ‘workplace crèche’ or ‘daycare child supervision’. Kindergarten attendance was made compulsory from September 2015, to enhance the participation of disadvantaged children (among them Roma children) in pre-school education. Together with the extended free meals programme, kindergartens are a positive step towards promoting the well-being of children. In order to ensure children’s regular school and kindergarten attendance, the family allowance – for families whose children are of compulsory school age – is suspended in cases of unjustified absence

In 2015 the circle of those eligible for the family tax allowance was extended, and the spouse of the partner eligible for family allowance could also claim it. Not only income gained through the permanent work contract but other income can also be included in the tax base (e.g. permanent contract of services, or income for letting an apartment). In 2016 the flat-tax rate was reduced from 16% to 15%. The tax allowance for two children was also increased, and will double by 2019 – a yearly increase of 2,500 HUF (EUR 8). 12 This is a somewhat similar to private home childminders: but these have to be registered and certified, and are usually quite expensive. 11

8


Hungary

(from 50 lessons at school, or for 20 days in kindergarten). Although the goal of promoting attendance is a good one, providing support (for example from a social worker) might be a better solution than imposing sanctions. Sure Start Children’s Houses are a successful model in the field of early childhood education for disadvantaged children, and their continuing expansion (though slow when compared with need) is a positive phenomenon. After initial financing by the EU, Sure Start Children’s Houses receive normal state financing, which is a good practice. However, state financing only provides for the employment costs of two permanent employees, and so the provision of special services decreases significantly (Balas et al. 2016). From 2016, generous support for those having, or planning13 to have, three children has been introduced, in the form of a ‘family home-creation loan’, but its actual impact in terms of reducing housing poverty is rather controversial. Most housing-related programmes are practically inaccessible for low-income households, and forced evictions also often affect children as well (Habitat 2016). There are still very significant territorial inequalities in almost all areas of service provision (for example, healthcare), and improvements in the national figures may not be mirrored in disadvantaged regions where it is most needed (for example, infant mortality rates). Hundreds of paediatrician vacancies cannot be filled in primary care, and one-quarter of paediatricians are over 65. There are hardly any services for children with addiction problems who need a child psychiatrist. Although several significant changes have been introduced in the system of family support and child protection since 2013, their positive impact is yet to be seen 14. Significant numbers of children are still taken away from their families for what are essentially financial reasons, contrary to the law. Approximately onehalf of the children registered as being at risk15 are living in poverty16. Discrimination may also be a factor, as Roma children are significantly overrepresented in the child protection system. Basic child welfare services still need to be improved. One positive development is that the Ministry of Human Capacities has issued several new protocols, including on the functioning of the child protection signalling system and on the procedures to be applied in cases of child abuse. In December 2016 it even modified the child protection law among others to strengthen the child protection signalling system to better ensure children’s rights for guaranteed protection. On the other hand, there are hardly any free services for abused children (including victims of sexual abuse) and psychologists are also barely available, especially in the countryside and small settlements. Though government expenditure on education started to increase in 2014, its positive impact has yet to be seen on either student achievement or on reducing inequality. The latest PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) figures indicate a deterioration in Hungary. Despite extensive grants for disadvantaged children, the latter still face major obstacles to gaining access to higher education. During the first half of 2016, teachers’ demonstrations called attention to the problems of public education and the present system of centralised educational management. Even experts participating in the elaboration of the educational reform state that although the government identified the problems properly, its proposed response is inadequate. School segregation is still a substantial problem. The rate of early school-leaving has further worsened, to 12.5% in 2016, so a system of early signalling and pedagogical support was introduced in November

If a couple has no children, they can only declare a plan to have a maximum of two. If they already have one child, they can declare a plan to have a second and third (in this last case and in case of a newly build property, the support provided is extraordinarily high by Hungarian standards). The first child should be born within four years of the undertaking being made, and the second within eight years: otherwise the amount of support must be repaid with interest. 14 For a first evaluation of the most recent changes see Kopasz 2017. 15 In 2014, 140,000 children were registered as being at risk: see Statisztikai Tükör 2016. https://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/stattukor/gyermekvedelem14.pdf 16 http://www.ncsszi.hu/download.php?file_id=204 13

9


Hungary

2016: its impact is yet to be seen. Every third child with severe multiple disabilities cannot get access to legally prescribed education/development services (Hintalovon 2017:24). Sex education in schools needs to be developed (Semsey 2016). Based on expert estimates, around 400 children under 18 have no valid address17, which excludes them from basic services such as healthcare, education, and social benefits, or causes significant problems in getting access to them18.

5

Pillar 3 – Children’s right to participate

One recent positive development is that, for the first time, a non-government organisation (NGO) published a report focusing on children’s rights, and they plan to do so annually (Hintalovon 2017). a) Policies to support the participation of all children in play, recreation, sport and cultural activities Six years ago, the government launched a comprehensive programme (Erzsébet programme) to support various disadvantaged groups, including children, to take part in holiday activities, either with their families or organised by their schools. So far 400,000 children have participated in the programme – either in the form of live-in camps or daytime enrichment programmes during school holidays. The programme is planned to be extended in the forthcoming years19. This programme is available via an application procedure, which in certain cases is a serious limitation. In disadvantaged settlements during the summer, daytime enrichment programmes should be provided for children without an application procedure, and these should be part of integrated development programmes. In 2016, 74% of households with children aged 8-14 had internet access, and 92% had smartphones. However, schools generally lack the human and technical infrastructure needed to promote digital literacy and provide prevention programmes against online abuse: the latter issue is not even included in national curricula (NAT)20. This is an area where improvement is needed. The ‘TANODA’ programmes (designed to support the educational success of disadvantaged pupils) also offer opportunities for disadvantaged children to participate in good-quality activities in their free time. b) Mechanisms that promote children’s participation in legal decision-making in areas that affect their lives, and in after-school activities The issue of children’s right to voice their opinion has been prominent in the areas of divorce, criminal procedure, and child abuse, and in connection with educational reform. In 2016, the participation of students in mass protests against the public education system generated public debate and highlighted the question as to how much the adult population permits or supports children to form their own opinions – the answer received is quite controversial (Hintalovon 2016:15-16). There is a National Student Parliament, which acts

The reason may be that the family is renting a flat and the owner does not approve them of registering at that address with the local authorities: often neither side is aware that where there is a legally valid contract, the written approval of the owner is not necessary for registration. In other cases the family may be living somewhere without a legal contract. An NGO (A Város Mindenkié) has launched a campaign and lobbied the relevant Ministry to try to solve the problem. 18 http://avarosmindenkie.blog.hu/2016/12/17/leadtuk_javaslatainkat_az_emminek_a_lakcim_nelkuli_gyerekek_ugyeben 19 http://www.haon.hu/novak-katalin-a-fejlesztesek-nyoman-megduplazodik-az-erzsebet-taborokkapacitasa/3461170 20 Az alapvető jogok biztosának Jelentése az AJB-479/2016. számú ügyben. https://www.ajbh.hu/documents/10180/2500969/Jelent%C3%A9s+a+m%C3%A9dia%C3%A9rt%C3%A9soktat%C3%A1s+helyzet%C3%A9r%C5%91l+497_2016/41838d72-616e-45bf-8b51e744c4fa1b59?version=1.0 17

10


Hungary

as a forum to promote children’s participation in legal decision-making and educationrelated issues, but its suggestions are not yet reflected in political decisions. An Independent Student Parliament has also been formed as an inclusive grass-roots organisation. Based on a survey of school directors, it seems that students mostly play a passive role in the running of schools. On the other hand, when they do voice their opinion, it is taken into account only to a limited extent and only in relation to minor issues (for example, decorating their classroom) (Járomi et al. 2016:31-33). Regarding sexual abuse, the relevant ombudsman has called attention to the fact that signals from children are not taken seriously in the child protection system (especially in the case of children in foster care, and those living in children’s homes)21. He pointed out that there is no use talking about children’s rights to voice their opinion if this is only a formality, and if what they say is not taken seriously into account and has no impact. In 2016, the system of children’s rights representatives (designed to secure the above rights for children in foster care) was changed, and from 2017 the body formerly responsible now functions as part of the Ministry of Human Capacities as an Integrated Rights Protection Agency (Integrált Jogvédelmi Szolgálat). The impact of this change is yet to be seen (Hintalovon 2016: 13).

6

Addressing child poverty and social exclusion and child wellbeing in the European Semester

Since 2013 most country-specific recommendations for Hungary in the field of social protection (for example, CSR 2016/3), have referred to the public works scheme, the adequacy and coverage of benefits, and the need to improve educational outcomes and the participation of disadvantaged groups in inclusive mainstream education. The related documents deal with these issues in detail, together with the fight against child poverty, which is a policy priority. On the other hand, direct references to the Recommendation have not been included. Several issues seem to be neglected, most prominently those of children’s rights, the adequacy of benefits, and the precarious housing situation of children in poverty. The recent improvement shown by the poverty and social exclusion indices relating to children, together with the improving employment figures, are frequently highlighted, whereas the inadequacy of benefits is still not seen as a problem. Although measures in the field of education have also been taken, their positive impact cannot be seen and the possible negative impact of the general educational reform is denied: only special measures, affecting fractions of the target group, are highlighted.

7

Mobilising relevant EU financial instruments

By the end of the first quarter of 2017, the general preconditions for EU funding (‘thematic ex ante conditionalities’) had been comprehensively fulfilled in respect of employment (Thematic Objective, TO, 8); and also in respect of social inclusion (TO9), except for access to health and services (9.3). However, in the case of education they have only been partially fulfilled in respect of reducing early school-leaving and increasing early childhood education/care (10.1), and in respect of increasing vocational education/training apprenticeships (10.4); and they have not been fulfilled in respect of access to tertiary education (10.2 education). Funding for projects that handle social inclusion, including child poverty – and therefore supporting implementation of the Recommendation − predominantly comes from the EU. Education and employment receive around three times more funding than social inclusion

http://www.ajbh.hu/-/az-alapjogi-biztos-vizsgalatot-rendelt-el-a-gyermekvedelmi-jelzorendszer-mukodesekapcsan-a-bicskei-kossuth-zsuzsanna-gyermekotthonban-felmerult-szexu 21

11


Hungary

programmes. Absorption of funds (based on Commission data) is highest for better public administration (TO11), followed by education (37%) and employment (34%). Social exclusion lags behind with an 11% absorption rate. Rates of actual declared spending are usually very low, only exceeding 10% of the funds committed by the EU in the case of two dimensions of employment22. Projects are still short-term in nature, lasting two or three years at most, which is too limited a timeframe to break the intergenerational transmission of poverty. Projects cannot be sustained once financing ends, so most of their effects also vanish in time. Contracts stipulate that project achievements should be sustained for years after the financing ends: but this requires funding that only the state, rather than NGOs and disadvantaged municipalities, can provide. Unfortunately, there is often a gap of several months or even longer between the end of EU funding and the provision of state funding (for example, in the case of the ‘children’s chances’ programme there has been a gap of 18 months). This is completely counterproductive: besides undermining the credibility of service providers, long-term interventions stop, professional staff are lost, and any initial achievements are often wasted. There are several complaints regarding the very slow pace of the project application system: for example, the regional ‘children’s chances’ programmes invited applications by August 2016, but no decision on the 22 applicants had been made by the time of writing (May 2017). A new evaluation system has been introduced for the latest financing period, but it does not seem to work any more quickly or efficiently than the previous one. In a number of calls for applications, ERFA (European Regional Development Fund) and ESF (European Social Fund) segments have been separated and there seems to be no functional link between them: this is especially problematic as the timing of the calls for applications cannot be calculated, and planning is made impossible23. Some experts consider that the Directorate-General for Social Affairs and Child Protection (Szociális és Gyermekvédelmi Főigazgatóság) − the official organisation of the Hungarian Ministry of Human Capacities responsible for social affairs and child protection in Hungary, and which runs over 20 projects − does so without the necessary human resources and prior planning and coordination: this is also seen as an obstacle in the way of effective absorption of EU funds. Another issue is that the managing authority now functions as a part of the Ministry of Human Capacities, which may not be a proper organisational arrangement – it is questionable as to how the authority can supervise the organisation of which it is itself a subordinate part. The operational programme supporting people in need (RSZT OP – based on the European Fund for Aid to the Most Deprived) should have been launched 18 months ago, and the reasons for the delay are still not known, although the programme is much needed.

The remainder of this section draws on interviews with experts and NGO representatives who wish to remain anonymous. 23 “You may be able to employ the project staff but can buy furniture and stationary only five months later.” 22

12


Hungary

References Albert, F.: Investing in children – breaking the cycle of disadvantage. Hungary. 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?pager.offset=10&catId=1025&langId=en&newsId =2061&tableName=news&moreDocuments=yes Balás et al.: Biztos Kezdet program hatásvizsgálata (Impact assessment of the Sure Start programme). Hétfa Kutatóintézet. 2016. http://hetfa.hu/wpcontent/uploads/hetfa_biztoskezdet_zarotanulmany0210.pdf Bernát, A. – Kozma, Á.: A fogyatékos nappali ellátásban biztosított fejlesztések, programok, tevékenységek feltáró vizsgálata (An exploratory study on developments, programmes, activities in the field of day care services for the disabled). TÁRKI Zrt. 2017. http://www.tarki.hu/hu/news/2017/kitekint/20170424_nappaliellatas.pdf Farkas, Zs.: Rendszeres gyermekvédelmi kedvezményre jogosult gyermekek, fiatal felnőttek számának csökkenése mögött húzódó okok vizsgálata (Analyses of the causes behind the decrease of the number of children and young adults entitled to regular child protection benefit). In: Gábos A. és Szivós P. (eds.): Szociálpolitikai monitoring tanulmányok (Monitoring studies on social policy). Budapest: EMMI. 2015. Pp. 51-86. http://www.tarki.hu/hu/news/2016/kitekint/szocpol/20160823_szocpol_monitoring_1. pdf Frazer, H. and Marlier, E., ‘Progress in the implementation of the 2013 EU Recommendation on “Investing in children: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage: A study of national policies”’. European Social Policy Network (ESPN). Brussels: European Commission. 2017. Gábos A. és Szivós P. (eds.): Szociálpolitikai monitoring tanulmányok (Monitoring studies on social policy). Budapest: EMMI. 2016. http://www.tarki.hu/hu/news/2016/kitekint/szocpol/20160823_szocpol_monitoring_5 _mozer.pdf Guio et al.: Measuring material deprivation in the EU. Indicators for the whole population and child-specific indicators. EUROSTAT Methodologies and Indicators. 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3888793/5853037/KS-RA-12-018-EN.PDF GYERE: 2017-es költségvetés – ami hiányzik: felelőségvállalás minden gyermekért és méltányos forráselosztás (Budget for 2017 – and what is missing: taking responsibility for all children and a fair redistribution). 2016. http://feleloskoltsegvetes.hu/media/2016/05/Gyerek%C3%A9tkeztet%C3%A9s%C3%A9s-csal%C3%A1dt%C3%A1mogat%C3%A1sok.pdf Habitat for Humanity: Éves jelentés a lakhatási szegénységről 2015 (Annual report on housing poverty 2015). 2016. See: http://www.habitat.hu/files/eves_jelentes_a_lakhatasi_szegenysegrol_teljes_valtozat 2015.pdf Hintalovon Alapítvány: Gyermekjogi Jelentés 2016 (Children’s rights report 2016). 2017. http://www.hintalovon.hu/Hintalovon_jelentes-2016.pdf Járomi, É. Szilágyi, K, Vitrai, J.: Egészséges életmóddal kapcsolatos kutatások a hazai iskolákban (Health behaviour studies in Hungarian schools) Egészségfejlesztés, LVII./1. 1-40. 2016. http://folyoirat.nefi.hu/index.php?journal=Egeszsegfejlesztes&page=article&op=downl oad&path%5B%5D=24&path%5B%5D=pdf Kopasz, M.: A családsegítő és gyermekjóléti szolgáltatás integrációjának és az ellátórendszer kétszintűvé történő átalakításának tapasztalatai (Experiences regarding the integration of family support and child welfare services and the restructuring of the system to function at two levels). TÁRKI Zrt. 2017. http://www.tarki.hu/hu/news/2017/kitekint/20170425_csaladsegito.pdf

13


Magyarország 2015 (Hungary 2015). https://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/idoszaki/mo/mo2015.pdf

KSH.

Hungary

2016.

Semsey, G. Szexuális nevelés a magyar gimnáziumokban – ahogy a diákok látják (Sexual education in Hungarian secondary schools). In: Karlovitz, J. T. (ed.) Társadalom, kulturális háttér, gazdaság (Society, cultural background, economy). International Research Institute s.r.o. Komárno. 2016. http://www.irisro.org/tarstud2016aprilis/69SemseyGabor.pdf

14


Hungary

Annex: Summary Table – Progress since February 2013

Policy area or approach

Overall have policies/ approaches been strengthened, stayed much the same or been weakened since February 2013 (in the light of the EU Recommendation)? Stronger

Governance  Multi-dimensional strategy with synergies between policies  Children’s rights approach & effective mainstreaming of children’s policy and rights  Evidence-based approach  Involvement of relevant stakeholders (including children)

Little Change

Weaker

X X X X

Access to resources  Parents’ participation in the labour market  Child & family income support

X

Access to services  ECEC  Education  Health  Housing & living environment  Family support & alternative care

X

X

X X X X

Children’s right to participate  in play, recreation, sport & cultural activities  in decision making

X X

Addressing child poverty and social exclusion in the European Semester

X

Mobilising relevant EU financial instruments

X

15