Investing in Children: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage
A Study of National Policies
Germany
EU Network of
Independent Experts
on Social Inclusion
This publication has been prepared for the European Commission by
© Cover illustration: European Union Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission may be held responsible for use of any information contained in this publication. The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and should not be considered as representative of the European Commission’s or Member States’ official position. Further information on the Network of independent experts is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1025&langId=en © European Union, 2014 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Investing in Children:
Breaking the cycle of disadvantage
A Study of National Policies
WALTER HANESCH HOCHSCHULE DARMSTADT
COUNTRY REPORT - GERMANY
Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 5
1. Assessment of overall approach and governance ............................................. 7
(a) Integrated strategy against child poverty .................................................. 7
(b) Involvement of stakeholders .................................................................... 8
(c) Children’s rights approach ....................................................................... 9
(d) Universal versus targeted policy against child poverty ................................. 9
(e) Evidence-based policy and evaluation of programmes ................................10
(f) Sustained investment in children and families ............................................10
(g) Recommendations ..............................................................................11
2. Access to adequate resources ......................................................................13
(1) Child poverty as a challenge for the German welfare state ..........................13
(2) Improving employment participation in families ........................................13
(a) Employment policy ....................................................................13 (b) Reconciling work and family life ..................................................14
(3) Provision of marriage and family related benefits ....................................14
(a) Child benefit and child tax credit .................................................15 (b) Social benefit in social assistance / basic income support for job
seekers ....................................................................................15 (c) Supplementary child benefit .......................................................15 (d) Parental allowance and parental leave .........................................15 (e) Additional benefits ....................................................................16
(4) Assessment and further development of marriage and family related
benefits .............................................................................................16
3. Access to affordable quality services .............................................................18
(1) The role of the local level in service provision .........................................18
(2) Selected service areas .........................................................................18
(a) Education and care in early childhood ..........................................18 (b) Benefit for education and participation .........................................20 (c) School-based education services .................................................20 (d) Health care services ..................................................................21 (e) Youth and family services ..........................................................21 (f) Housing and living environment ..................................................22
(3) Integrated local strategies ...................................................................22
4. Addressing child poverty and social exclusion in the European Semester ...........24
5. Mobilising relevant EU financial instruments ...................................................25
References.......................................................................................................27
Annex .............................................................................................................32
Add title 2
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 5
Executive Summary1
(1) The European Commission`s recently published recommendation on
“Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage” has not
attracted much attention in Germany. Only few comments have been
published up to now. One reason for this may be the fact that the social
investment approach of the European Commission corresponds to a
paradigm shift in family policy that has taken place in Germany during the last decade.
(2) Up to now, public expenditure on marriage and family-related benefits
shows a clear dominance of cash benefits and tax exemptions in Germany:
Even if public expenditure on benefits in kind has gained in importance, it
is still of minor quantitative relevance. And up to now, no comprehensive,
integrated strategy against poverty in general and child poverty in
particular – including all state levels and actor groups – has been developed and implemented.
(3) The German policy on child poverty is focussed on the improvement of
employment participation in families with children. Even if the employment
rate has continuously increased during the last decade, the integration of
disadvantaged groups in the labour market has only low priority in
Germany. The reconciling of family and professional life has been improved through the massive expansion of day care facilities.
(4) The `social investment` approach to child poverty in Germany was and still
is mainly focussed on the expansion of educational and social services,
while other strategic options, like improving the material situation of poor
children and families, have been widely neglected. Above all, since the
current conservative-liberal coalition came to power, the income aspect of
poverty in general, and of child poverty in particular, has been completely faded out of this strategy.
(5) The volume of monetary funds for marriage and family related cash
benefits and tax exemptions is comparatively high in Germany. At the
same time, the existing benefit system is rather ineffective for preventing
or reducing child poverty. To reduce child poverty more effectively, a child-
oriented restructuring of family benefits and the introduction of a child-related minimum income would be necessary.
(6) Even if early childhood education and care has received high political
priority in recent years, the expansion of day-care facilities has not solved
all the problems. Because of scarce funding, qualitative deficits threaten to
increase. And so far, families with the greatest need for support were the
least likely to profit from the expanded supply. To date, insufficient
strategies for child-oriented support in the school system have meant little
success in promoting pupils with disadvantaged social backgrounds.
1 Readers should note that the drafting of this report was completed in September 2013
thus it does not include an analysis of data or policy developments that became available after this date.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 6
(7) Integrated strategies, which are aimed at developing a support system for
poor families and children, have to be focussed on local municipal levels.
The system of preventive networks for different age groups in the city of
Monheim could serve as an example of good practice for other
municipalities.
(8) The already initiated expansion of affordable quality services for poor
families and children should be continued, above all, with regard to early
childhood education and care, as well as to education in the school system.
Many of the political objectives and intentions have so far remained rather more rhetorical than real, especially with regard to the school system.
(9) The NRP´s and NSR´s are providing information on the variety of
programmes against child poverty. The problem is that no differentiated
information is available on the objectives and impacts of these
programmes. Nevertheless, monitoring and evaluation of family
programmes and benefits have become regular elements of newly adopted
social and family policy programmes.
(10) The wide range of programmes against child poverty are funded mainly by
tax revenues of the federal state, the states and the municipalities. The
European Structural Funds have been used for additional funding. These
financial sources are used for additional programmes of the federal state
and the states.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 7
1. Assessment of overall approach and governance2 On February 20, 2013, the European Commission adopted a recommendation on
“Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage” as a key element of the
Social Investment Package (SIP). This recommendation sets out a common
European framework for tackling child poverty and social exclusion and for
promoting child well-being. In this chapter, the national, regional and local
framework for the implementation of this recommendation and for the fight
against child poverty in Germany will be analysed.
(a) Integrated strategy against child poverty
According to the judgement of the Federal Constitutional Court, the obligation to
prevent and/or overcome poverty in Germany derives from the principle of human
dignity, legally enshrined in Article 1 of Constitutional Law, as well as from the
welfare-state commitment enshrined in Articles 20 and 28 of Constitutional Law.
Furthermore, the obligation to combat child poverty results for the Federal
Government from the signing (1990) and ratification (1992) of the United Nations
children’s rights convention of 1989. By this, the Federal Government has
committed itself to recognise and implement the right of every child to a living
standard that is appropriate to its physical, mental, psychological, moral and
social development, which should be guaranteed by separate social policy
measures (BMFSFJ 2007).
The declared intention to fight child poverty has become part of the political
rhetoric of all Federal Governments since the poverty problem was put on the
national political agenda in the year 1998. In all four coalition treaties since then,
the problem of child poverty has been included, as well as the necessity for
political action. But up to now, the governing coalitions have failed to develop an
integrated, comprehensive strategy against child poverty. Furthermore, they have
tended to downplay the importance of the child poverty problem in Germany.
Relying on EU-SILC data, which tend to underestimate the volume of child
poverty, the Federal Government has repeatedly emphasised that Germany is one
to the EU member states with the lowest poverty rate for children (see recently
BMAS 2013).
In 2008, the Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth
(BMFSFJ) ordered a special report on child poverty (BMFSFJ 2008), which
provided a rough picture of income poverty of families with children in Germany
and discussed possible instruments for the prevention or reduction of this
problem. But the recommendations of this report did not lead to a broad public
debate or the creation of an adequate strategy against child poverty. Instead, the
aim of combating child poverty largely remained political rhetoric. Even more
detailed reports on the situation of families with children and the well-being of
children in Germany published since then (BMAS 2013; BMFSFJ 2013) did not
initiate the creation of political strategies and programmes. Also the repeated
publication of independent reports on child poverty in Germany (e.g. Hübenthal
2009; Hurrelmann, Andresen, Schneekloth 2010; Bertram and Kohl 2010) had
only limited impact on the policy process and did not contribute to the
development of adequate strategies and programmes. Because of the lack of a
national strategy against child poverty, several states have published their own
2 Readers should note that the drafting of this report was completed in September 2013
thus it does not include an analysis of data or policy developments that became available after this date.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 8
regional reports on this issue and developed their own state programmes to
improve the situation of children, youngsters and families in precarious living
conditions (e.g. MAGS 2011). At the same time, more and more municipalities
have started to publish their own reports and to develop their own programmes
against child poverty (Holz 2010).
Child poverty is normally a complex phenomenon which requires a
multidimensional approach so as to record and overcome it. Strategies to prevent
or overcome child poverty are therefore related to a wide range of policy areas.
The main policy areas are
Labour market and employment policy,
Education Policy,
Social policy,
Family policy,
Health care policy,
Housing policy, and
Urban development policy.
In the German federalist welfare state, the jurisdiction and political responsibility
for these policy areas are spread over different state levels and ministries. Up to
now, no attempts have been made to establish a national board for the
development and coordination of an integrated strategy against poverty in
general, and child poverty in particular, in Germany. Instead, policies and
programmes are separately developed and implemented by the different state
levels and actor groups. Even the establishment of a national coordination
structure for the implementation of the UN children’s rights convention had no
impact on this heterogeneous policy process (see (c)).
(b) Involvement of stakeholders
The main groups of actors in the political arena in the fight against child poverty
are, above all, the three levels of state actors, the national welfare associations
and the children`s rights groups:
The main group of actors consists of the three state levels. While the
Federal State is primarily responsible for the national benefit schemes and
labour market policy, education policy is in the jurisdiction of the states,
and the main task of the municipalities is to coordinate and to guarantee a
comprehensive and needs-oriented provision of services for children,
youngsters and families. At national level, the lead ministry with regard to
strategies and programmes against child poverty is the Federal Ministry of
Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMFSFJ).
The large national welfare associations, which have joined forces in the
Federal Association of Non-Statutory Welfare Organisations
(Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege (BAGFW)) and
which are at the same time members of the national anti-poverty network
(Nationale Armutskonferenz), traditionally play an important role in the
public debate on combating poverty in general and child poverty in
particular in Germany. Furthermore they are providers of education, social
and health care services for children, youngsters and families at national,
regional and local level. Finally, as members of local policy networks, they
are involved in the planning and coordination of services for families and
children in need. In addition, national associations of self-help groups,
youth and family associations play an active role in the debate on child
poverty.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 9
Children’s rights associations like the Deutsches Kinderhilfswerk (KHW),
Deutscher Kinderschutzbund (DKSB), UNICEF Deutschland and the
National Coalition for the Implementation of the UN Children’s Rights
Convention in Germany (National Coalition für die Umsetzung der UN-
Kinderrechtskonvention in Deutschland (NC)) assume an important role
with regard to the observation of the implementation of children’s rights
and the strengthening of the position of this population group in society.
The basis for action of these associations is the United Nations Children’s
Rights Convention. Therefore, the Deutsches Kinderhilfswerk (KHW), the
Deutscher Kinderschutzbund (DKSB), and UNICEF Deutschland founded the
Aktionsbündnis Kinderrechte in 1994, which since then has continuously
challenged the Federal Government to introduce children’s rights into
Constitutional Law. The children’s rights associations have furthermore
repeatedly challenged the Federal Government to combat child poverty,
because growing up in precarious living conditions is not compatible with
basic children’s rights (DKSB 2007; DKHW 2008).
(c) Children’s rights approach
The Federal Republic of Germany ratified the UN Children’s Rights Convention in
1992. As a consequence, the Federal Government adopted a National Action Plan
for a Child-friendly Germany 2005 – 2010 (BMFSFJ 2005), which was to contribute
to the implementation of children’s rights in Germany. The BMFSFJ reported in
2010 on the results of the implementation of this Action Plan (BMFSFJ 2010a).
Starting in 1988, the National Assembly (Deutscher Bundestag) has set up a
Children`s Commission under the leadership of the BMFSFJ, which should
represent children`s interests in the legislation of the National Assembly. In
addition, around 100 national associations have joined the National Coalition
under the leadership of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Kinder- und Jugendhilfe
(AGJ), which critically accompanies and supports the implementation of the UN
Children’s Rights Convention in Germany.
Even if the BMFSFJ has delivered a positive summary of the implementation of the
National Action Plan (BMFSFJ 2010a), the national children’s rights associations
have criticised that children’s rights have up to now no high political priority and
have not been legally enshrined in Constitutional Law in Germany. They have
furthermore criticised that there have not been sufficient efforts by the Federal
Government to prevent or overcome child poverty (National Coalition 2010).
(d) Universal versus targeted policy against child poverty
Like in most EU member states, the policy against child poverty in Germany is
characterised by a mix of universal and targeted policies and programmes. On the
one hand, monetary transfers as well as benefits in kind are offered to all children
and families. On the other hand, specific benefit schemes and programmes have
been implemented for children and families in difficult living conditions with a
specific need for support.
Recent experiences show mixed results: The expansion of early childhood
education and care services in recent years was mainly addressed to all children
under the age of three years. But up to now, families with the highest need for
support have made the least use of this. Conversely, the introduction of the new
education and participation benefit was targeted in a very restrictive way to
economically needy families. In this case too, the take-up rate was rather low.
While in the first case actual or perceived high cost as well as cultural reservations
(e.g. among immigrants) may have contributed to this result, the high
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 10
administrative barriers and the feeling of discrimination were decisive for the lack
of acceptance.
Reform initiatives have shown how the impact of such benefit or service
programmes can be improved through the intelligent combination of both
principles. The reform proposal for a children`s minimum income envisages
paying this benefits to all children (universalism) and ensuring through the
taxation of this benefit (as part of the family income) that only needy families
benefit (targeting). And the family centre approach combines the provision of
early childhood education and care services for all children (universalism) with a
combination of different services for, and an activating approach towards the
parents and children in disadvantaged neighbourhoods (targeting).
(e) Evidence-based policy and evaluation of programmes
Even if there is no long tradition of evaluating social policy programmes and
measures in Germany, evaluation research has gained increasingly in importance
in the social policy debate and programmes. More and more programmes include
the legal obligation to monitor and evaluate their impact. Because there is a wide
range of policy areas and programmes designed to tackle certain aspects of child
poverty, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive picture of programme
evaluations. Only recently, the BMFSFJ ordered a comprehensive evaluation of the
system of family benefits (Rainer et al. 2011 and 2012; Bonin et al. 2012 and
2013a; Schölmerich et al. 2012; Müller 2013). The BMFSFJ (2013a) has published
a separate report including summaries and conclusions of the different evaluation
studies. Significantly, the problem of child poverty did not play a major role in
these evaluation studies (see chapter 3).
The discussion about evidence-based programmes is also only rudimentarily
developed in Germany. As a first step, the discussion on “good practice” has
intensified in recent years. With regard to the problem of child poverty, certain
programmes and certain municipalities have become known as exemplary models.
One of the municipal approaches is described in chapter 4 (3).
(f) Sustained investment in children and families
The recently published European Commission`s recommendation on “Investing in
children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage” has not found great attention in
Germany. Only few comments have been published up to now (see e.g. Deutscher
Verein 2013). One reason for this may be the fact that the social investment
approach, which was highlighted by the EC recommendation, corresponds to a
paradigm shift in family policy, which was implemented in Germany during the
last decade.
According to Olk and Hübenthal (2009), the current German approach to fight
child poverty is part of a broader concept of ‘sustainable family policy’: ”The ‘turn
to investment’ in German policies concerning children and families came into
effect during the red-green coalition’s second term under Chancellor Gerhard
Schröder. The Minister for Family Affairs, Renate Schmidt (SPD), developed a new
concept labelled ‘sustainable family policy’. With the help of this concept the
fertility rate should be increased, the reconciliation of family and work should be
improved, the educational level of pupils in Germany should be raised and the
poverty of children and families should be reduced. The concept of ‘sustainable
family policy’ is considered an important contribution to economic growth and
competitiveness of the German economy” (Olk and Hübenthal 2009: 151). But
even if the paradigm shift in family policy was designed during the second term of
the Red-Green Coalition, it was implemented during the following Great Coalition,
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 11
and the CDU Minister for Family Affairs of the Great Coalition, Ursula von der
Leyen, has since then become the face of the new paradigm.
With the accession to power of the Grand Coalition in the year 2005, family policy
became a policy area of high public interest, which gave priority to demographic
and employment-oriented objectives and programmes. Besides a partial
restructuring of the family benefits system (replacement of the former education
benefit by the new parent’s benefit in the year 2007), the focus was mainly on
improving the reconciliation of family and professional life. The core element of
this strategy was to expand early childhood education and care facilities for
children under three years of age. The transition from the former education
benefit to the new parent’s benefit was intended to increase the incentive for
higher-income families to have children and to get parents on leave back into the
labour market faster. The expansion of day care was intended to fill the gap which
had resulted from a traditionally low supply of day-care facilities for children under
three years, especially in Western Germany.
But not all the aims and objectives of the new paradigm shift have become reality
as yet. In the year 2011, Germany spent around 200 billion Euros on marriage
and family-related benefits, in absolute and in relative terms more than most
other EU member states. If we take a closer look at the structure of public
expenditure on family policy (see Annex 1; BMFSFJ 2010b), it can be seen that
expenditure on benefits in kind have gained importance, but are still of minor
quantitative relevance. In 2011, only 27 billion Euros or 13.7% of total
expenditure were spent on benefits in kind. Even if the rise in spending on
benefits in kind was higher than on any other spending area, the intended policy
shift has so far remained limited in extent. Public spending on family and
marriage-related tax measures, on cash benefits, social insurance measures and
marriage-related measures have also increased, but these developments in output
did not follow a single logic, but contradicted each other in their objectives and
impacts. Critical reviews of German family policy have therefore come to the
conclusion that the current policy in Germany does not have distinct objectives
and does not pursue a clear strategy. Instead, recent policy changes are assessed
as being inconsistent (Bonin et al. 2013).
Tackling and preventing family and child poverty is only one of several objectives
to which family policy can be oriented. In Germany, this objective was and is
traditionally of low priority in family policy. Also the new policy approach, which
was and is mainly focussed on the expansion of early childhood educational and
care, was primarily motivated by demographic and employment objectives, but at
the same time improved the framework conditions for poor families. Other
strategic options like improving the material situation of poor children and families
have, however, been widely neglected. Since the conservative-liberal coalition
came to power, the income dimension of poverty in general and of child poverty in
particular has been completely faded out of this strategy (Hanesch 2011b). It is
therefore hardly surprising that family and child poverty in Germany have not
declined over the last decade, but continued to increase.
(g) Recommendations
An effective policy against family and child poverty in Germany must take a
multidimensional and multilevel approach. It should include above all the following
strategic elements:
Of primary importance are the development and implementation of an
integrated strategy against poverty in general, and against child poverty in
particular. Such s strategy should include all state levels, policy areas and
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 12
actor groups. The coordination of policies between the different state levels
and actor groups requires the inauguration of a separate national
institution, which should ensure an on-going planning, coordinating and
cooperating process.
The improvement of the economic situation of poor families should have
priority. This requires a labour-market policy, which actually puts the focus
on the employment and social integration of the most vulnerable groups in
the labour market and, at the same time, strengthens the efforts to
improve the reconciliation of family and professional life.
As a complement to the stabilisation of the existing social minimum income
schemes, the extensive system of family benefits should be restructured
towards child-related benefits that cover subsistence level for children in
low-income families.
The already initiated expansion of affordable quality services for poor
families and children should be continued, above all, with regard to early
childhood education and care, as well as to education in the school system.
Many of the political objectives and intentions have up to now remained
more rhetorical than real, especially with regard to child-oriented reforms
of the school system.
Integrated strategies should be developed and implemented primarily at
local level. The system of preventive networks for different age groups in
the city of Monheim could serve as an example of good practice for other
municipalities.
The objectives, programmes and instruments should be monitored and
evaluated regularly to ensure continuous progress. The results should be
documented in the NRPs and NSRs.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 13
2. Access to adequate resources
(1) Child poverty as a challenge for the German welfare state
The problem of child poverty would seem to be of low importance in Germany.
According to Eurostat data, the at-risk-of-poverty rate of children and youngsters
under 18 years of age in the year 2011 (15.6%) was only slightly lower than the
rate for the whole population (15.8%). Measured on the basis of all three poverty
indicators, the volume of poverty and social exclusion among children and
youngsters was at the same level as of the total population (19.9%). Compared to
the average in the 27 EU-member states, the German poverty and social
exclusion rate in general, and for children and young people in particular, were
and are, rather low (Lopez Vilaplana 2013). On the other hand, the poverty rate
for young people in Germany has almost constantly risen in recent years, and it
seems highly probable that this trend will continue in the coming decade (see
Annex: Tables 1-4).
The number of children living in households with recipients of basic income
support for job seekers has slightly declined, as has the total number of benefit
recipients. In 2011, 1,619 million children under the age of 15 years were living in
such households, compared to 1.745 million in 2008. But more differentiated
studies have proved that child poverty continues to be an important challenge for
social inclusion policy in Germany. A recently published report by the Institute of
Labour and Occupational Research (IAB) analysed the social situation of these
children (Lietzmann; Tophoven; Wenzig 2011). The study came to the conclusion
that the poverty risk is especially high for children who grow up in a single-parent
household or in a family with several children and with parents who have one of
the following characteristics: migration background, low educational level, low
labour market integration. Even if basic consumption for these children is covered
by the minimum income benefits, the possibilities of participating in social and
cultural life are greatly restricted. This situation has not been changed by the
introduction of the “benefit for education and participation” in 2011, see 4 (c)).
This chapter presents the policies, programmes and instruments through which
the access of poor families to economic resources is to be improved. The chapter
is mainly focussed on two approaches: the improvement of employment
participation in poor families, and the provision of marriage and family-related
benefits. In a last section, the assessment and further development of marriage
and family-related benefits are discussed.
(2) Improving employment participation in families
Germany is characterised by an extremely high poverty rate among the
unemployed and their family members. Many poor children are therefore living in
households of unemployed recipients of basic support for job seekers. There is a
broad consensus that the best strategy to reduce family and child poverty is to
improve the employment participation in households with unemployed people
(BMFSFJ 2008). Improving the employment situation of poor families can involve
as a first option:
(a) Employment policy
During the last decade, Germany was successful in raising the number and rate of
employed people. But even if the employment rate showed positive results - rising
from 68.3% in 1999 to 76.7% in 2012 - the real situation of the employees looks
somewhat different: The constant rise in the number of employed people was, and
still is, mainly due to an enormous increase in precarious forms of employment.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 14
The number and proportion of regular jobs, which had been declining in the last
decade, have recently stabilised. Nevertheless, the growing heterogeneity of
employment forms has contributed to give rise to growing employment and
income risks for wage earners. So while on the one hand the total number of
employed persons has risen and this trend may still continue in the next years,
the employment and social situation of certain groups of wage earners have
deteriorated. Above all, the situation of unskilled workers has become extremely
difficult as a consequence of an increasing differentiation of the wage structure
and a lowering of the lower wage level. The declining importance of collective
bargaining and the lack of a statutory minimum wage have contributed to the
growing importance of the problem of the working poor.
At the same time, the number of registered unemployed has declined in recent
years, but the number of recipients of basic income support for job seekers has
gone down at a much slower rate. So, even if the employment rate has increased
in recent years as a consequence of economic growth, not all groups of the work
force have profited equally from this development. Registered long-term
unemployed and unemployed recipients of basic income support for job seekers,
in particular, were not able to profit from the ‘employment miracle’. In recent
years, long-term unemployed persons had only low priority in the German labour
market integration policies. This can be deduced from the fact that the long-term
unemployed were and are underrepresented in all types of integration measures.
It is therefore no wonder that the integration rate of long-term unemployed
people into the normal labour market has not improved since 2005
(Bundesagentur für Arbeit 2012; Hanesch 2013).
In a report from November 2012, the German Federal Court of Auditors
(Bundesrechnungshof) has criticised the practice of labour market integration in
the context of Social Code Book II (Bundesrechnungshof 2012). The examination
of this practice in a selection of job centres has shown that integration measures
are focused on those groups, which have the best integration prospects, while
groups far removed from the labour market are systematically neglected. This
practice was and is the result of a short-term business strategy of the
Bundesagentur für Arbeit, which has been silently tolerated by the BMAS. As a
result of this policy, families with children have hardly profited from the existing
integration programmes. In the future, a reorientation of labour market
integration policies will be necessary; these will have to be focussed primarily on
the most vulnerable groups on the labour market.
(b) Reconciling work and family life
A second approach towards improving the employment and economic situation of
poor families with children is to improve the reconciliation between work and
family life. For many decades, Germany needed to catch up with other European
member states. The main instruments were and are the flexibilisation of working
time arrangements through collective bargaining or company-specific agreements
and the expansion of flexible child-care facilities and all-day schools. In both
areas, considerable improvements have been made during the last decade (see
chapter 4).
(3) Provision of marriage and family related benefits
Social policy in Germany is traditionally characterised by the primacy of monetary
benefits over benefits in kind. The system of family benefits is also determined by
this primacy of cash benefits and tax breaks for families as opposed to benefits in
kind (i.e. education, social and health care services). The most important
elements are the following child and family allowances:
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 15
(a) Child benefit and child tax credit
Parents are entitled to child benefit (Kindergeld) payable until the child’s 18th
birthday, if the child lives in Germany. If a child takes up a place in a vocational
training course or is studying, this entitlement extends to the child’s 25th birthday,
at the maximum. The government pays a child benefit of EUR 184 per month for
each of the first two children, EUR 190 per month for the third child, and EUR 215
per month for every additional child. The payments function as an advance child
credit.
When the parents file their German income tax return at year-end, the tax
authorities will compare the amount of the child-related cash payment to the tax
benefit that the taxpayers would receive through the application of the child
exemption (Kinderfreibetrag). If the tax benefit of the exemption is higher than
the cash payment received, the tax authorities will add back the child payment
(child benefit) on the taxpayers' income tax assessment and apply the exemption
instead. If the child payment is more favourable, no child credit is given on the
return.
(b) Social benefit in social assistance / basic income support for job
seekers
Children have an entitlement to social benefits under Social Code Book II (Basic
income support for job seekers), if at least one person capable of work but in
need of assistance lives in their benefit community. If they live with persons not
capable to work but in need of assistance, they have, at the same level, an
entitlement to social assistance under Social Code Book XII. Currently, the
standard benefit amount under SGB II or XII for an adult is EUR 384. Children
under 6 years receive EUR 224, children between 6 and 13 years receive EUR
255; young people between 14 and 17 years receive EUR 289, and young adults
between 18 and 24 years in a benefit community receive EUR 306.
(c) Supplementary child benefit
The German state supports families with a low income by means of the
"supplementary child benefit" which is paid subject to the following conditions
(children aged under 25 live with their parents in the same household; income
and assets are sufficient for the parents to live on, but not enough to support the
children as well). The level of the supplementary child benefit depends on the
parents’ income and assets and is a maximum of EUR 140 per child per month.
(d) Parental allowance and parental leave
The parental allowance is a state benefit for parents who would like to look after
their child themselves after their birth and therefore are not in full-time
employment or not working at all. Since 2007, parents can file for parental leave
and receive 67% of their net income as a parental allowance from the government
for the duration of up to 14 months – subject to a minimum amount of EUR 300
and a maximum of EUR 1,800. Parental leave offers parents the opportunity of
looking after their child whilst allowing them to maintain contact with their
working life. Employees are entitled to parental leave until the child’s third
birthday. Their job is kept for them, and their contract cannot be terminated by
their employer. Parental leave can be taken by the mother and the father
individually or jointly.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 16
(e) Additional benefits
There is a whole series of additional benefits for families with children, among
them
additional benefits for single parent households living on social assistance
or basic income support for job seekers,
housing benefits for low income households,
maintenance payments are paid for a child (under 12 years) who gets no
maintenance payment from the parent with whom the child does not live.
(4) Assessment and further development of marriage and family
related benefits
While in the year 2010 family-related benefits (cash benefits, tax credits, benefits
in kind) amounted to a volume of 125.5 billion Euros, marriage-related benefits
added up to an additional 74.9 billion Euros. The total number of 156 programmes
covered 200.3 billion Euros (see Annex; BMFSFJ 2013b). This relationship reflects
the traditional dominant task of family policy to support the conservative middle-
class male breadwinner family model, instead of primarily supporting poor and
needy families (Schrieverhoff 2011).
In this legislative period, several research institutes have evaluated this marriage
and family related benefit system on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Family
Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMFSFJ) and the Federal Ministry of
Finance (BMF) (Rainer et al. 2011 and 2012; Bonin et al. 2012 and 2013a;
Schölmerich et al. 2012; Müller 2013). In a political report on the evaluation
studies, the BMFSFJ (2013a) came to the conclusion that the existing system of
marriage- and family-related benefits is successful with regard to the economic
stabilisation of families with children and the well-being of children. However, this
conclusion has only found partial agreement among the research institutes
involved (see Bonin et al. 2013).
The scientific debate in Germany is much more critical of the effectiveness of this
system. Actually, the existing complex system of marriage and family related
benefits is not able to prevent child poverty in Germany. Two main points of
criticism can be distinguished:
In its decision of February 9, 2010, the Federal Constitutional Court rated
the existing system of fixing the standard benefits under Social Code Book
II and XII as unconstitutional and formulated requirements for a new fixing
system. The new fixing system on the legal basis of the “Gesetz zur
Ermittlung von Regelbedarfen und zur Änderung des Zweiten und Zwölften
Buches Sozialgesetzbuch”, which came into force in March 2011, did not
bring substantial improvements. It is still criticised that the new fixing
system does not fulfil the legal and methodical requirements of the
Constitutional Court (Becker 2010; Lenze 2012). As a consequence, the
current benefit level of the last safety net for children and adults is not
sufficient to guarantee a living free from poverty.
Even if public spending on cash benefits and tax breaks is comparatively
high in Germany, it is not effective in fulfilling this social policy objective.
This is the result of a benefit system, which was, and still is, aimed
primarily at family and demographic objectives and mainly supports
middle-class families. This effect is further enhanced by a taxation system
which is still oriented around a traditional male bread-winner family model,
especially with the joint taxation of married couples and the possibility of a
reduction of their tax burden through what is called “tax splitting”.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 17
For a sustainable policy against child poverty, the existing system of monetary
marriage and family-related benefits should be reoriented away from the legal
status of families and in favour of actual need situations in families. By drastically
reducing marriage-related benefits, funds should be made available for the
expansion of family, and above all, children-related benefits, which at the same
time should be focussed on low-income families. Even if the current system of
child benefits is difficult to reform because of its legal roots in the jurisprudence of
the Federal Constitutional Court, the existing child tax credit should be abolished.
Furthermore, the so-called “Ehegattensplitting”, which allows couples a reduction
in their tax liabilities through joint taxation, should be replaced by the transition to
individual taxation (Bündnis Kindergrundsicherung 2013).
Because of the ineffective and unjust system of family benefits (and family
taxation) in Germany, more and more family and welfare associations, supported
by a group of economists and social scientists, are calling for a child-oriented
reform of this system and the introduction of a children`s minimum income (see
www.kinderarmut-hat-folgen.de). Meanwhile, this option is also being supported
by the Green and the Leftist parties. According to the most widely supported
version of such a minimum income, a basic amount should be offered to all
children and young people till the age of 18 (or – for those who are in training or
studying – till the age of 25 years), which should be legally fixed at subsistence
level for children. Because this minimum income should be subject to taxation –
as part of the family income – only families with no or a low family income would
profit from this new benefit scheme. In a micro-simulation study, Becker and
Hauser have shown that the introduction of a children`s minimum income would
contribute to a considerable reduction of child poverty in Germany (Becker and
Hauser 2006).
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 18
3. Access to affordable quality services
(1) The role of the local level in service provision
Even if the provision of educational and social services for families with children in
Germany is regulated by federal and state laws, it is mainly up to the
municipalities to guarantee, coordinate and fund the service provision. In addition
to the municipalities, private welfare associations, churches or for-profit agencies
also play an important role as service providers. Because the provision of these
services is a self-government task of the municipalities, there is a great
heterogeneity in the volume and structure of services between the municipalities.
This is a result of differing ideas guiding social policy between the municipalities,
as well as of the great regional differences in economic strength and financial
power between the municipalities.
The municipalities’ continuing lack of fiscal resources has caused cutbacks in the
provision of affordable high-quality services in recent years. The introduction by
Constitutional Law of a debt cap, which will come into force from 2016, will further
restrict the fiscal framework for political action. There is the risk that the most
vulnerable groups will be most affected by this development. More and more
public services have to be topped up by buying additional services in the market
system, such as tutoring for pupils and students, certain health care services and
child care services for children under the age of one year. Even if there is free
access to public services for all groups of the population, there are specific
barriers for certain groups. Migrants are confronted with ethnic-cultural and
language barriers, and there are financial barriers to fee-based services for low-
income household members.
In the following, some of the main areas of service provision for families, children
and young people will be outlined in more detail.
(2) Selected service areas
(a) Education and care in early childhood
In Germany’s conservative welfare state model, a traditional deficit in the
provision of family-related services has been the lack of (publicly funded or
subsidised) early childhood education and care facilities. As a result, the
reconciliation of family and professional life has been restricted and the promotion
of children coming from households with low income and low educational
attainment has hardly been possible. With the massive expansion of early
childhood education and care facilities in recent years, this situation has
considerably improved.
What led to the reorientation in the provision of education and care services in
Germany during the last decade was a turn not so much to child-oriented
objectives in family policy, as primarily to employment and population-related
necessities and objectives. Nevertheless, in Germany too in recent years it has
become a commonly shared assessment that the early promotion of children
contributes decisively towards improving their professional and social
opportunities and prospects in their future lives. Above all, as recent studies on
child poverty have shown, early childhood education and care opportunities – in
combination with other services such as family or health care services – can play
an important role in mitigating the impact of precarious living-conditions for
children (Laubstein et al. 2012).
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 19
In a first step, a legal basis for the improvement of the early childhood education
and care situation was created in 2005 with the Act on Quality and Needs-
Oriented Expansion of Day-Care Facilities (TAG). The Federal Government, the
states and the municipalities agreed on the common objective of offering 750,000
child-care places for children under three years of age by 2013. With the Act on
Child Promotion (KiFöG) of 2008, the Federal State and the states agreed to
financially support the municipalities in funding the expansion of day-care
facilities. According to a newly established monitoring system, which regularly
provides data on the provision of day-care places, the supply situation has
continuously improved since 2006. The numbers of day-care places as well as the
care ratio have constantly increased. The care ratio rose from 13.6% in 2006 to
25.4% in 2011. The improvement in the day-care situation took place both in the
western and the eastern parts of Germany. As a result, the care gap between the
two parts of Germany remained almost unchanged (BMFSFJ 2012b).
Despite the fast growth in the number of day-care places, many districts and
municipalities were sceptical about the possibility of reaching the target ratio of
35% by mid-2013, when the legal right to day-care for every child under three
years of age came into force. They feared a wave of legal complaints by parents
whose demands for day-care could not be met. Furthermore, in many cities it was
expected that the actual demand for day-care would widely exceed the calculated
ratio of 35%. Currently, it is too early to assess whether and to what extent these
problems have occurred (BMFSFJ 2011). According to the states, more than
810,000 places will be offered in the time period 2013/14, which is more than the
calculated demand (BMFSFJ 2013c). But this information has not been confirmed
by the municipalities.
In any case, early childhood education and care is the policy field where the
greatest improvements have been made in recent years. Nevertheless, there is
not only a quantitative deficit, because the number of families claiming day-care is
constantly rising; there are also qualitative deficits, because the current expansion
is at least partly being paid for with a deterioration in the quality of the service.
E.g. the state of Hesse wanted to adopt a “Childcare Promotion Bill” that would
have entailed a far-reaching reduction in early childhood education and care
standards. Massive protests by professionals and welfare associations were
necessary to force the state government to at least modify that bill (Hessischer
Landtag 2012).
Parallel to the introduction of the legal right to early childhood education and care
for every child between one and three years of age, the current Federal
Government has introduced a so-called “care payment” (Betreuungsgeld) for
those parents who renounce this claim to day-care. This new “care payment” has
been severely criticised in the scientific and in the social policy debate, It is
expected that above all low-education and low-income parents, or parents with a
migration background will opt for this payment to improve their precarious income
situation. They will thus not use the opportunities to adequately promote their
children. Recent experience has shown that low-income and low-education
families as well as families with a migration background participate to a lower
degree than non-migrant families in day-care facilities and in non-formal
education opportunities (Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung 2012; Schober
and Spieß 2012). It is therefore necessary to facilitate access to these services
among these groups. The financially pressurised municipalities must be prevented
from raising day-care facility fees to a level that will impede access for low-income
families. Fee reductions for these groups, which are normally provided under
Social Code Book VIII, are not known or not taken advantage of. Following the
example of the English “Early Excellence Centres” (EEC), the further development
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 20
of early day-care centres into family centres can help to integrate these children
and families in the early childhood education and promotion system (Stöbe-
Blossey 2011).
Under these conditions, the reconciliation of family and professional life will be
facilitated by the swift expansion of early childhood education and care facilities.
This will strengthen the opportunities for labour market integration of family
members, especially women, and in particular single mothers. It will also help to
improve the economic situation of families with children. But above all, it should
contribute to an improvement of the opportunities and perspectives for children
from marginalised families.
(b) Benefit for education and participation
Following the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court`s decision of
February 9, 2010, which criticised the lack of adequate promotion of educational
and social participation for children in households living on minimum income
benefits, in 2010 the Federal Government adopted a programme to improve the
educational and social participation of children and young people in low-income
families, which came into force in 2011. This new “benefit for education and
participation” is non-cash and is aimed directly at helping needy children and
young people. It includes, for example, paying expenses for mid-day meals in
schools, extra tuition and participation in a sports club or music lessons (BMAS
2013).
While the BMAS describes this new benefit scheme as successful (see also ISG
2013), it has been criticised from the beginning because of its extremely
restrictive concept of benefit provision. To prevent any supposed misuse of the
benefit, it has been organised in a prohibitively bureaucratic way, which not only
pushed the administrative costs to an extremely high level, but also prevented the
majority of eligible families from claiming the benefits (DGB 2011; DIJuF 2012;
DPWV 2013). Most experts agree that it would have been more useful and
effective to improve and qualify the existing programmes of the school system
and the youth welfare service (Lenze 2010).
(c) School-based education services
In Germany, children from families with low educational attainment and low
income and with a migration background are generally at high risk of poverty and
social exclusion. One main reason for this is the fact that these children perform
poorly in the school system, and a higher percentage of them leave school without
an educational degree compared to other groups. As a consequence, they are
confronted with greater problems in finding training opportunities and entering the
labour market as qualified workers. At the same time, evaluations of the German
school system have repeatedly come to the conclusion that the German school
system shows a high degree of social selectivity. The school performance of pupils
is greatly dependent on the economic, social and educational status of their
parents (Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung 2012).
An important element of the national integration plan therefore, is to improve the
school performance of children with a migration background and to reduce the
number and proportion of migrant entrants in the labour market without an
educational or training degree. In Germany, the school system is in the
jurisdiction of the states, with only a very loose coordination by the Conference of
State Ministers of Education and Culture. As a result, not only do the framework
conditions for innovative reforms vary from state to state, but also common
strategies hardly exist in this system for developing and implementing them. So
even if the national integration plan contains a broad range of education and
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 21
training-related measures at state and at local level, no coordinated action is to be
expected.
As a modest element in the reform of the German school system, the states have
repeatedly announced that they will further expand the number of all-day schools
with the aim of improving the promotion of pupils with a disadvantaged social
background. Up to now, however, the implementation of all-day schools is lagging
far behind the political promises. And in many states, like in the state of Hesse,
all-day school means the introduction of programmes offered by organisations
that operate with volunteers and low-qualified professionals. These programmes
can hardly be expected to improve the promotion of children and youngsters with
a disadvantaged social background. Recent reports on the German education
system have revealed that the proportion of school-leavers without an educational
degree has decreased slightly in recent years. But at the same time, the
proportion among migrant school-leavers continued to be considerably higher. The
German school system has, up to now, hardly been able to introduce the
necessary reforms, which could help to sustainably improve the performance of
these groups. Despite increased efforts by the states to implement a child-centred
promotion in the school system, the results are rather sobering so far (ISA 2011;
Pielage, Pries, Schultze 2012; Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung 2012).
(d) Health care services
The first large-scale national study on children’s health (KIGGS) was performed by
the Robert Koch Institute and was the first to contain a representative
documentation of the state of health of German children and youth (Kurth 2006).
The study showed that social disadvantages have a strong impact on the health of
children and young people.
Between 2006 and 2012, the BMFSFJ has funded a national action programme on
“early help for parents and children and social early-warning systems”. The
intention of this programme was to create and expand local networks of early help
which should provide this kind of family support. In the context of this
programme, a “national ‘early help’ centre” was established and a great number of
model projects at local level have been funded. Between 2012 and 2014, the
Federal Government, under the Federal Child Protection Law, is financially
supporting states and municipalities in establishing regional and local “early help”
networks (BMFSFJ 2006).
The task of the local networks is to develop close cooperation between different
policy and service areas, like health care, youth and social services, pregnancy
counselling and early childhood intervention, aimed at improving child protection
and family support. At the same time, the coordination between the different
service offers and the exchange between professionals in the different areas are
to be intensified. The coordination of each local network is normally in the
competence of the health care office and the youth office (Sann 2010).
(e) Youth and family services
In the federalist system of the German welfare state, the local authorities have
the legal duty to provide youth and family-related services to their citizens, but
they have considerable scope for action with regard to this self-governing task
(BMFSFJ 2013d). Therefore, we can find great heterogeneity between the different
regions and municipalities. In the debate on combating child poverty at local level,
youth and family services, which are normally the responsibility of the youth office
play an important role, because these services are aimed at supporting children
and youngsters in their well-being and supporting families in their educational and
social tasks and problems. According to Social Code Book VIII, their legal task is
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 22
above all to support children and families in precarious living conditions. According
to the principle of subsidiarity, the service provision is often delegated to welfare
associations or private agencies. This division of labour requires close coordination
and cooperation between the different actor groups at local level, which is the
responsibility of the municipalities. The same administrative units are challenged
to develop and implement local strategies against child poverty (see the example
of the city of Monheim at the end of this chapter).
(f) Housing and living environment
Recently published national reports on poverty and the well-being of children in
Germany have largely neglected the role of housing and socio-spatial living
conditions for the well-being of families and children. Housing conditions are
normally not included in national (or international) indicator sets and are difficult
to measure and assess in national studies. At the same time, local ethnographic
case studies have proved that these aspects are of great importance for the well-
being of children (see e.g. Helbig 2010).
On the one hand, the housing shortage has increased in certain regions
and cities of Germany. Especially in metropolitan areas in western
Germany, apartments at reasonable rents are hard to find for low-income
families with children (Eichener 2012). Because the federal state and the
states have reduced their funds for the promotion of housing construction,
and because the municipalities in the affected regions are overburdened in
providing the funding alone, the situation will worsen in the coming years.
To return to balanced housing markets in the metropolitan areas, joint
efforts by the federal state, the states and the municipalities are
necessary. At the same time, local programmes and services against over-
indebtedness, housing loss and homelessness will have to be expanded.
On the other hand, several research studies have come to the conclusion
that social segregation is currently increasing in German cities. Children
and young people in particular are greatly affected by increasingly
worsening housing and living conditions in certain city areas (Seidel-
Schulze, Dohnke, Häußermann 2012; Bertelsmann Stiftung 2010). During
the last decade, the municipalities have been supported by the federal
state and the states in implementing and funding local integrated urban
development programmes. This coordinated multi-level approach has
recently been terminated as a consequence of massive cuts in federal and
state funds in 2010 (Franke 2011). There is a broad consensus between
municipalities, housing industry and welfare associations that the “socially
integrative city” approach should be revived and that joint funding should
be expanded again (see e.g. BAGFW 2013).
(3) Integrated local strategies
Integrated strategies against child and family poverty, which are aimed at
developing a support system for these children and families, have to be focussed
on local municipal levels. Even if the cities and local districts have to be supported
by the federal state and the states by additional, complementary programmes and
funds, the local level must be the main starting point for action programmes. Such
programmes have to be integrated programmes, because the poverty of children,
youngsters and families involves a wide range of resources and aspects of well-
being which have to be tackled by the whole range of local social-policy areas and
instruments. At the same time, all the groups of local actors have to be included
in this integrated action.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 23
In recent years, more and more cities, and even some districts, have published
their own reports on child poverty. And some municipalities have even started to
develop and implement local action plans against child poverty (Holz 2011). While
some municipalities have developed comprehensive action plans, others have
drawn up complex action plans for certain policy areas such as “education
poverty”. The city of Monheim has become well known in the German social policy
debate as an example of comprehensive action plans (see e.g. Holz et al. 2005;
Stadt Monheim 2009).
The city of Monheim began its fight against child poverty in the year 2002 as an
element of an integrated urban development plan. This plan was mainly focussed
on two topics: developing deprived urban areas and supporting children and
young people. Under the leadership of the municipal youth office, a local
coordination unit was established. The main objective was to develop a local
prevention strategy:
This should guarantee equal opportunities for all children, irrespective of
their family and social background,
At the same time, children living in deprived urban areas should receive
special support towards equal opportunities for education and participation,
An early warning and support system should be established,
There should be a close cooperation and coordination between the different
local policy areas involved (education, culture, health care, youth and
social services),
The combination of all available public and private resources should be
realised.
One main element of this preventive approach was the establishment of a series
of networks between local actor groups which are focussed on specific age groups.
Step by step, these networks have been introduced and used to optimise the
range and quality of services for the different age groups of children and young
people. The range of networks currently extends from children under three years
(and their families), to youngsters between fourteen and eighteen years, and
covers all kinds of services, ranging from early childhood education and care to
advice and support during the transition from school to training and employment.
All phases and elements of this prevention system have been evaluated and
documented. The approach of the city of Monheim is therefore well known as an
example of good practice for a local strategy against child poverty in Germany.
Examples like the city of Monheim have proved that integrated strategies are
possible, at least at local level, and can be successful if there is a joint and
sustainable effort made by all the local actors. However, the city of Monheim also
needed, and still needs, support from federal and state level.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 24
4. Addressing child poverty and social exclusion in the European Semester
As has been described in recent reports (see e.g. Hanesch 2011: 16), the German
National Reform Programme refers in its quantitative target-setting for the fight
against poverty and social exclusion to only one of the three dimensions by which
poverty and social exclusion are newly defined in the European Strategy 2020.
The dimensions of income poverty and material deprivation are completely
omitted, while a target is only defined for the third dimension (persons living in
households with very low work intensity). Because income poverty is not an issue
in the official anti-poverty policy of the Federal Government, the extent and
development of child poverty, the causes and the impacts on the affected families
and children are not described and discussed in the NRPs. Finally, strategies and
programmes to reduce or overcome the material situation of poor families are not
discussed in the NRPs. This reflects the fact that strategies and programmes to
reduce or overcome income poverty in general are regularly faded out.
At the same time, the Federal Government has highlighted in its NRP 2011 that
additional qualitative targets and measures to tackle poverty must also be taken
into consideration when assessing national targets and objectives. For Germany,
this includes the improvement of the educational opportunities and opportunities
for social inclusion for vulnerable children and young people at risk (BMWT 2011:
8/9). The recent NRPs include long lists of federal and state programmes and
measures which are aimed at improving the education and professional
qualifications of children, youngsters and adults:
According to the NRPs, federal, state and municipal authorities have
intensified their joint efforts to expand the supply of early childhood
education and care places within the last decade.
The efforts of the school system have been strengthened to support
disadvantaged children who come from low education and low income
families or families with a migration background.
Following the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court, the Federal
Government adopted a programme to improve the educational and social
participation of children and young people from low-income families
(benefit for education and participation), which came into force in 2011.
There are a great number of federal and state programmes for vocational
orientation and preparation, many of them funded by the European Social
Fund. Most of the funded measures are aimed at helping disadvantaged
young people to get started in vocational training and employment.
The problem is that the NRPs do not provide more detailed information on how
these qualitative targets should be addressed and which programmes should
contribute in which way. Because they are not described in detail, it is unclear to
which extent they should contribute to the prevention or reduction of poverty and
social exclusion. It is therefore difficult to assess which actual effects they will
have. The hope is that the newly introduced national social reporting system in
the EU will provide more detailed information about federal, state and municipal
initiatives and programmes. The national social report 2012, which was published
by the federal government in spring 2013, has not met these expectations
(Hanesch 2013).
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 25
5. Mobilising relevant EU financial instruments In the funding period 2007 – 2013, the European Structural Funds provides funds
of around 25.5 billion Euros for Germany. 16.1 billion are provided under the
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and 9.4 billion under the European
Social Fund (ESF). While 37% of the ESF funds are spent on federal programmes
and 63% are used for state programmes, only 9% of the ERDF funds go to the
federal state, while the large majority of funds are spend by the individual states.
In the National Strategic Reference Framework the federal state and the states
have jointly defined four overarching objectives for the use of European Structural
Funds, which have been categorised according to thematic priorities (BMWT
2008).
In one of the thematic priorities for the use of the ESF - “employment and social
inclusion” - the funding was and is mainly used for programmes aimed at
supporting the active inclusion of children and young people, because almost all
ESF programmes are aligned to the labour market integration and to improving
the opportunities and perspectives in the education and training system. The
tackling or prevention of child poverty is pursued by taking into account the
specific problem and need situation of families. Families affected by
unemployment and threatened by social exclusion are offered coaching services to
improve the situation of the family. Furthermore, parents are supported in their
integration into the labour market by activation and employment measures. The
integrated approach should help to improve the situation of the children (Brand et
al. 2012: 77). On the one hand, these education, training and employment
programmes have supplemented national and regional programmes and
discharged the national and regional funding. On the other hand, these
programmes have contributed to a complex, heterogeneous system of
programmes, which is hardly transparent and even for experts difficult to
understand.
Nevertheless, there were and are some programmes which should be highlighted
because of their exemplary importance. One of them is presented here:
Education, economy, labour in the quarter (Bildung, Wirtschaft, Arbeit im
Quartier (BIWAQ)):
The BIWAQ programme was introduced in 2008 as a social-space-oriented
labour-market policy programme, which should support the national urban
city development policy based on the “socially integrative city” programme
(Stadtteile mit besonderem Entwicklungsbedarf – Soziale Stadt), by which
the living conditions in deprived urban areas should be improved. The
target group of BIWAQ are children and young people living in such urban
areas, and the funding is used for implementing educational, training and
employment projects, which are integrated into the local urban
development programme and are aimed at supporting these groups as
regards educational and professional inclusion. Between 2008 and 2015
184 million Euros (ESF: 124 million Euros and BMVBS: 60 million Euros)
will be invested in these projects. Up to now, 222 projects have been
funded in two funding periods. All the projects have to be evaluated
(BMVBS 2011; Güles 2009). Evaluation has shown that these projects
regularly have various positive impacts on the situation of the affected
people, as well as on the development of the urban areas in which the
projects were/are located.
However, this positive assessment of the BIWAQ programme is being
fundamentally questioned by the politically induced change of the
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 26
framework conditions: In the year 2010, the lead programme – the socially
integrative city – was dramatically reduced by 2/3 and has since continued
at a modest level. As a result, the deterioration of the framework
conditions in the promoted urban areas has jeopardised the positive
impacts of the BIWAQ projects (Franke 2012).
For the funding period 2014 – 2020, substantial funding will also be available for
Germany. The German welfare associations have welcomed the announcement by
the EC that 20% of the funding will have to be used for social inclusion objectives.
So even if the Structural Funds for Germany are reduced in the next funding
period, the European funding framework for social inclusion programmes in
Germany will remain stable. A requirement should be that the funding is not only
invested in active inclusion programmes, but that the range of topics and
programmes is enlarged. For the coming years, the promotion of integrated urban
development programmes and the expansion of educational, social and health
services at municipal level according to the specific local needs should have high
priority. The Structural Funds should be used to support these local efforts
through adequate national and regional programmes. The boards should ensure
that the traditional target group orientation be supplemented or substituted by a
social space orientation (see chapter 3).
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 27
References Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung (2012), Bildung in Deutschland 2012.
Edited by Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF). Berlin.
BAGFW (Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege)(2013),
Stellungnahme der Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Freien Wohlfahrtspflege zur
Anhörung am 05. Juni 2013 im Ausschuss für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung
des Deutschen Bundestags. Berlin.
Becker, Irene and Hauser, Richard (2010), Kindergrundsicherung, Kindergeld und
Kinderzuschlag: Eine vergleichende Analyse aktueller Reformvorschläge. Riedstadt
and Frankfurt am Main.
Becker, Irene (2010), Bedarfsbemessung bei Hartz IV. Zur Ableitung von
Regelleistungen auf der Basis des „Hartz-IV-Urteils“ des
Bundesverfassungsgerichts. WISO Diskurs. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Berlin.
Bertelsmann Stiftung (Ed.)(2010), Demographie konkret - Soziale Segregation in
deutschen Großstädten. Gütersloh.
Bertelsmann Stiftung et al. (2013), Chancenspiegel 2013. Zur
Chancengerechtigkeit und Leistungsfähigkeit der deutschen Schulsysteme mit
einer Vertiefung zum schulischen Ganztag. Gütersloh.
Bertram, Hans; Kohl, Steffen (2010), Zur Lage der Kinder in Deutschland 2010.
Deutsches Komitee für UNICEF, Köln.
BMAS (Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales)(2013), Lebenslagen in
Deutschland. Der vierte Armuts- und Reichtumsbericht der Bundesregierung.
Bonn.
BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) (2005),
Nationaler Aktionsplan. Für ein kindergerechtes Deutschland 2005 - 2010. Berlin.
BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) (2006),
Frühe Hilfen für Eltern und Kinder und soziale Frühwarnsysteme. Berlin.
BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) (2007):
Übereinkommen über die Rechte des Kindes UN-Kinderrechtskonvention im
Wortlaut mit Materialien. Berlin.
BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) (2008),
Dossier: Armutsrisiken von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Deutschland. Berlin.
BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) (2010a),
Perspektiven für ein kindergerechtes Deutschland. Abschlussbericht des
Nationalen Aktionsplans. „Für ein kindergerechtes Deutschland 2005 – 2010“.
Berlin.
BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) (2010b),
Bestandsaufnahme der familienbezogenen Leistungen und Maßnahmen des
Staates im Jahr 2010. Berlin.
BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) (2012a),
Familienreport 2012. Berlin.
Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (BMFSFJ) (2012b),
Dritter Zwischenbericht zur Evaluation des Kinderförderungsgesetzes. Berlin.
BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) (2013a),
Politischer Bericht zur Gesamtevaluation der ehe- und familienbezogenen
Leistungen. Berlin.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 28
BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) (2013b),
Bestandsaufnahme der familienbezogenen Leistungen und Maßnahmen des
Staates im Jahr 2010. Berlin.
BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) (2013c),
Meilensteine – August 2013. Berlin.
BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) (2013d),
14. Kinder- und Jugendbericht. Berlin.
BMVBS (Bundesministerium für Bau, Verkehr und Stadtentwicklung) (2011),
Bildung, Wirtschaft, Arbeit im Quartier (BIWAQ). Berlin.
BMWT (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie) (2008), National
Strategic Reference Framework for the EU Structural Funds in Germany, 2007–
2013. Berlin.
BMWT (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie) (2011), Nationales
Reformprogramm. Berlin.
Bonin, Holger et al. (2012), Evaluation zentraler ehe- und familienbezogener
Leistungen in Deutschland. Endbericht. Mannheim.
Bonin, Holger et al. (2013a), Mikrosimulation ausgewählter ehe- und
familienbezogener Leistungen im Lebenszyklus. Mannheim.
Bonin, Holger et al. (2013b), Zentrale Resultate der Gesamtevaluation
familienbezogener Leistungen. In: DIW-Wochenbericht 40.
Brand, Tasso et al. (2012), Strategiebericht 2012 zur EU-Strukturpolitik.
Berichterstattung zum Nationalen Strategischen Rahmenplan für den Einsatz der
EU-Strukturfonds in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. IFS Institut für
Stadtforschung und Strukturpolitik. Berlin.
Bündnis Kindergrundsicherung (2013), Kinder brauchen mehr. Unser Vorschlag für
eine Kindergrundsicherung. Berlin.
Bundesagentur für Arbeit (2012), Arbeitsmarkt 2011. Nürnberg.
Bundesrechnungshof (2012), Mitteilung an die Bundesagentur für Arbeit über die
Prüfung der Steuerung der Zielerreichung in den strategischen Geschäftsfeldern I
und Va. Bonn.
Der Paritätische Gesamtverband (2012), Positive Trends gestoppt, negative
Trends beschleunigt. Bericht zur regionalen Armutsentwicklung in Deutschland.
Berlin.
Der Paritätische Gesamtverband (2013), Anspruch nicht eingelöst. Kritische
Praxisbilanz nach zwei Jahren Bildungs- und Teilhabepaket. Berlin.
Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (DGB)(2011), Das Bildungs- und Teilhabepaket:
Viel Verpackung, wenig Inhalt. Arbeitsmarkt aktuell N0. 4.
Deutscher Kinderschutzbund (DKSB) (2007): ‚Armut – (k)eine Kinderkrankheit?!’
Informationen zum Weltkindertag 2007.
www.dksb.de/upload/dksb/themen/Armut/wkt_2007.pdf
Deutsches Kinderhilfswerk (DKHW) (2008): Forderungen und Handlungsfelder des
Deutschen Kinderhilfswerkes zur Bekämpfung der Kinderarmut in Deutschland.
www.dkhw.de/download/14_DKHW_Forderungskatalog.pdf
Deutscher Verein (für öffentliche und private Fürsorge)(2013), Deutscher Verein’s
Opinion on the European Commission’s Communication “Towards Social
Investment for Growth and Cohesion“. Berlin.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 29
Deutschen Instituts für Jugendhilfe und Familienrecht eV (DIJuF)(2013), Bildung
und Teilhabe für Kinder und Jugendliche nach SGB II: eine Strukturkritik,
Stellungnahme der Ständigen Fachkonferenz 1 „Grund- und Strukturfragen des
Jugendrechts“. Heidelberg.
Ebner, Christian; Nikolai, Rita (2010), Schlechtes Zeugnis für Deutschland. Europa
und die Bildungs-Benchmarks der Lissabon-Strategie – eine Zwischenbilanz,
WZBrief, September
Eichener, Volker (2012), Wohnungsbau in Deutschland – Zuständigkeiten von
Bund, Ländern, Kommunen und Europäischer Union? EBZ Business School –
University of Applied Sciences. Bochum.
European Commission (2013), Investing in children: breaking the cycle of
disadvantage. RECOMMENDATION of 20 February 2013 (2013/112/EU). Brussels.
Expertenrat Herkunft und Bildungserfolg (2011), Empfehlungen für
Bildungspolitische Weichenstellungen in der Perspektive auf das Jahr 2020 (BW
2020). Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg. Stuttgart.
Franke, Thomas (2011), Auswirkungen der Mittelkürzungen im Programm Soziale
Stadt. Herausgegeben von der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Berlin.
Güles, Orhan (2009), BIWAQ – Zusammenhalt durch sozialraumorientierte
Arbeitsmarktpolitik. In: Informationen zur Raumentwicklung. Heft 6.
Hanesch, Walter (2011a), Assessment of progress towards the Europe 2020
objectives. A Study of National Policies. Germany. EU Network of Independent
Experts on Social Inclusion. Darmstadt.
Hanesch, Walter (2011b), „Deutschland verabschiedet sich vom Kampf gegen
Armut und soziale Ausgrenzung“. Stellungnahme der Nationalen Armutskonferenz
(nak) zum deutschen Nationalen Reformprogramm im Rahmen der Strategie
Europa 2020. Berlin.
Hanesch, Walter (2012), Assessment of Implementation of European Commission
Recommendation on Active Inclusion. A Study of National Policies. Germany. EU
Network of Independent Experts on Social Inclusion. Darmstadt.
Hanesch, Walter (2013), Assessment of progress towards the Europe 2020
objectives. A Study of National Policies. Germany. EU Network of Independent
Experts on Social Inclusion. Darmstadt.
Helbig, Michael (2010), Neighborhood does matter! Soziostrukturelle
Nachbarschaftscharakteristika und Bildungserfolg, in: Kölner Zeitschrift für
Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie.
Hessischer Landtag (2012), Drucksache 18/6733 vom 04. 12. 2012
Holz, Gerda (2010), „Kommunale Strategien gegen Kinder- und Bildungsarmut“.
Oder: Der Ansatz kindbezogener Armutsprävention (nicht nur) für Kommunen. In:
Hanesch, Walter (ed.), Die Zukunft der ‚Sozialen Stadt’: Strategie gegen soziale
Spaltung und Armut iun den Kommunen. Wiesbaden.
Holz, Gerda (2011), Ansätze kommunaler Armutsprävention – Erkenntnisse aus
der AWO–ISS-Studie „Kinderarmut“. ISS. Frankfurt am Main.
Holz, Gerda et al. (2005), Armutsprävention vor Ort – MoKi – Monheim für Kinder.
ISS. Frankfurt am Main.
Hoofe, Gerd (2010), Thesenpapier zu der Fachtagung von DGB / HBS zum Thema
"Wege aus der Kinderarmut" am 8. Juni 2010. Berlin.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 30
Hübenthal, Maksim (2009), Kinderarmut in Deutschland. Empirische Befunde,
kinderpolitische Akteure und gesellschaftspolitische Handlungsstrategien.
Deutsches Jugendinstitut. München.
Hurrelmann, Klaus; Andresen, Sabine; Schneekloth, Ulrich (2010), Kinder in
Deutschland 2010, 2. World Vision Kinderstudie. Frankfurt am Main.
Huster, Ernst-Ulrich; Benz, Benjamin; Boeckh, Jürgen (2007), Tackling child
poverty and promoting the social inclusion of children. A Study of National
Policies. Germany…
ISA (Institut für Soziale Arbeit (2011), Bildungsbericht Ganztagsschule NRW 2011.
Dortmund.
ISG (Institut für Sozialforschung und Gesellschaftspolitik) (2012), Bildung und
Teilhabe von Kindern und Jugendlichen im unteren Einkommensbereich.
Untersuchung der Implementationsphase des „Bildungs- und Teilhabepakets“ im
Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Arbeit und Soziales. Köln.
ISG (Institut für Sozialforschung und Gesellschaftspolitik) (2013), Umfrage zur
Inanspruchnahme der Leistungen des Bildungs- und Teilhabepakets. Köln.
Kurth, Bärbel-Maria (2006), Symposium zur Studie zur Gesundheit von Kindern
und Jugendlichen in Deutschland. Berlin.
Laubstein, Claudia et al. (2012), Von alleine wächst sich nichts aus ...
Lebenslagen von (armen) Kindern und Jugendlichen und gesellschaftliches
Handeln bis zum Ende der Sekundarstufe I. ISS. Frankfurt a.M.
Lenze, Anne (2010), Regelleistung und gesellschaftliche Teilhabe. In: WSI-
Mitteilungen. No. 10.
Lenze, Anne (2012), Regelleistungen nach der Rechtsprechung des
Bundesverfassungsgerichts. In: Hanesch, Walter and Fukawa, Hisashi (Eds.), Das
letzte Netz sozialer Sicherung in der Bewährung. Baden Baden.
Lietzmann Torsten; Tophoven, Silke; Wenzig, Claudia (2011), Bedürftige Kinder
und ihre Lebensumstände. IAB-Kurzbericht No. 6.
Lopez Vilaplana, Christina (2013), Children were the age group at the highest risk
of poverty or social exclusion in 2011. In: Statistics in Focus No 4 (Eurostat).
MAGS (Ministerium für Arbeit, Gesundheit und Soziales) (2009), Prekäre
Lebenslagen von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Nordrhein-Westfalen.
Sozialberichterstattung Nordrhein-Westfalen. Düsseldorf.
Müller, Kai-Uwe et al. (2013), Evaluationsmodul: Förderung und Wohlergehen von
Kindern. DIW Politikberatung kompakt No. 73. Berlin.
National Coalition (für die Umsetzung der UN-Kinderrechtskonvention in
Deutschland) (2010), Ergänzender Bericht zum Dritt- und Viertbericht der
Bundesregierung Deutschland. Berlin.
Nationales Zentrum Frühe Hilfen (2010), Bestandsaufnahme kommunale Praxis
früher Hilfen in Deutschland. Teiluntersuchung 1: Kooperationsformen. Materialien
zu frühen Hilfen 2. Köln.
OECD (2009b), Doing Better for Children. Paris.
OECD (2011), Doing Better for Families. Paris.
Olk, Thomas; Hübenthal, Maxim (2009), Child poverty in the German social
investment state. In: Zeitschrift für Familienforschung. Heft 2.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 31
Pielage, Patricia; Ludger Pries; Günther Schultze (2012), Soziale Ungleichheit in
der Einwanderungsgesellschaft: Kategorien, Konzepte, Einflussfaktoren;
Tagungsdokumentation im Auftrag der Abteilung Wirtschafts- und Sozialpolitik der
Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Berlin.
Rainer, Helmut et al. (2011), Kinderbetreuung. Erstellt im Auftrag der
Geschäftsstelle Gesamtevaluation der ehe- und familienbezogenen Leistungen in
Deutschland. ifo-Forschungsberichte No 59. München.
Rainer, Helmut et al. (2012), Kindergeld. Erstellt im Auftrag der Geschäftsstelle
Gesamtevaluation der ehe- und familienbezogenen Leistungen in Deutschland.
Ifo-Forschungsberichte No. 60. München.
Sann, Alexandra (2010), Kommunale Praxis Früher Hilfen in Deutschland. Köln.
Schober, Pia S; Spieß, C. Katharina (2012), Frühe Förderung und Betreuung von
Kindern: Bedeutende Unterschiede bei der Inanspruchnahme besonders in den
ersten Lebensjahren. DIW-Wochenbericht Heft 43.
Schölmerich, Axel et al. (2012), Wohlergehen von Kindern. Endbericht des
Moduls. Erstellt im Auftrag der Geschäftsstelle Gesamtevaluation der ehe- und
familienbezogene Leistungen in Deutschland. Ruhr Universität Bochum. Bochum.
Schrieverhoff, Hannah (2011), Kinderarmut und Familienpolitik in Deutschland.
Zur Wirksamkeit armutsreduzierender Transferleistungen. CEuS Working Paper
No. 2011/5. Universität Bremen. Bremen.
Seidel-Schulze, Antje; Dohnke, Jan; Häußermann, Hartmut (2012), Segregation,
Konzentration, Polarisierung - sozialräumliche Entwicklung in deutschen Städten
2007-2009. Berlin.
Seils, Eric; Meyer, Daniel (2012), Kinderarmut in Deutschland und den
Bundesländern. WSI in der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung. Düsseldorf.
Social Protection Commitee (2012), SPC Advisory report to the European
Commission on tackling and preventing child poverty, promoting child well-being.
Brussels.
Sozialverband Deutschland e.V. (2010), Kinderarmut bekämpfen –
Chancengleichheit verwirklichen. Berlin.
Stadt Monheim (2009), KoKi – Monheim für Kinder. Monheim.
Stöbe-Blossey, Sybille (2011), Familienzentren in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Eine
Zwischenbilanz. Aktuelle Forschungsergebnisse aus dem Institut Arbeit und
Qualifikation 2011-06. Duisburg and Essen.
UNICEF (Innocenti Research Centre)(2012), Measuring child poverty.
Florence/Italy.
UNICEF (Office of Research – Innocenti)(2013), Child well-being in rich countries.
A comparative overview. Innocenti Report Card 11. Florence/Italy.
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 32
Annex
Table 1:
Poverty and social exclusion in Germany 2008 – 2011 (in %)
2008 2009 2010 2011
Total population 20.1 20.0 19.7 19.9
- Women 21.6 21.2 20.9 21.3
- Men 18.5 18.8 18.6 18.5
Population
under 18 years
20.1 20.4 21.7 19.9
- Women 19.5 18.3 21.4 21.5
- Men 20.7 22.1 21.9 18.6
Source: EU-SILC
Table 2:
At-risk-of-poverty in Germany 2008 – 2011 (in %)
2008 2009 2010 2011
Total
population
15.2
15.5 15.6 15.8
Population
under 18 years
15.2 15.0 17.5 15.6
Population
between 18 and 84 years
15.4 15.8 15.6 16.4
Population 65
years and more
14.9 15.0 14.1 14.2
Source: EU-SILC
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 33
Table 3:
At-risk-of-poverty in Germany 2008 – 2011 (in %)
2008 2009 2010 2011
People in all
household types
15.2 15.5 15.6 15.8
People in
households without children
17.0
17.4
16.5
17.5
People in
households with children
13.1
13.0
14.6
13.7
- Single
parent
households
35.9
37.5
43.0
37.1
- Two
adults
with one
child
9.3
9.8
9.0
9.8
- Two
adults
with two children
8.3
7.7
8.8
8.7
- Two
adults
with
three and
more children
15.2
13.6
21.6
16.2
Source: EU-SILC
Table 4:
Marriage and family related benefits in Germany 2007 – 2010 in million Euros
2007 2008 2009 2010
Tax
measures
42,115 41,152 43,594 45,627
Cash benefits
23,249 24,087 24,749 25,134
Social insu-
rance measures
24,942 25,551 26,953 27,304
Benefits in
kind
20,804 22,453 25,129 27,397
Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Country Report - Germany
2013 34
Marriage
rela-ted measures
71,180 73,272 74,541 74,854
Marriage and
family
related benefits
182,290 186,515 194,966 200,316
Source: BMFSFJ 2010
Table 5:
Population at risk of poverty or social exclusion by age group (%), 2011
Source: Eurostat