AN OVERVIEW ON WHERE AND HOW TO FIND INFORMATION ON GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON CHILD RIGHTS IN 10 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

Transcription

1 AN OVERVIEW ON WHERE AND HOW TO FIND INFORMATION ON GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON CHILD RIGHTS IN 10 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES Elina Tran-Nguyen FIANT Consulting Oy January 2013 This report has been produced with the financial support of the European Commission. The contents of this report are a sole responsibility of Save the Children and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Commission. 1

2 Contents SUMMARY ON KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 1. INTRODUCTION 5 2. FOCUS OF THE STUDY AND DEFINITIONS OF SOME KEY CONCEPTS Focus of the study Definitions of some key concepts 7 3. MAIN FEATURES OF WHERE AND HOW INFORMATION ABOUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING CAN BE FOUND Levels of government and share of responsibilities related to child rights Reporting on resource allocations to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child Availability of and access to budgetary information Other main sources funding children's rights COUNTRY SPECIFIC OVERVIEWS Denmark Finland Germany Italy Netherlands Norway Romania Spain Sweden The United Kingdom (UK) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 50 Annex I: Persons consulted 53 Annex II: UNCRC periodic reporting documents analyzed 54 Annex III: Recommendations from the Day of General Discussion on Resources for the Rights of the Child Responsibility of States 56 2

3 SUMMARY ON KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The aim of the study is to give an overview on where and how to find information on how much 10 European countries spend on implementing child rights. The study focuses specifically on education, health, social protection and General Measures of Implementation of the UNCRC. The countries covered are Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Spain, Sweden and UK. This study was commissioned by Save the Children Finland in November 2012 with funding from the European Commission, as part of its Child Rights and Good Governance work to address the gaps in governments' allocations of resources for the implementation of child rights. Key findings: Strong decentralization of decision-making power and responsibilities for education, health services and social protection from the central government level to the regional and local level governments in all 10 countries makes the search for and analysis of related government budget and spending information a very complex and demanding exercise. If the aim is to make a nationwide analysis on the government investment in children in these areas, budgets from all levels of government need to be taken into consideration. In addition if the flow of funds between different levels of government is not analyzed there is a risk of double or even triple counting of government investments in some cost areas depending of the country context. In line with the principle of interrelatedness of human rights, a big part of policies of, actions taken and services provided by governments are directly or indirectly affecting also the realization of children's rights. The UNCRC, GMI and the reporting guidelines for the UNCRC periodic reporting provide some guidance for the analysis related to government budget allocation and spending on the implementation of child rights. Based on them main categories for the resource allocation and spending analysis can be defined. However, further definition and focusing of cost categories is necessary especially in the area of social protection and to some extent in health services in order to make the analysis feasible and meaningful. This implies analysis on how directly these cost categories are contributing to the realization of children's rights. There are still remarkable gaps in the information provided by the Governments on the allocation of resources in the periodic reports to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Only in few cases total amounts for investment in children is provided and even in those cases the Committee expressed its concerns on the quality of data. As consequence there is also lack of analysis on the share of government investment in children against the total government budget and the GDP as well as related trends. In its Concluding Observations the Committee paid systematically attention to the lack or poor quality of information on this topic, while there is also some incoherence in the related Committee recommendations to the State parties. Even though government budgets with detailed information on budget allocations at different levels of government can be accessed in most countries through internet, in some countries these documents need to be requested separately from the Ministry of Finance or each concerned ministry. The level of details and structure of budgets vary especially at the local level. Getting accurate and timely data on spending on education, health, social protection and GMI at different levels seems to be more difficult than having access to budget documents. However, the cases of Sweden and Norway show that it is possible to develop systems for coordinated data collection and sharing on spending. With regard to GMI in most countries it is difficult to identify budget allocations or track costs for their implementation. This is probably related to undefined share of related responsibilities as well. However, the case of Sweden shows that it is possible to get GMIs visible in the central government budget by having a separate expenditure area for Child Rights Policy. 3

4 Due to time limitations the analysis on other sources of funding for the implementation in this study remains on a very general and superficial level. However, the importance of this kind of analysis can be seen especially in the case of education in Romania, where families are investing 1.5 times the amount the government is putting in their children's compulsory education. Also, in all 10 countries families pay service fees for child care. Recommendations: Taking into consideration the complexity of the decentralized context where the analysis on government budget allocations and spending is conducted it is important to make strategic choices on how to proceed. On one hand so called modeling of the analysis process for example in a limited number of municipalities or regions would support development of tools and provide inputs that could be used when expanding the analysis. At the same time advocacy towards the governments to take action in developing adequate monitoring systems is recommended. The content focus of child rights based budget analysis needs to be clearly defined and discussed on a continuous basis. This has direct implications also to the question of where and how to find information for this analysis. The Concluding Observations of the Committee for the Rights of the Child could be used as an advocacy tool when advocating the governments in initiating development of child rights based monitoring on budget allocations and spending. NGOs should advocate their governments to improve the reporting on resource allocations for the implementation of child rights to the Committee on the Rights of the Child. The issue of resource allocations should be raised, as possible, in the alternative/supplementary reporting. Further analysis should be made on how the flow of funds between different levels of government is reflected and can be tracked from government budget documents. If making a nationwide analysis this would need to be done at all levels of government. More comprehensive and systematic research would be necessary to get an overall understanding on other sources funding the implementation of children's rights. It would be useful to study further families' financial inputs to services for their children, especially in the area of childcare, secondary education and health. Another interesting area to study further is role of NGOs and their funding in education, health, social protection and GMI related work. 4

5 1. INTRODUCTION After more than 20 years since the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) was adopted, there are good policies and legislation in place in many countries. However unless backed by adequate resourcing, they remain empty promises. Article 4 in the UNCRC urges States to use the maximum extent of their available resources to make sure children s rights are realized in their jurisdiction. Furthermore, the UNCRC Committee has developed a list of measures, called the General Measures of Implementation (GMI) that needs to be in place in order for a state to successfully implement the UNCRC. However, from the reporting to the UNCRC it is clear that states do not know how much they actually spend on realizing children s rights. As part of its Child Rights and Good Governance work to address the gaps in governments' allocations of resources for the implementation of child rights, Save the Children Finland commissioned this study in November 2012 with funding from the European Commission. The aim of the study is to give an overview on where and how to find information on how much 10 European countries spend on implementing child rights. The study focuses specifically on education, health, social protection and General Measures of Implementation of the UNCRC. The countries covered are Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Spain, Sweden and UK. The study has been conducted parallel to a study on the Investment in Children related work of Save the Children Members in these countries. The study was conducted as a desk study on the periodic reporting to the UNCRC Committee related documents 1, internet search for information on government administrative structures at different levels, budgeting mechanisms as well as availability and as possible content of the government budgets in each of the 10 countries covered by the study. In addition government representatives, academics and civil society representatives having expertise on social sector or child rights related government administration and budgeting were consulted through phone interviews and 2. The report starts by defining the focus of the study as well as some key concepts (Chapter 2). Chapter 3 gives an overview on common features and differences between the 10 European countries on where and how information about government spending can be found. This is discussed from the perspective of decentralized government structures, availability of resource allocation related information in the UNCRC periodic reports, availability of and access to budget documents. Also other sources of funding of children's rights are discussed briefly. Chapter 4 includes country specific overviews and Chapter 5 concentrates on conclusions and recommendations. On one hand the report provides an overview on the availability of and access to budget allocation and spending related information in these countries. At the same time the study shows the high, constantly evolving complexity of the government budgeting and spending structures and processes in the decentralized country contexts. Taking into consideration the short time-frame of one month for conducting the two studies covering 10 European countries, this report should be seen as an initial study providing inputs for planning future work in this area at the international and as possible national level within Save the Children. 1 The most recent periodic reports, government written replies to the List of Issues from the Committee, Records of the Committee sessions and Concluding Observation reports. 2 The names of the interviewees can be found in Annex 1. 5

6 2. FOCUS OF THE STUDY AND DEFINITIONS OF SOME KEY CONCEPTS 2.1 Focus of the study The study aims at giving an overview on where and how information government allocation and spending for the implementation of children's rights can be found with focus on education, health, social protection and General Measures of Implementation (GMI). The content of these four focus areas have been defined based on the expenditure classification in the Treaty-specific guidelines regarding the form and content of periodic reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child 3, the General Comment No. 5 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on General Measures of Implementation 4 as well as Save the Children's own definitions. 1. Education: early childhood care and education, primary and secondary education, vocational education and training and special education. 2. Health services: primary health services targeting children 3. Social protection: social assistance, social insurance and social services for children and their families. 4. General Measures of Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC): the process of law reform, development of independent human rights institutions for children, development of comprehensive strategies or agendas for children, governmental coordination mechanisms, monitoring (data collection and evaluation), education, training and awareness-raising on the CRC, Collaboration in the CRC implementation with civil society including children Taking into consideration the short time-frame for conducting this study, the report is not able to provide information and analyze the availability of budget information on a very detailed level, but gives an overview on where an how to seek for this information. The report aims at answering to the following study questions: 1. Has the country in question reported annual total expenditure on UNCRC implementation in its latest report to the UNCRC Committee? 2. What kind of budgetary information is available for the four categories covered by the study? 3. Where can it be found (national/sub-national levels; which ministry)? 4. What, apart from the government, are the main sources of funding children s rights? The analysis of these questions is structured under the following sub-titles: 1) Levels of government and share of responsibilities related to child rights 2) Information on resource allocations in the periodic report to UNCRC 3) Availability of and access to budgetary information 3 Treaty-specific guidelines regarding the form and content of periodic reports to be submitted by States parties under article 44, paragraph 1 (b), of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 2010, CRC/C/58/Rev.2 4 General Comment No. 5 (2003), General measures of implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (arts. 4, 42 and 44, par. 6) 6

7 4) Other main sources funding children's rights The questions 2. and 3. require analysis on the government structure and the share of responsibilities between different levels of government within the concerned countries. At the same time they are linked to the questions on availability of and access to budget data and documents. For this reason these two questions will be addressed jointly under number 1. and 3. of the above noted sub-titles. The report gives emphasis to the three first study questions listed above. The fourth question on the other main sources of funding children's rights can be addressed only on a relatively superficial manner by giving some examples of other sources of funding in relation to education, health, social protection and GMI. A more comprehensive mapping and in-depth analysis would require much wider research. It is also noted that in the case of Italy, UK, Spain and Germany the study is not able to analyze the budgeting and spending for education, health services, social protection and GMI at all levels of government due to complexity of regional and local government structures, while for the other countries the study aims at giving an overview at the central, regional and local government levels. 2.2 Definitions of some key concepts As shown in this report the way how governments make budget allocations and spend on the implementation of children's rights is highly affected by decentralization in all 10 countries covered by this study. Studying only central level budgets would provide very inaccurate picture of the actual investment in children since the decision-making and responsibility for ensuring services for children lies increasingly with regional and local authorities. Therefore in order to understand how and where to find information on government investment in children, it is necessary to understand the different levels of government and the share of roles and responsibilities relevant to the implementation of child rights between these different levels in each country. For this purpose it is necessary to give definitions to some key concepts of decentralization. Decentralisation is usually referred to as the transfer of powers from central government to lower levels in a political-administrative and territorial hierarchy (Crook and Manor 1998, Agrawal and Ribot 1999). This official power transfer can take two main forms. Administrative decentralisation, also known as deconcentration, refers to a transfer to lower-level central government authorities, or to other local authorities who are upwardly accountable to the central government (Ribot 2002). In contrast, political, or democratic, decentralization refers to the transfer of authority to representative and downwardly accountable actors, such as elected local governments (Larson). 5 All countries covered by this study have undergone decentralization processes where increased decision-making power and/or responsibilities for the delivery of especially services for children are increasingly at the levels of local and regional authorities. This report will not analyze different kind of decentralization processes in detail. However, the definition of devolution is necessary in order to understand the decentralization contexts especially in UK, Spain and Italy. Devolution is the statutory granting of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to 5 Decentralization, deconcentration and devolution: what do they mean? Compiled by Elizabeth Linda Yuliani: 7

8 government at a subnational level, such as a regional, local or state level. Devolution can be mainly financial, e.g. giving areas a budget which was formerly administered by central government. However, the power to make legislation relevant to the area may also be granted. Devolution differs from federalism in that the devolved powers of the subnational authority may be temporary and ultimately reside in central government, thus the state remains, de jure unitary. Legislation creating devolved parliaments or assemblies can be repealed or amended by central government in the same way as any statute. Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces). Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Among the countries covered by this study Germany is an example of federalism. At the same time decentralization has taken place within the federal states bringing e.g. services for children increasingly to the level of local authorities. 8

9 3. MAIN FEATURES OF WHERE AND HOW INFORMATION ABOUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING CAN BE FOUND This Chapter will provide an overview on the common features and differences in where and how information about government spending on children's rights can be found in the 10 European countries covered by the study. 3.1 Levels of government and share of responsibilities related to child rights When looking for information on the government budget allocations and spending on the implementation of child rights and in this case more specifically on education, health services, social protection and GMIs, it is important to have an overall understanding on the government structure and especially how the responsibilities related to these areas are shared between and within different levels of government. In Europe, and to wide extent also globally as well, decentralization has strongly affected the share of roles and responsibilities within the public sector on issues and services directly affecting children. Even though all 10 European countries covered by this study have their own structures of government it is, however, possible to identify some common features at least for some country groups in the way how decentralization has been implemented in areas relevant to the implementation of child rights. Devolved governments at the regional level: Italy, Spain and UK are countries with strongly devolved governments at the regional level that have e.g. their own legislations, parliaments, governments, taxation systems and budgets. In all of these three countries the responsibilities for education, basic health services for children as well as social services are widely under the decisionmaking power of the devolved governments and included in their own budgets. However, some responsibilities related to these areas remain at the central level. There are differences how the services under the responsibility of regional governments are financed. In the case of Italy the central level may give some contribution to the devolved government budgets, while the main responsibility for resourcing lies within the regional level while in the case of Spain the central government has the primary responsibility for collecting taxes and redistributing the funds to regions (Autonomous Communities). Parallel to the devolution processes from central to regional level there has been increasing decentralization of responsibilities from the regional to local levels affecting especially services relevant to child rights including education, health and social services. However, there are differences between regions within the same country how the decentralization has been carried out that makes budget data collection and analysis a very complex and challenging process. From the perspective of analyzing government allocations and spending on education, health and social protection for children, the federal state structure of Germany resembles the devolved governments in Italy, Spain and UK. In a similar way there has also been a strong decentralization of responsibilities to the local levels of government affecting strongly the education, health and social services and these decentralization processes differ from each other in different federal states. Strong role of local authorities in the Nordic countries: In the Nordic countries, namely Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, the government levels include central, regional and municipal level, the latter playing a major role in ensuring provision of services for children especially in the area of 9

10 education and social services and depending of the country context also on health services. Municipalities have a strong self-determination on areas under their competence. Even though big part of the funding is collected through local taxes and to some extent service fees, they also receive funding from the central level government in the form of general or earmarked grants. There are differences between the countries on how these grants are organized. The regional level structure plays a smaller role in relation to services for children compared to municipalities, but in Sweden and Denmark it has the main responsibility for health services and in Norway for the upper secondary education. The Netherlands have levels of government that are similar to the Nordic countries (central level, provinces, local authorities). However, in the Netherlands the responsibilities for education, health and social protection are more shared between the central level government and the municipalities than it is the case in the Nordic countries. In Romania the responsibility on child protection and social assistance has been fully decentralized to the levels of counties and municipalities. In the education sector the responsibility is shared between the central government and local councils, while health services remain fully under the responsibility of the central government. The below table shows which levels of government have the main responsibility for primary and secondary education and child care, basic health services, social protection and GMI in each country. Country Education Health Social protection Denmark Municipalities Regions Municipalities, Central gvt Finland Municipalities Municipalities Municipalities, Central gvt Germany Italy *) Netherlands Norway Romania Federal state, districts and municipalitis Regions and central state Municipalities and central state Municipalities and counties Central government and local council Federal state, districts and municipalities Regions Municipalities and central state Municipalities Central level Federal state, districts and municipalities Central state and regions Municipalities and central state Municipalities and central government County councils and local councils GMI Central level, not clearly defined Central level, partly defined, planning processes in all municipalities Not defined Central and regional levels Central level, partly defined Central level Central level, not defined Spain*) Regions Regions Regions and central government Central and regional level, not clearly defined Sweden Local Regions Local authorities, Central level, also 10

11 Country Education Health Social GMI protection authorities Central gvt, initiatives at the local level UK **) Devolved governments Devolved governments Central gvt and devolved Central level, some structures in devolved gvts governments *) analysis includes only the central government and regional level. **) England is not a devolved government and it's budget is included in the UK central government budget. Share of responsibilities at the central level When looking for information for budget analysis from child rights perspective, in addition to the analysis on the share of responsibilities between different levels of government, it is also necessary to understand the share of responsibilities within those government levels. Within the scope of this study it has been possible to only analyze how the central level budgets are structured according to Ministries. At the regional and local levels the budget structures and related share of responsibilities vary widely even within countries and therefore making an overall analysis on them would be very challenging and would require more comprehensive research in each country. In all countries the education related work is under the Ministry of Education and basic health services are under the Ministry of Health. However, most often these ministries have some combined responsibilities as shown in the below table. In the case of social protection the share of responsibilities vary from country to country and in many cases two ministries are responsible, one being responsible for social services, e.g. including child protection and another for allowances and benefits for children and their families. With regard to GMIs some countries like Sweden and Norway have a clearly defined share of responsibilities, but for most countries the share of GMI related responsibilities is not clearly defined. This table shows the central level ministries responsible for primary and secondary education and child care, basic health services, social protection and GMI in each country. Country Education Health Social protection GMI Denmark Finland Germany Italy Netherlands Ministry of Children and Education Ministry of Education and Culture Federal Ministry of Education and Research Ministry of Education, Universities and Research Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, Ministry of Health Ministry of Health and Social Affairs Federal Ministry of Health Ministry of Health Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports Ministry of Social Affairs and Integration Ministry of Health and Social Affairs Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs Ministry of Labour, Families and Social Affairs Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports (youth assistance and care), Ministry Not clearly defined Not clearly defined, main responsibilities on child rights under the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs Not defined Shared between different ministries, main role played by Ministry of Labour, Families and Social Affairs Ministry of Health, Welfare is responsible for CRC reporting (to be complemented) 11

12 Country Education Health Social protection GMI Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (childcare) of Social Affairs and Employment (benefits) Norway Romania Spain Sweden UK Ministry of Education and Research Ministry of Education, Research and Youth Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports Ministry of Education Department for Education Ministry of Health and Care Ministry of Public Health Ministry of Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality Ministry of Health and Social Welfare Department for Health Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Welfare Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (social insurance and assistance), Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality (social services) Ministry of Health and Social Welfare Department for Education (social services for children), Department for Work and Pensions (allowances and benefits) Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Welfare Not defined Ministry of Health and Social Welfare Department of Education 3.2 Reporting on resource allocations to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child The analysis on the reporting on government resource allocations to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (the Committee) is based on the latest periodic reports of each of the 10 countries covered by this study as well as written replies to the list of issues from the Committee, meeting records and the Concluding Observations of the Committee. The analysis shows remarkable gaps and even lack of reporting on government resource allocations to the implementation of child rights. As noted in the below table only Italy and Spain provide total amounts on government investment in children. However, the provided amounts are calculated from budget allocations not spending and for both countries the Committee expressed its concerns on the difficulties in providing accurate data on actual allocations and spending. Sweden has made remarkable progress in providing data on total spending in social benefits, social insurance, municipality level costs including education, social services and benefits as well as regional 12

13 level cots on health and dental health. This data is compiled by the National Statistics of Sweden. However, an analysis on the total allocation and spending for child rights as well as its share against the GDP is missing from the periodic report. Most countries explained this lack of information with strongly decentralized financial systems where the responsibility for the funding and implementation most of the services for children lies at the level of local authorities and therefore the government resource allocation related data is spread throughout the country since no compilation of budget allocations and in most cases also of actual spending is taking place at the national level. Another challenge in providing this information as noted in the reports was that part of the costs are included in budget lines providing services for the whole population and disaggregation of child specific data is difficult (example of the National Health Service of UK). Also, the difficulty to reflect tax relieves given to families with children in the calculations on government investment in children was mentioned in the state party explanations of the gaps in providing information on resource allocations in the periodic reports. With regard to the GMI it can be noted that none of the countries provided information on the total budget allocation or actual spending on GMI in their periodic reports to the UNCRC Committee. The below table summarizes to what extent the 10 countries have reported on government allocations to the implementation of child rights in their periodic reports to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. State Party Total amount on gvt investment in child rights provided Sector specific totals on gvt investment in child rights provided Denmark no yes (education) yes Finland no no yes Germany no Partly (family benefits) yes Italy Yes (estimate based on budgets) yes yes Netherlands no no yes Norway no Partly (benefits) yes Romania no Yes (education) yes Spain Yes (budget allocations) Yes Yes Sweden No Yes ( social benefits, social insurance, education, health and dental health) UK No Yes (education) Yes Total Yes: 2, No: 8 Yes: 6, Partly: 2, No: 2 Yes: 10 Programme or project specific budget information provided In the Concluding Observations related to the availability of information on government budget allocations and spending on the implementation of child rights in the periodic reports the UNCRC Committee made generally reference to the recommendations of the Day of General Discussion on 'Resources for the Rights of the Child Responsibility of States' in September In most of its Concluding Observations related to the availability of budget information the Committee expressed its concerns on the risk of all children not enjoying the same level of services in all parts of the country. The main recommendations to the State parties were to: Yes 6 For the recommendations of the day of General Discussion see Annex 3. 13

14 ensure adequate resources at the local level in order to ensure equal access to services by all children ensure that priority budget lines for children are protected from changes in resource levels develop monitoring systems for tracking government allocation and spending on the implementation of child rights conducting child impact assessments regularly to evaluate how the allocation of budget is proportionate to the realization of policy developments and the implementation of legislation. introduce child rights budgeting establish result-based budgeting to monitor and evaluate the efficiency of the allocation of resources ensure the establishment of a clear mechanism for budget allocation in a specific sector with specific focus on reducing and preventing disparities address the issue of corruption The below table indicates the resource allocation related recommendations by the Committee on the Rights of the Child in the Concluding Observations of the UNCRC periodic reporting per country. Recommendations Denmarlanly Fin- Ita- Nether Nor- Ro- Spain UK -lands way mania 1. To ensure adequate resources at x x x x x x x the local level in order to ensure equal access to services by all children 2. To ensure that priority budget x x lines for children are protected from changes in resource levels 3. To develop monitoring systems x x x x for tracking government allocation and spending on the implementation of child rights 4. To conduct child impact x 7 x x assessments regularly 5. To introduce child rights x x x budgeting 6. To establish result-based x budgeting 7. To establish a budget allocation x 8 mechanisms for a specific sector with focus on reducing disparities 8. To address the issue of corruption x 9. Reference made to the recommendations of the Day of General Discussion on 'Resources for the Rights of the Child Responsibility of States' in September 2007 x x x x x 7 The Committee recommended undertake a comprehensive analysis of resource allocation for children at the national and regional levels (par. 15.) 8 Social Assistance and Protection at the central, county and local levels (par.15. e) 14

15 Note: For the latest periodic reports of Germany and Sweden, concluding observations are not yet available. 3.3 Availability of and access to budgetary information The analysis on the share of responsibilities on education, health, social protection and GMI provides guidance on what kind of budget information should be looked for, where and particularly at what levels of governance. Chapter 4 of this report provides more concrete information on where and how to get access to the government budget documents and data in each country. At the central level in all 10 countries the Ministry of Finance coordinates the budgeting process and provides general information both about the process and the budgets in their web pages. However, the level of details of the provided information varies from country to country. In some countries detailed budget documents providing information for child rights based analysis of budgets is available in internet, while in other countries they should be requested separately from the government in paper format. At the regional and local levels the government structures, budget structures as well as access to budget documents and data in internet vary widely from country to country and even within countries. Summary table on access to government budget documents including detailed information education, health, social protection and GMI. Country Central level government Devolved region/federal State *) Regional/district and local authorities Denmark To be requested separately from the Ministry of Finance in paper format N/a Available in internet Finland Available in internet N/a Available in internet Germany Available in internet Access, but not always in internet Accessible, but not always in internet Italy To be requested separately from each Ministry To be requested separately from the regional government Not covered by this study Netherlands Available in internet N/a Available in internet Norway Available in internet N/a Available in internet Romania Available in internet N/a Information on the availability and access to this information could not be confirmed Spain Available in internet Available in internet Partly available in internet Sweden Available in internet N/a Available in internet UK Available in internet Available in internet Not covered by this study *) Refers to devolved governments in Italy, Spain and UK as well as the Federal States in Germany 15

16 With regard to spending, the National Statistics of some countries, including Sweden and Norway, have open databases in internet where relatively detailed information on government spending in specific services is compiled nationwide in an accessible format. However, even though in many countries general level closing of accounts documents are easily accessible, it is difficult to find access to detailed spending data and information and there are long delays in its processing. There are no national level coordinated mechanisms for overall monitoring of government allocations and spending for the implementation of child rights at different levels in any of the 10 countries covered by this study. Overall, as noted in the periodic reports of several countries as well as during the interviews conducted during the study the development of this kind of monitoring mechanisms is considered very challenging. However, at the regional and local levels there are some good initiatives, for example: The Welsh Assembly Government has undertaken an exercise to identify Assembly Government and Assembly Government-funded spending on children s services and initiatives. Further information is available in the following internet address: Save the Children UK has advocated for this kind of child rights mainstreaming in Wales and has also developed a toolkit for child budgeting. In Sweden there are initiatives taken by local governments in mainstreaming child rights in all their work. There is a group of 10 advanced communes that are closely collaborating with each other on this matter. In Finland all communes should develop a Commune Welfare Plan for Children and Youth. The primary aim of this document is to strengthen collaboration between different sectors. Save the Children Finland has been supporting the planning processes at the local level. In Norway the Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Welfare has published an analysis in the Norwegian government's investment in children and youth in the state budget Other main sources funding children's rights Even though within this study it was not possible to conduct a systematic mapping and analysis of the other main sources funding children s rights it was possible to identify some common trends and also differences. Daycare services for children below the age of attending pre-school are in all countries partly funded by the government often with mixed funding from the central and local levels. However, children's families pay services fees the level of which varies considerably among these countries. In the Netherlands the costs of children's day care are paid by parents, government and also parents' employers. However the employers' contribution is voluntary, and in most cases is one of the terms of a collective labour agreement. In Romania access to government day care services is extremely limited and therefore the families are highly responsible for their children's day care arrangements and related costs. Data on how much families pay for child care services is collected by OECD (OECD database). In principle governments provide free primary and secondary education services in all 10 countries 9 Satsing på barn og ungdom Regjeringens mål og innsatsområder i statsbudsjettet 2011, Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Welfare 16

17 covered by this study. However, there are still education related costs paid by children's families. In Romania this is a major issue, since according to Save the Children Romania's research parents are paying about 1.5 times the amount the government is investing in their children's education, families being responsible for example for learning and teaching materials and aids, transportation, school repair etc. In Finland children still have to buy at the upper secondary school level their own school books, but in Norway this practice has recently been changed and the costs are covered by the service provider. There are also differences how the school meals are arranged and funded among these countries. Depending of the country, students may need to pay school fees if attending a private school. Also basic health services are free of charge for children in these countries 10. Even if the health care service funding is based on system of private health insurances partially like in Germany or completely as is the case in the Netherlands, the insurance fees for children below the age of 18 are covered by the government. However, for medication in most of the states the government health insurance covers part of the costs, families paying the rest. In all countries NGOs play an important role in promoting child rights and to some extent also in providing services for children e.g. in relation to child care or child protection. For funding these activities NGOs mobilize resources from the governments, to some extent from EU as well as corporates and individual donations. In the case of Romania EU funding for local NGOs has played an important role in delivery of various services for children, but EU funding has radically decreased from past. 10 It was not possible to confirm whether the health services are free of charge in Romania. 17

18 4. COUNTRY SPECIFIC OVERVIEWS This Chapter includes country specific overviews on how and where information on government budget allocations and spending especially in education, health, social protection and GMI can be found in the 10 European countries covered by this study. The first section of each country overview includes a description of different levels of government as well as share of responsibilities related to child rights between and within the levels. The second section of each country overview describes to what extent the respective countries have reported on the allocation of resources in their periodic reports to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. The third section addresses the question of availability of and access to budget documents and data that could be used for analyzing the government allocations from the child rights perspective. The last section of each overview gives examples of other sources of funding beyond the government for the implementation of children's rights. 4.1 Denmark Levels of government and share of responsibilities related to child rights Denmark has a two-level administrative-territorial structure consisting of the state (level 1) and five Regions and 98 Municipalities (level 2). There is no system of subordination between the regions and the municipalities, as they possess different tasks and responsibilities. 11 Most welfare tasks have been devolved to local governments during two major local government reforms in 1970 and 2007 so that the municipalities have the primary responsibility for most key services relevant to children's rights. Most local government functions are carried out with full discretion, except for a handful of social security benefits, where central government covers a share of the costs. The main responsibilities of municipalities and regions are as follows: Municipalities Pre-primary and primary education, social welfare services (including child care and social services), health, utilities, environment and spatial planning, and road management Regions Public health service, employment policies and in most regions also public transportation The above noted share of responsibilities shows that great majority of responsibilities for the implementation of services directly affecting children lie at the level of municipalities and for health services at the level of regions. Central level government's main role is to initiate legislation, develop policies, provide guidance and funding for local level services through grants to municipalities and specific programmes and projects. Only the central state level and municipalities can levy taxes. The municipality budget is mainly covered with local tax income, grants and some compensation from the central government and to some extent with service fees in relation to child care and elderly people's care. The regions are funded by the central state and municipalities. Within the central government the responsibilities for the four main areas covered by this study are shared as follows: 11 The Danish Local Government System, Local Government Denmark (LGDK), February

19 Education Ministry of Children and Education Health Ministry of Health Social protection Ministry of Social Affairs and Integration (main responsibilities are policy on children at risk, elderly and disabled people and pensions, marginalized groups such as homeless people, people with mental disorders and drug addicts) as well as government benefits for children and their families. GMI Within the government structure the responsibility for GMI is not clearly defined. The National Council for Children, an independent institute focusing on providing information and guidance on child rights issues in Denmark, is linked to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Integration Information on resource allocations in the periodic report to UNCRC The fourth periodic report of Denmark to the Committee on the Rights of the Child does not provide information on the government total allocation and spending on the implementation of children's rights, nor does it provide analysis on the main trends in its investment in children. The report does include remarkable amount of budget related information, however, in a quite fragmented manner. The report provides information on the public expenditure on education by level education for the years as well as the share of education budget against the GDP. On social protection the report provides detailed information on the level of different kind of child and family allowances in Denmark. However, no data or analysis on the total costs and related trends are provided. The report includes information about the funds provided from the national level government budget to specific initiatives, programmes and projects for example in relation to development aid, nondiscrimination and social inclusion, early childhood care and education, education (especially support to bilingual students, support to students homework, support to completion of post-secondary education), protection of violence, cultural, recreational and sports activities etc. For Greenland and Faeroe Islands the report provides more budget information on the total costs per sector. However, it is noted in the report that this data is incomplete. In its written reply to the List of Issues from the Committee, Denmark provides some more data on government expenditure at the level of municipalities for children's day care services as well as public net expenditure for disadvantaged children and young people for In its Concluding Observations the Committee expresses concerns about making municipalities entirely responsible by virtue of the Municipal Reform of 2007 for the financing, supply and allocation of social services with only partial State reimbursement for high-cost cases may lead to situations where children in some municipalities, particularly the most disadvantaged, do not enjoy the full range of necessary social services. (par. 21) It also notes that the State of Denmark is to ensure that its allocation of resources to all sectors covering child rights remains high and is equitable, bearing in mind the need for financial support to those municipalities which require it in order to ensure fully the realization of all rights of all children, and that the budget requirements, particularly in education and mental health services, are fully met. (par. 22) However, the Committee does not make recommendations related to development of child rights budgeting or monitoring systems for tracking government allocation and spending on the implementation of child rights. 19