Delivering On The Child Guarantee PS

POLICY STUDY
January 2023
DELIVERING ON THE
CHILD GUARANTEE
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE NATIONAL
PLANS’ RESPONSES TOWARDS FIGHTING
INEQUALITIES IN ACCESS TO CHILDCARE
Margarita León, Christian Morabito,

Emmanuele Pavolini, Michel Vandenbroeck
Policy Study published in January 2023 by
THE FOUNDATION FOR EUROPEAN

PROGRESSIVE STUDIES (FEPS)
European Political Foundation - Nº 4 BE 896.230.213
Avenue des Arts 46 1000 Brussels (Belgium)
www.feps-europe.eu
@FEPS_Europe
This Policy Study was produced with the financial support

of the European Parliament. It does not represent the view
of the European Parliament.
Copyright © 2023 by the Foundation for European Progressive Studies.

Front page photo (source): Shutterstock
Design : Downtown
Copy Editing: Rosalyne Cowie
ISBN: 9782931233023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 2
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 5
1.1. The need for a European Child Union: reducing inequalities through childcare .................................................. 6
1.2. Childcare within the social agenda of the EU ............................................................................................................................... 8
1.3. The Child Guarantee National Action Plan: an instrument to increase access to quality childcare
across Europe for vulnerable children ............................................................................................................................................... 9
1.4. A review of CGNAPs of four member states: Belgium (Flanders regions); Finland; Italy; and Spain ...... 10
2. COUNTRY CASE STUDIES ........................................................................................................................ 11
2.1. Belgium (Flanders and Brussels’ Dutch-speaking community)........................................................................................ 12

2.1.1. Status of childcare in Belgium.......................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.1.2. Main factors responsible for inequality in access to quality childcare.................................................................. 14
2.1.3. Does the CGNAP effectively address inequalities and propose solutions?....................................................... 16
2.1.4. Concluding remarks................................................................................................................................................................................ 17
2.2. Finland....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
2.2.1. Status of childcare in Finland............................................................................................................................................................ 20
2.2.2. Main factors responsible for strengthening inequalities in access to quality childcare......................... 20
2.2.3. Does the CGNAP effectively address inequalities in childcare and propose solutions?......................... 21
2.2.4. Concluding remarks............................................................................................................................................................................... 23
2.3. Italy............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
2.3.1. Status of childcare in Italy.................................................................................................................................................................... 25
2.3.2. Main factors responsible for inequality in access to quality childcare................................................................. 26
2.3.3. Does the CGNAP effectively address inequalities and propose solutions?...................................................... 27
2.3.4. Concluding remarks............................................................................................................................................................................... 28
2.4. Spain........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
2.4.1. Status of childcare in Spain................................................................................................................................................................ 31
2.4.2. Main factors responsible for inequality in access to quality childcare................................................................ 31
2.4.3. Does the CGNAP effectively address inequalities in childcare and propose solutions?......................... 36
2.4.4. Concluding remarks.............................................................................................................................................................................. 38
3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 38
AUTHORS, ABOUT FEPS ............................................................................................................................... 46
4. ABOUT THE AUTHORS .............................................................................................................................. 47
5. ABOUT FEPS .................................................................................................................................................... 49
1
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Inequalities begin when a child is born and during childcare. The objective of this study is to assess
the first years of life. This is a sensitive period the efficacy of CGNAPs in addressing inequalities
when most of the skills and competencies that in access to childcare, taking four member states
will accompany an individual throughout their life as case studies: Belgium (Flanders and Brussels’
start to be learned. Inequalities, determined mainly Dutch-speaking community); Finland; Italy; and
by inheritance, as a result of the socio-economic Spain.
conditions of the family into which the child is born,
also begin to arise. Conclusive scientific evidence The study shows that, even though the four countries
outlines that early learning and welfare interventions differ in terms of coverage of childcare services
– in particular, quality childcare – can break the (with Flanders having the highest rates, followed
cycle of disadvantage. This is why, at the peak of the by Spain, Finland and Italy), they all acknowledge
COVID-19 pandemic, progressive forces called for substantial inequalities in access, with low-income
a Child Union, a union that ensures every child has children disadvantaged, due to the following factors:
access to quality childcare. the lack of offering in marginalised territories;
excessive costs for services, preventing the poorest
The EU also recognised the role of childcare as an families from affording the enrolment of young
equaliser and essential component of the Pillar of children; criteria to access favouring working/
Social Rights. Two major initiatives have, therefore, middle-income families; and low quality, with
been launched to promote equal access to specific reference to workforce qualifications and
childcare. The Child Guarantee Initiative, sponsored working conditions. These inequality drivers are, to
by progressives in European institutions, requests a large extent, explained by limited public spending
that member states provide free and universal and mechanisms for allocating existing funds not
access to basic social rights, including childcare targeting municipalities (which are usually in charge
and early learning, for all European children, above of the provision of services) or areas within bigger
all those most vulnerable. In addition, the Council’s cities, where the most vulnerable children live. In
recommendation on the Care Strategy calls for addition, these local authorities, very often, lack the
member states to expand the coverage of childcare capacity and means to develop and implement a
services to 45% of children under 3 years old, relatively “new” service, such as childcare.
while also reducing inequities in access between
the poorest and the rest of the population. More However, among the CGNAPs assessed in this
importantly, a mechanism of monitoring, within the study, only two – Italy and Spain – somewhat
EU Semester, has been put in place, with member address the main causes of inequalities in access to
states required to submit Child Guarantee National childcare and propose responses, with measurable
Action Plans (CGNAPs), identifying key actions to targets, actions and budgets. Alternatively, Belgium
reach this objective, with means, financing and tools (Flanders and Brussels’ Dutch-speaking community)
to assess progress. and Finland presented CGNAPs that neither included
analyses of inequalities nor specific objectives,
The CGNAPs might then represent a key instrument, targets and spending. This makes it hard for both
on one hand, for member states to push their EU institutions and national stakeholders to use
childcare agenda forward, and, on the other hand, the plans to promote equitable childcare policies in
for European institutions to monitor the progress of these countries.
member states in reducing inequalities in access to
Delivering on the Child Guarantee 3

Regardless of the specificities of the EU member
states, the findings of the study suggest that, at
present, CGNAPs, might limitedly support the
promotion of equitable childcare policies across
the EU, apart from few member states (such as Italy
and Spain) that have invested in childcare provision
through the Recovery and Resilience Facility, and
therefore, have developed plans to monitor results
and spending.
A number of actions can be taken, at the EU level, to

enhance the effectiveness of the plans. Specifically:
(1) increase the availability of granular data (at the

territorial level) on access, the characteristics
of beneficiaries, the quality of services and
financial resources, in order to plan concrete and
appropriate actions and targets and to monitor
results;
(2) build the capacities of local authorities for

planning equitable and quality services by
mobilising best experiences across the EU in
support of the most marginalised areas; and
(3) an EU initiative to promote the quality of the

childcare workforce, with reference to the
qualifications of educators, working conditions
and salaries.
In addition, the expansion of childcare provision

cannot be ensured with stringent fiscal control from
the EU, which prevents municipalities from investing.
Childcare must be pulled out of the stability pact
and considered as an investment in present and
future social and economic cohesion, and not mere
spending.
Finally, progressives must continue to fight, in

member states and EU institutions, for a Child Union,
a union that recognises (and invests in) childcare
as a right, and the foundation for the education
and emancipation of European citizens in the 21st
century. It is a paramount welfare policy to promote
present and future fairness, prosperity and resilience
of European societies and economies.
4 Delivering on the Child Guarantee

1. INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The need for a European Child Union: school dropout levels and fewer competencies in
reducing inequalities through childcare early living, making these children, once they become
adults, more likely to experience unemployment and
In the EU, even before the COVID-19 pandemic, 23 lower earnings, perpetuating the transmission of
million children were at risk of poverty or social poverty and social exclusion from one generation
exclusion.1 The impact of the pandemic on children’ to the next. Inherited inequalities are detrimental
lives has been uneven and alarming, increasing to the economy, because they prevent talents from
material and educational poverty and inequalities emerging and actively contributing to the growth
across Europe. and development of countries, and for social justice,
stability and cohesion.
There is a large consensus among academics and
policymakers on the positive effects for children (and Childcare is demonstrated to be an effective
parents) of participation in childcare programmes. intervention to reduce inequalities. According to a
Inequalities already appear in the early years of life, recent FEPS study, children aged 3, from the poorest
and they are shaped by the environment into which families, enrolled in quality childcare, are about 15%
the child is born and grows up. Scientific research more likely to attain the same levels of competencies
shows, for instance, that already children aged 4 as their peers when teenagers.4 Quality refers to the
from low-income families cumulate important gaps inclusiveness of programmes able to meet each
in numeracy, literacy, physical development and in child’s needs and empower them. The availability
skills such as the capacity to adapt to changes and of childcare services increases employment
manage stress, which are considered to be essential opportunities for women and, therefore, also
in present and future labour markets and societies.2 represents an essential means to reduce present
gender inequalities, raising household incomes and
Early inequalities in the acquisition of the key reducing the risks of poverty and social exclusion.
capabilities to live in the 21st century3 lead to higher In summary, childcare is a key policy to break the
intergenerational transmission of disadvantage.
“
Childcare is a key policy to break the
intergenerational transmission of disadvantage.
”
Even though the positive effects of participating in or unaffordable. At present, less than half of EU
childcare, especially for the most disadvantaged member states offer childcare services to more than
children, are well documented, in most European 33% of their children below age 3 (see Figure 1).
countries, childcare services are unavailable and/
Figure 1. Percentage of children in childcare programmes in the EU.

% of Children in Childcare Programmes in the European Union
80
67,7 67,6
70
63,1
60 57,2
54,6 54,1
53,0
50 45,5 44,3
39,5
40
32,4
29,7
30 26,7 26,3 26,2
22,9
21,5 21,1 20,7 20,4
20 16,4 16,2
15,0
11,1 10,5
10 6,8
4,8 4,8
EU-SILC 2020
In addition, services are, in some cases, of short It is for this reason that progressives have called
duration, and therefore, do not match parents’ for a Child Union, aiming at guaranteeing equal
working needs. Quality, in terms of staff qualifications, access to quality early childhood education and
for instance, or the implementation of inclusive care, as an essential element to reduce inequalities
curricula, is generally low across EU member and fight poverty and social exclusion. The Child
states. In addition, the offer is extremely limited in Union initiative calls for progressives to promote
marginalised suburban or remote and rural areas, reforms, in member states and EU institutions, to
and in the majority of member states services are make childcare a legal entitlement, and therefore,
run by private providers.5 As a result, disadvantaged guaranteed to all children, regardless of the
children usually do not access childcare services environment in which they are born and grow up.
or are enrolled in low-quality programmes that are This can only be achieved through substantial
thus unable to provide appropriate learning and public investments, aiming at expanding the offer
care experiences and enhance their educational and and quality of childcare, especially in areas where
development opportunities. the most disadvantaged children live, and making
services free for them.

1.2. Childcare within the framework of quality indicators to support member
social agenda of the EU states in planning quality and affordable childcare
systems, with specific reference to governance
The EU recognises the key role of childcare in and financing to expand access to the most
reducing present and future inequalities and disadvantaged children, and ensuring both structural
promoting social and economic development, as quality (e.g. children-staff ratio, staff qualifications,
well as the need to expand access to childcare adequate learning environment) and process quality
services across Europe, while ensuring, in particular, (curriculum implementation and relationships
that the most disadvantaged also benefit from early between staff and children and with parents).9
learning and care.
The pledge from the EU to promote childcare has
The 2013 European Commission recommendation been taken further with the adoption of two major
“Investing in children: breaking the cycle of initiatives in recent years.
disadvantage” underlined the essential role of
childcare in reducing poverty and social exclusion Firstly, the Child Guarantee was established in 2021,
and strengthening economic growth and the well- with the objective of ensuring that “every child in
being of European society. The recommendation Europe at risk of poverty or social exclusion has
calls on member states to allocate adequate access to the most basic of rights like healthcare
resources to ensure access to affordable and quality and education”.10 An initiative developed by the
childcare services, particularly for children most in European Parliament, in a first stance in 2015,11 and
need.6 subsequently confirmed in a resolution in 2019,12 the
Child Guarantee supports member states in their
The Structural Reform Support Programme 2017- efforts towards fighting poverty and social exclusion,
2020 included technical support for member by guaranteeing equal access to welfare services,
states to implement reforms aimed at expanding including early childhood care and education, that
accessibility, quality and inclusiveness of early are essential to reduce inequalities.
childhood care and education services, prioritising
the most disadvantaged children, also those in As previously outlined, access to childcare across
institutions and with disabilities, and with migrant Europe is extremely unequal, favouring mainly
and ethnic minority backgrounds. In addition, in middle- to high-income children. As a result, the
2017, the European Council adopted the “Pillar of Child Guarantee requires that member states
Social Rights”, aiming at improving living standards, undertake concrete actions to enhance participation
working conditions, social protection and the in childcare programs for the most disadvantaged
inclusion of European citizens.78 Principle 11 of children, notably, those in material poverty and
the Pillar states the right of children to affordable experiencing severe housing deprivation; children
and quality childcare as a key element to ensure with disabilities, a migrant background, and from a
a reduction in the number of children at risk of racial or ethnic minority background (in particular,
poverty or social exclusion by at least 5 million Roma children); and those living in institutions and
and halving the gender employment gap by 2030. other alternative care settings.
Accordingly, the expansion of quality and affordable
childcare has become part of the country-specific Moreover, the European Commission proposed, in
recommendations for a number of member states, 2022, the “European Union Care Strategy”.13 The
the progress of which has been monitored through strategy updates the so-called Barcelona targets
the Social Scoreboard within the European Semester. on early childhood care and education, established
in 2003, which demanded that member states
In 2019, the European Council also adopted a guaranteed at least 33% of children below age 3
recommendation on “High-quality early childhood participated in childcare programmes, by increasing
education and care systems”, establishing a the target to at least 50% of children. In addition,

a number of sub-targets are suggested, focusing The European Council’s recommendation also
specifically on reducing inequalities in access and outlines that financial resources from the Recovery
increasing quality. Specifically: and Resilience Facility (RRF) can be used by member
states to pursue this objective, which contributes to
(1) to provide sufficient hours of childcare services mitigating the effects of COVID-19 and the economic
to align with the working hours of parents; recession, and achieving the goals of the European
Pillar of Social Rights. In addition, within the European
(2) to strengthen quality, inclusiveness, accessibility Social Fund Plus (ESF+), for 2021-2027, 5% of funds
and affordability, and introduce a legal have been earmarked for the implementation of the
entitlement to childcare; Child Guarantee for those countries with levels of
children at risk of poverty or social exclusion higher
(3) to improve staff working conditions and close than the EU average (in 2017-2019). The European
the gender gap; and, more importantly, Regional Development Fund, which focuses on
enhancing social infrastructures and services, can
(4) to close the gap in participation in childcare also be employed, along with the Technical Support
between the most disadvantaged and the Instrument, which aims to support member states in
remaining children. designing and implementing the reforms necessary
to reduce children’s inequalities and social exclusion.
The European Commission also engages in
providing assistance to member states for their The key aspect of the European Council’s
efforts towards expanding childcare and will monitor recommendation is that member states, after entry
progress through the European Semester tools. into force of the Child Guarantee, are obliged to present
a Child Guarantee National Action Plan (CGNAP),
detailing the actions that the country will undertake
to ensure equal access to quality childcare by 2030,
including regular and EU budget resources which
1.3. The Child Guarantee National
they intend to use in this respect. This instrument,
Action Plan: an instrument to increase
which will be integrated into the revised EU Social
access to quality childcare across
Scoreboard, will allow the European Commission to
Europe for vulnerable children
effectively monitor the implementation of planned
actions, as part of tracking the progress made by
The EU possesses the capacity for policy innovation member states towards the achievement of the
and the political strength to facilitate a new era of “new Barcelona” targets for care and the objectives
support and development for all European children of the EU Pillar of Social Rights, within the European
and families and to address rising inequalities. Semester coordination process.
On one hand, the Care Strategy sets common goals It is of paramount importance, therefore, that
and measurable targets to expand (while reducing CGNAPs are accurate, coherent and effective,
inequalities in) access to quality, and inclusive, and thus, contain analyses of the main drivers of
childcare services. On the other hand, the Child inequalities in access to childcare services, for
Guarantee solidifies the strategy’s equity principle, vulnerable children; the description of measures
by demanding member states take concrete, to tackle inequalities, both present and future, with
monitorable and budgeted sets of policy actions and measurable targets and monitoring and evaluation
programmes to guarantee free access to childcare mechanisms; and the financial resources needed to
to the most disadvantaged children: those in poverty achieve the target.
and social exclusion; those in precarious family
situations; those with a disability; those residing in
institutions; and migrant and refugee children.

“
Child Guarantee National Action Plans should be accurate, coherent,
and effective, and therefore contain analyses of the main drivers of
inequalities in access to childcare services, for vulnerable children;
the description of measures to tackle inequalities, both present and
future with measurable targets and monitoring and evaluation’s
mechanisms; financial resources needed to achieve the target.
Member states might, according to national

” inequalities among children in the early years of
specificities and conditions, prioritise specific their lives in their respective countries.
groups of children that are particularly in need
and/or in highly socially disadvantaged areas and In particular, the study investigates whether the
territories. GCNAP includes:
The CGNAP must be developed and implemented • analyses of the inequalities in access, which are
in a participatory manner, involving local authorities, possibly disaggregated at the territorial level;
such as regions, provinces and municipalities; the
latter, in general, are responsible for the delivery • correctly identified factors that undermine
of childcare services, along with civil society, non- access to childcare for disadvantaged children;
governmental organisations, and the beneficiaries –
children and parents – themselves. • measurable objectives and targets to increase
publicly funded places by 2030, with a focus on
In addition, the CGNAP must illustrate the the territories where the most disadvantaged
governance structure of the Child Guarantee, as children live, and reduced costs or gratuity for
the body responsible for coordinating actions and the most disadvantaged children;
monitoring the implementation of the plan, with
adequate and specific resources allocated for these • indications of the funds allocated to achieve the
purposes. objectives and targets (in particular, the RRF);
• proposals to increase the quality and

inclusiveness of childcare;
1.4. A review of CGNAPs of four
member states: Belgium (Flanders • actions to strengthen demand, also in terms
regions); Finland; Italy; and Spain of reducing cultural barriers in relation to the
participation of young children in childcare
The scope of the present study is to assess the programs; and
accuracy, coherence and effectiveness of the
CGNAPs in four countries – Belgium (Flanders and • effective modalities and budgets to monitor the
Brussels’ Dutch-speaking community), Finland, implementation of actions.
Italy and Spain – in pursuing the goal of reducing

2. COUNTRY
CASE STUDIES
2.1 BELGIUM
2. COUNTRY CASE STUDIES
2.1. Belgium (Flanders and Brussels’ In addition, both Flanders and the FWB seek to
Dutch-speaking community) ensure accessibility for vulnerable families by
offering mostly publicly funded childcare services
and establishing financial contributions from
2.1.1. Status of childcare in Belgium parents in relation to their income (for 75% of
childcare places). Lower income families pay less in
Early childhood education and care in Belgium are the the FWB than in Flanders and high-income families
competence of “language communities”: Flanders; pay slightly more in the FWB than in Flanders). The
the Federation Wallonie-Bruxelles (FWB); and the minimal fee across Flanders is €6 for a full day, and
German-speaking community (Deutschsprachige the maximum is €33.31 (from 1 January 2023).15
Gemeinschaft). In the Brussels capital region, both Childcare centres can add administrative costs and
Flemish and Francophone (FWB) communities costs for nappies and special nutrition. Yet, there is
are competent for the childcare of their respective the possibility to obtain a further reduction in fees
language populations (Dutch and French). As a (below the minimum threshold) for families living
result, while the Federal Department of Social in poverty. However, it is decided on a case-by-case
Integration (FOD Maatschappelijke Integratie/SPP basis by the municipal welfare office.
Intégration sociale) was responsible for the Child
Guarantee report from Belgium, the report actually In spite of the high coverage, the presence of publicly
consists of separate reports for each community. funded services and progressivity in parental
The focus of the case study is mainly on Flanders financial contributions, inequalities in access to
and Brussels (Dutch-speaking community). childcare are noticeable. While more than 70% of
children in the 20% highest income families regularly
In each community, early childhood education and attend childcare, this is the case for only around 20%
care are organised as a split system, with childcare in the lowest income group.16 The gap between rich
(0 to 3 years) as a competence of the Ministry of and poor has widened in the last decade.
Welfare or Ministry of the Family, and preschool
education (kleuterschool/école maternelle for In addition, in both communities, childcare workers
children aged 3-6) as the competence of the Ministry are only trained to a post-secondary non-tertiary
of Education. education level. As a result, Belgium has childcare
staff educated to a lower level than in most EU
As in most EU countries, enrolment in preschool member states, in which a tertiary education
education in Belgium is almost universal. Over 97% qualification is necessary to work in these services.
of children are enrolled in preschool. Universality In addition, adult-child ratios are among the highest
eradicates inequalities in access, since children in Europe: seven children per adult in the FWB and
from poor families are also enrolled. Coverage of eight to nine children per adult in Flanders.17 The
childcare services for the youngest children (aged combination of lower educational levels, high ratios
0-3) is also high. In Flanders, slightly over 50% and few regulations on continuous professional
of children attend childcare, while in the FWB it is development and leadership is a serious challenge
slightly under 50%. In both cases, targets proposed to the quality and inclusiveness of childcare and can
by the EU Care Strategy are already achieved.14 further exacerbate inequalities.

“
The combination of lower educational levels, high ratios and
few regulations on continuous professional development and
leadership is a serious challenge to the quality and inclusiveness
of childcare and can further exacerbate inequalities.
2.1.2 Main factors responsible for inequality

in access to quality childcare
” than municipalities and neighbourhoods with lower
income families (see Figure 2). While this is the case
over all municipalities, it is also the case across
Territorial inequalities neighbourhoods within most of the 13 main cities,18
apart from some notable exceptions (such as the
The first factor responsible for inequality in city of Ghent, which is described as an example of
access to childcare in Flanders is geographical inspiring practice in the FEPS study on the Child
inequality – among municipalities and within Union).19 This is a historically constructed inequality
areas of metropolitan cities. Municipalities and that is reinforced over time. The main reason is
neighbourhoods with a higher average family determined by the governance and modalities of
income had more childcare places per 100 children allocation of resources by the Flemish community.
Figure 2. Relationship between median fiscal revenue and number of

childcare places per 100 children in all municipalities in 2017.
Source: Van Lancker and Vandenbroeck (2019).

Services have developed over time mainly where algorithm and increase the weight of social criteria,
middle- to high-income households were located, in such as percentage of low-income families. The
which both parents were employed, and therefore, results of that revision still need to be evaluated.
demand for childcare services was higher.
Similar dynamics have been observed in Brussels
In addition, recently, when the budget was made (Dutch-speaking community), with families from
available for additional childcare places, the a migrant background and single-parent families
community’s agency in charge of allocation of (usually economically poorer) having significantly
funding, Opgroeien, used an algorithm to define less chance to obtain a childcare place than
in which municipalities and/or cities or areas of employed and middle- to high-income parents.21
cities new places could be developed and funding
disbursed. The algorithm used different criteria,
including the number of available places per 100 Affordability
children, as well as economic (employment) and
social (income levels) indicators. This type of A second determinant of inequalities in access
algorithm tends to privilege areas where the offer of to childcare in Flanders and Brussels (Flemish-
childcare services is already available and middle- speaking community) is related to the costs of
to high-income households and employed parents services for families. With the childcare decree of
live, largely neglecting social factors.20 As a result, 2014, parental fees for the lowest income groups
the governmental agency planned to revise the have significantly increased (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Average parental fees and the influence of the 2014 decree.
Source: Kind en Gezin.

As previously mentioned, poorer and severely • 17 managers claim to prioritise parents in a
disadvantaged families can ask for permission from training program, but none of the centres has
the municipal welfare service (Openbaar Centrum more than 10% of users in such conditions.
voor Maatschappelijk Welzijn, OCMW) to obtain
a reduction in their fee. However, it is a municipal This shows that priorities play a role and the
competence, so the criteria for obtaining a fee mentality favours social criteria, but this does not
reduction for poor families may vary substantially necessarily mean that practice is also changing.
from one municipality to another. In some cases,
criteria to access are too stringent and/or the
reduction is limited. As a result, data show that the Lack of quality
uptake is marginal. It varies from 0.63% of users in
Bruges to 5.39% in Kortrijk (www.Opgroeien.be). Ensuring quality of childcare services remains
a challenge. In 2016, a comprehensive study on
the quality of Flemish childcare was conducted.24
Criteria for access It revealed that educational support was
below average. This means that childcare is
Bureaucratic measures are also factors that underachieving at the beneficial potential effects
increase inequalities to access. The 2014 decree on children’s development and inequality reduction.
stipulates that parents need to make a contract that The unfavourably high adult-child ratio, combined
fixes which days the childcare will be used, and it with low qualifications (ISCED 4), no child-free hours
forces parents to pay for the reserved days, even if and lack of legislation on the right to continuous
the child does not attend. How many exceptions are professional development jeopardises the overall
possible and what counts as exceptions (e.g. child’s quality. In addition, low salaries lead to high turnover,
illness, holidays) significantly differ from provider to and the combination of these factors determines
provider. What parents need to pay for a no-show important staff shortages. The starting wage for a
also significantly differs: it can vary between the childcare worker is approximately €16,000 yearly
normal daily price and a fixed maximum possible (in public service; in private service, it may vary
price. Studies have shown that this measure is a substantially, but will usually be less). At present,
deterrent for parents in precarious labour situations Flanders spends €2.90 per hour per child in childcare
and parents in poverty.22 (compared to €6.20 in the Netherlands or €8.80 in
Sweden).25 To guarantee quality and accessibility for
In addition, some childcare managers favour dual- children in poverty, significant additional budgetary
income families seeking full-time places, as this investments will be necessary.
facilitates administration, yet no clear figures are
available for the entire Flemish community. A study
conducted in Brussels instead shows there may be 2.1.3. Does the CGNAP effectively address
significant differences in priorities for managers and inequalities and propose solutions?
how these are acted out. A few examples from that
study include:23 The Belgian CGNAP mentions some recent
or ongoing initiatives to map the problems of
• 50% of childcare centres claim to give absolute accessibility (e.g. the 2019 study on the use of
priority to a crisis situation, but none reserve childcare and a VIONA26 study), but does not provide
places to do so; any concrete targets for the future. The studies
mentioned are also not explained in the CGNAP, nor
• 31 managers claim to give absolute priority to does it mention any conclusions that may lead to
the lowest income, but none of these childcare actions.
centres has more than 10% of users from low-
income groups; and

For the Flemish community, there are no figures for childcare places for urgent childcare needs and for
how much access to childcare for children in poverty reinforcing professional competences, but there are
needs to increase, the numbers of places to create, no clear targets or commitments from the Flemish
geographical targets, or any other key indicators authorities.
or objectives to reach regarding accessibility,
availability or affordability of childcare for children in
poverty. In other words, the CGNAP does not mention 2.1.4. Concluding remarks
any benchmarks. There is a rather general reference
to the role that Huizen van het Kind (parent support Flanders is one of the few European regions that
centres) may play in alleviating child poverty. As a is typified by a higher-than-average availability of
result, there are no budgetary commitments made childcare, combined with a higher-than-average
in the CGNAP. inequality of enrolment for the youngest children.
Consequently, there is an urgent need to address
This needs to be nuanced for the Dutch-speaking access to high-quality childcare for children in poverty
community in Brussels, where the Vlaamse in Flanders. These issues are related to inequalities
Gemeenschapscommissie (the competent body for in availability, affordability and accessibility, as well
childcare policy for the Dutch-speaking community as to key aspects of structural quality conditions.
in Brussels) uses a comprehensive study to guide
it towards a social policy for accessibility and There are several monitoring instruments in place:
availability of childcare. The CGNAP mentions a every five years, the government commissions a
commitment to have a social childcare policy guided large-scale study on the offer, demand and uptake of
by this study.27 In addition, investments are made for childcare for the whole of Flanders;28 several larger
the close monitoring of access through the “lokaal cities (i.e. Brussels, Ghent and Leuven) centralise all
loket kinderopvang” (the service that, among others, demands and can, therefore, continuously monitor
centralises all childcare demands and stimulates a who gets the childcare places and who does not;
social policy regarding childcare uptake). While both and every five years a comprehensive study is
intentions are well noted in internal discussions in commissioned to monitor the quality. In addition,
the Vlaamse Gemeenschapscommissie, again no the Flemish government, in close collaboration
quantitative or budgetary targets are mentioned in with Agentschap Opgroeien29 and a large group
the CGNAP. of stakeholders, developed an action plan, called
Vroeg en Nabij,30 in which a vision text on the future
Regarding the quality of childcare, the picture is of childcare in Flanders is elaborated. In that text,
rather similar. References are made to ESF projects the ambition is clearly stated to have high-quality
by some NGOs aimed at creating additional childcare places for all children, including for
children in vulnerable situations.31
“
The CGNAP lacks a clear state of affairs and quantified
analysis of the thresholds for the accessibility of childcare
for children in poverty or any other vulnerability.
”
In contrast with the fact that all these monitoring
instruments are in place, the CGNAP lacks a clear
state of affairs and quantified analysis of the
thresholds for the accessibility of childcare for
children in poverty or any other vulnerability. It also
lacks targets in terms of the number of places
to build and addressing geographical inequality,
priorities, parental fees or quality issues, as well
as budgetary commitments and a monitoring and
evaluation system. As a result, the CGNAP simply
acknowledges a problem, in terms of coverage and
access for vulnerable children, but does not provide
any concrete solutions and, more importantly, action
plans to address inequalities.

2.2 FINLAND
2.2. Finland in the greater Helsinki area, along with children living
in rural, remote areas.35
2.2.1. Status of childcare in Finland The same geographical disparities are actually
observed when looking at later educational
In Finland, early childcare and education is a legal achievements, notably results from the OECD
entitlement. Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) tests in mathematics, reading and science for
Every child has the right to have a place in Finnish children aged 15, thus reinforcing the strong
childcare services, after the end of parental leave, association between inequalities in accessing early
and municipalities are obliged to provide access learning and long-term school performances.36
to children requesting it. The share of private
institutions offering childcare services is minimal A large share of low-income children also have a
and the affordability of public services is ensured migrant background. Finland has seen a rise in
through the setting of a maximum cap of €288 per immigration in recent decades. In 1990, the foreign-
month for parental financial contributions, with no born population accounted for just 1% of the total
fees required from lower income households.32 population, while in 2019 it reached 7%.37
Finland also invests in quality of services. The
annual expenditure for early childhood education
and care programs is relatively high (equivalent to 2.2.2. Main factors responsible for
$23,353 per child) and the average ratio of number strengthening inequalities in access to
of children per care staff member is nine, which quality childcare
is lower than the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) average (15 Territorial inequalities
children per teaching staff member).33
Childcare is considered a learning experience; the
As a result, Finland appears to be on track to beginning of the educational path of a child. The
achieve the objectives of the Child Guarantee and Ministry of Education is responsible for developing
targets proposed by the 2022 EU Care Strategy, with and implementing national curricula, pedagogical
specific reference to ensuring affordable and quality guidelines, establishing quality criteria and
childcare services, as a legal entitlement to children. evaluation, along with coordinating the workforce
network.
However, looking at data on enrolment, between
3 and 5 years old, 85% of children participate in Yet, the responsibility for the provision (and
preschool education programs, reaching over 90% financing) of services lies with municipalities,
at age 6, but the percentage decreases to less than which have great autonomy in the way services
40% for children below age 3 (and particularly for are organised, curricula and how evaluations are
children aged 1 and below), which is the lowest rate performed. Government transfers to municipalities
of intake among Nordic countries.34 cover only 25% of costs of childcare services.
The remaining 75% is financed by municipalities
Not only is participation in childcare in Finland through local taxation and parental contributions
lower than that in many EU countries, especially (accounting for approximately 10%, among the
for children below age 3 – and far from the target lowest share of EU countries).38 As a result, those
proposed by European Commission to reach 50% municipalities located in areas with a high incidence
by 2030 – there are also consistent inequalities in of low-income families, which provide limited
access. Particularly penalised are children from financial contributions directly through childcare
lower income families, which are concentrated in fees and indirectly through taxation, might have less
urban areas in the south of the country, particularly

budgetary means to invest in childcare provision those with an immigrant background. These
and/or offer lower quality services. families clearly opt for cash, primarily to increase
the household income. This dynamic is reinforced
by fewer employment opportunities in marginalised
Lack of quality areas, where most poor families and those with
migrant backgrounds live, along with cultural factors
Since municipalities have the responsibility (notably, the reticence to enrol young children in care
for managing the costs of services, including outside of the family).40
implementation of the curriculum, quality standards
and professionalisation of staff. Since financial To summarise, the combination of limited financial
resources are lower for marginalised municipalities, resources for marginalised areas and territories,
quality might also be negatively affected. In particular, where most vulnerable children live, and the
with reference to process quality, and the capacity alternative scheme of a homecare allowance
of services to implement inclusive pedagogical undermine both the offer of and demand for quality
approaches and practices, it is essential to create an childcare services, increasing inequalities in early
appropriate learning environment, particularly for the learning.
children of newcomers. These municipalities also
struggle to recruit and retain care staff and teachers,
who are called on to operate in marginalised, difficult 2.2.3. Does the CGNAP effectively address
territories, with limited means, and lower salaries, inequalities in childcare and propose
compared to primary education teachers.39 solutions?
The Finnish CGNAP certainly has important

Competing welfare services strengths. In particular, it creates a link between the
Child Guarantee and the National Child Strategy, also
Affordability is not a major factor undermining adopted in 2021; rightly identifies most vulnerable
access to childcare, since fees for parents are children; and outlines participatory approaches
low and poorer households are not required to adopted to develop the plan (involving children’s
provide any financial contribution. However, there representatives), while also indicating important
is another factor fuelling inequalities in access to future actions to appropriately monitor the plan.
early learning experiences by vulnerable children, However, for the part pertaining to childcare,
which is the presence of “competing” welfare there is no accurate analysis, using available data
measures: the homecare allowance, an alternative and research, of the major challenges facing the
scheme to enrolment in childcare services. After childcare system in ensuring equal access to quality
the end of parental leave, parents can choose services, particularly to vulnerable children:
either to enrol children in a childcare service or to
receive a monetary allowance for homecare (a basic
allowance provided by the government, along with Early childhood education and schooling
an eventual top up provided by municipalities). Only
a few municipalities permit combining the homecare Compared to many other countries, Finland has
allowance and participation in childcare, but only a low rate of participation in early childhood
to so-called “open Early Childhood Education and education, but almost all children undergo preschool
Care”, typically organised two or three times a week education. An interruption in school attendance and
for a few hours. These services are, therefore, limited weak learning results in comprehensive school pose
in time, possibly having little impact on children’s a major exclusion risk. There is also the concern that
learning achievements, and they are not available disparities in learning between boys and girls are the
in scarcely populated and rural areas. Evidence largest in Finland among the OECD countries. At their
suggests that the homecare allowance is widely best, early childhood education and schooling serve
utilised by the lowest income parents, particularly to secure a child’s right to learning and offer a good

space for peer relations, communality and long-term As a result, the CGNAP of Finland appears to be
welfare. Therefore, welfare must be considered in conceived more as reference document than an
conjunction with learning, and strong support and actual programme, with concrete actions and
student welfare must be maintained. Learning measurable goals. A document, therefore, that
generates welfare and welfare supports learning. basically lists (and refers to) existing strategies
Functional practices and resources are needed for and programs of the Finnish government, aiming
anti-bullying and anti-violence efforts. In addition to to tackle children poverty and inequalities, while
skills and resources, it must be ensured that children adding recommendations about how to monitor the
are heard and included in early childhood education implementation and results of these strategies, with
and schooling, consistently and comprehensively.41 specific reference to an impact on target groups of
vulnerable children.
In addition, the CGNAP, even though it includes a
specific objective to expand childcare, “the objective For childcare, the CGNAP mainly refers to the right
is to increase children’s participation in early to learn program. The reform program has been
childhood education (particularly children under the launched by the Finnish government specifically to
age of 3)”42, does not mention any measurable target tackle drivers of learning inequalities, by improving
to reduce the gap in access between vulnerable equality and quality of education, in particular, early
children and the rest of the population, nor has a childhood care. The program for early years focuses
national budget been allocated to this scope (RRF on lowering compulsory education (today starting
Finland does not include funding for childcare). at age 6) to age 5; mobilising additional funds for
Furthermore, no indicators and targets are set to municipalities to cope with the costs of childcare,
reinforce quality (in terms of either an increase in the but also establishing a positive-discrimination
workforce and improved working conditions or the scheme (to increase funds for services in areas
implementation of inclusive curricula and practices), where social inequalities are higher); and increase
apart from a generic indication of a reform adopted the professionalisation of staff.
in 2022:
The program is certainly an important step towards
“The reformed Act on Early Childhood Education increasing equality in access to quality childcare.
and Care is set to enter into force on 1 August 2022. However, it might risk falling short in tackling factors
Even before the reform, children had the right to undermining access for vulnerable children, and
support, but the reform will further specify the levels therefore, ultimately not contributing to achieving the
and forms of support in accordance, with the three- objectives of the Child Guarantee. In particular, criteria
tiered model, including how the support is given. The to allocate positive-discrimination schemes might
aim is to ensure equality for all children everywhere eventually include, apart from the socio-economic
in Finland. The model of three-tiered support condition of territories where actual services are, the
classifies support tiers into general, intensified and lower presence of childcare services themselves, to
special support. The need for support is assessed enable targeting areas where vulnerable children
based on the individual needs of each child. The live and where services are scarce. In addition, staff
reform introduces changes to the working methods policies should also address the matter of poor
of early childhood education. Among other things, working conditions for staff in childcare services
children will have the right to any aids necessary and not only professionalisation and salary levels.
to participate in early childhood education, and
the reform mandates a personal early childhood Finally, the program does not consider a revision
education plan for every child. The principle of of the homecare allowance – which, at present,
inclusion will also be specified, that is, enabling the represents the major obstacle in relation to the
full participation of every child in early childhood enrolment of vulnerable children – towards allowing,
education with consideration for their capability.”43 for instance, low-income parents to combine cash
and the enrolment of children in childcare to increase

revenues and decrease income inequalities and risk high and penalise children from low-income families
factors for children, while also offering them early and migrant backgrounds. The CGNAP could have
learning opportunities.44 Even though the CGNAP been a valid occasion to establish clear objectives,
has been conceived more as a recollection of measurable targets and program appropriate
existing strategies, emerging bottlenecks should be actions to tackle drivers of inequities in childcare.
attentively considered and exposed in the CGNAP, However, as it stands, the plan is simply a reference
with proposals for possible solutions. document, listing existing strategies adopted by the
government to ensure access to quality childcare
to vulnerable children and outlining the need to
2.2.4. Concluding remarks monitor their implementation and effects on targets
within the Child Guarantee. The plan does not
Finland is reputed to be among the best education include any analysis of the possible bottlenecks of
systems in the world. Yet, in recent years, the country these strategies, nor does it propose solutions and
has seen an increase in educational inequalities. A further policy actions, for example, the absence of
debate has been launched about the role of early reforms of the homecare allowance, which is among
childhood education and care in tackling these the major factors undermining participation in
inequalities. Finland acknowledges lower enrolment childcare for low-income children and with migrant
rates in childcare for children below age 3, compared backgrounds.
to other Nordic countries. Inequities in access are
“
The plan is simply a reference document, listing existing
strategies adopted by the government to ensure
access to quality childcare to vulnerable children and
outlining the need to monitor their implementation
and effects on targets within the Child Guarantee.

2.3 ITALY
2.3. Italy starting at 2 years old. The childcare coverage rate
for children between 24 and 36 months was equal to
46% before the onset of the pandemic, whereas the
2.3.1. Status of childcare in Italy same coverage rate for children between 12 and 24
months was equal to 26% (below age 1 was equal
Early childhood education services in Italy are to 6%).
organised and administered differently according
to age group. The services for children below age A lack of services, in particular, undermines the
3 and childcare (Nidi d’Infanzia or Servizi Integrativi) possibilities for vulnerable children to be enrolled:
are highly decentralised, with different regulatory only 14% of the lowest income quintile send their
and management responsibilities delegated to the children to nursery, compared to 35% for the highest
three levels of government. quintile (Figure 4). If we measure social class by
the education level of the parents, the picture is
The attendance rate of childcare services in Italy is confirmed. Parents with a university degree tend to
relatively low for children below age 3 and are only enrol children in childcare more often than average
slowly rising. Instituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT), (49.5%). Again, also in this case, social class
which is the national institute for statistics, estimates works through two mechanisms. Highly educated
that around 25% of girls and boys below age 3 are and high-income households are more often
enrolled in childcare. Slightly more than half of them dual earners than less educated and low-income
(around 15% of all children below 3) are enrolled in households (needing to reconcile/being able to pay
public or publicly financed institutions.45 Since 2007, the fees). Furthermore, medium to highly educated
there have been very minor increases in coverage households frame childcare as a form of “social
rates. Attendance increases with age. Many parents investment” in their children’s “human capital” more
simply prefer to enrol their children later in life, often often than other type of households.
Figure 4. Households with children below age 3 accessing childcare, by income quintile.
Source: ISTAT (2021).
Thus, Italy is far from achieving the newly established with parents without Italian citizenship. Full-time
EU care target for childcare coverage of 45% by is not always guaranteed and the cost of school
2030 and in reducing the gap in attendance between meals (€735, on average, per year) discourages
vulnerable children and the rest of the population. attendance, especially for children with a migratory
background. Nevertheless, preschool education
Preschool participation, instead, for children aged (Scuola dell’Infanzia), which is centrally managed
3 to 5, is higher than that for childcare. However, by the Ministry of Education, together with the
it is declining, from 96% coverage in 2010 to 89% private sector and municipalities, relies on stable
in 2019.46 The drop in coverage rate is mostly state funding, and this increases the distribution of
related to difficulties in attendance for children services across the country and enrolment.

2.3.2. Main factors responsible for inequality richer and, on the other hand, southern Italy. In the
in access to quality childcare former, the overall coverage rate (public and private)
is around 35% (slightly above the European target, at
Territorial inequalities least before it was recently increased), whereas, in
the latter, it is around 15% (Figure 5). At the regional
Regions and municipalities are responsible for level, the highest levels of coverage are recorded in
the management of childcare, for which the state Valle D’Aosta (43.9%), followed by several regions
provides a partial contribution. In 2018-2019, in the centre and the north, all above the European
spending on childcare services for children below target. Since 2019, Lazio and Friuli-Venezia Giulia
age 3 amounted to €1.5 billion, of which €1.2 billion also exceed 33% (34.3% and 33.7%, respectively).
was borne by municipalities (including the state and On the opposite side, Campania and Calabria are
regional transfers) and €288 million (19.8% of total still below 11%. In addition, inequalities are also
spending) by parents.47 As a result, areas where less present within regions and among cities.48 Given
affluent households live are also those with less that municipalities are the main funders of these
budgetary capacity to finance childcare services. services, and that southern Italy is, on average,
economically poorer than central-northern Italy, local
As a result, the childcare coverage rate varies authorities can raise less per capita revenues than
significantly by region and within regions in Italy. in the rest of the country and less afford to provide
The main line of differentiation is between, on one adequate childcare services.
hand, central-northern Italy, which is economically
Figure 5. Coverage of educational services for children aged 0-2 in Italy, by region.
Source: ISTAT (2021).

Criteria for access 2.3.3. Does the CGNAP effectively address
inequalities and propose solutions?
It is important to bear in mind that childcare services
for children below age 3 are still often framed as The Italian CGNAP has a specific and well-organised
services for working parents. This means that section on childcare and how to address social
the municipal access criteria often give priority inequalities, also thanks to preparatory work
to families with two working parents, which has done through the UNICEF “Deep Dive” study.51 In
significant implications for social inequalities. In particular, the CGNAP includes a description of what
southern regions, in particular, the female (especially institutions are responsible for childcare, with data
mothers’) participation rate in the labour market is about inequalities in access (disaggregated at the
very low and, therefore, a service cognitively framed regional level and by parents’ social class). More
for helping dual-earner households does not easily importantly, it also includes quite a detailed analysis,
include single-earner/unemployed families.49 correctly identifying the factors undermining access
to childcare for vulnerable children.
Criteria for access also negatively affect children with
a migratory background. Depending on the survey/ The CGNAP sets a target of 33% public coverage
source of information used, the results change. rate for childcare (reaching 50% with private
Some analyses show that there is a migration gap provision, and therefore, achieving the EU care
for childcare in nurseries, while other analyses do target). Furthermore, it also agreed with the setting
not find such a gap.50 Partially, these mixed findings of a specific coverage-rate goal at the regional
are the result of the fact that the majority of migrant level, to sustain southern regions, in particular, and
families are dual-earner working-class households reduce territorial disparities in provision. It also
living in the centre-north of the country. Being establishes a threshold of gratuity for children in
working class should reduce their participation in poverty. Furthermore, to foster the implementation
childcare services, but, at the same time, their being of the actions, it proposes to introduce a new type
often dual earners and living in the centre-north of service: “outreach services”, meant to reach each
increase the opportunities to participate. However, household with a child at different times during the
there is a migratory gap in preschool attendance for child’s life (from birth to 18 years old), supporting
the reasons explained above. families in their decisions (including access to
childcare).
Lack of quality These actions are conceived to tackle the main

drivers of inequalities.
Standards criteria have been established in Italy
in relation to staff qualifications. Staff working in It also describes very clearly the multilevel
childcare are required to have a specific university governance model for implementing the actions,
degree (educational science with a focus on young with an attempt to overcome a major problem in this
children). However, since the costs of maintenance field of policies: the low level of policy integration
of services, including staff, must be guaranteed among different ministries at the national and
by municipalities, those located in marginalised regional levels (e.g. Ministry of Health, Ministry of
areas, with fewer financial resources, eventually Education, Ministry of Social Affairs, the Department
opt to increase the share of less-qualified staff of Family).
(administrative staff that do not require a university
degree) or reduce the number of staff, undermining
It also outlines resources to achieve expected
the quality and inclusiveness of childcare services.
targets. The recent (2021) next-generation recovery
plan for Italy foresees a strong investment in ECEC
that could have very positive effects. 2.4% of the
total resources of the next-generation recovery plan,

equal to €4.6 billion, have been allocated to ECEC, significant number (around 1,500) of municipalities
especially nurseries. Thanks to this investment, in disadvantaged areas, with poor or no childcare
228,000 new places will be created. If such an provision, did not actually apply for RRF funds. In
investment goal is achieved, the number of places addition, the plan raises the question of adequately
in nurseries will double, bringing the public ECEC expanding the workforce to cover the needs of new
coverage rate for children below age 3 to around 33%. childcare services, but no concrete solutions are
The RRF also established criteria for the allocation provided.
of resources, privileging marginalised regions and
areas where vulnerable children live. Finally, a set of indicators are proposed in the CGNAP
to monitor its implementation. The indicators
The CGNAP discusses quality (in terms of curriculum are quite detailed, although the plan recognises
and pedagogical practices), making reference to that further data (and data collection) would be
the 2022 innovation in this direction by the Ministry necessary to improve the monitoring capacity.
of Education, which has introduced pedagogical
guidelines.
2.3.4. Concluding remarks
There is less in the CGNAP on solutions to tackle
other drivers of inequalities. First, the fact that the The next-generation RRF potentially represents a
RRF only covers capital costs, and not management major breakthrough for childcare services in Italy,
costs, might discourage municipalities in which has among the lowest coverage in the EU, to
marginalised areas from applying for funding.52 In sensitively reduce inequalities. However, there are
December 2021, a bill financing the state budget for three types of uncertainties that might jeopardise
childcare for 2022 introduced further resources to its implementation, which are not adequately
help municipalities cover childcare running costs, considered in the CGNAP: financial and “technical”
especially given the increase in coverage rates that support for municipalities; workforce shortages;
has been envisaged in the next-generation recovery and political difficulties.
plan. However, these resources are not enough to
cover all costs of new places and, more importantly, The first year of implementation of the next-
were allocated after the RRF tenders were finalised. generation recovery plan showed that there were
A first analysis conducted by the research some difficulties (especially in geographical areas
services of the Italian parliament confirmed that a where there is a limited tradition of childcare
services) in actually convincing local authorities to
“
There are three types of uncertainties that might
jeopardise its implementation, which are not
adequately considered in the CGNAP: financial
and “technical” support for municipalities;
workforce shortages; and political difficulties.
”
use national resources to strengthen their supply.
Partially, this is due to the fear by some local
administrators that future resources from the central
state will not be enough to cover the running costs
of new childcare facilities once the Stability Pact is
unfrozen.53 Furthermore, some municipalities are in
need of (external) professional/technical support
to develop good-quality ECEC services and, so far,
central government has been only partially able to
provide such support.
In addition, doubling the childcare public coverage

rate will require at least around 40,000 new
professional educators and teachers,54 which are
currently not available. The fact that planning such
an increase has not yet been a government priority
might jeopardise either the capacity of municipalities
to use new ECEC services once built or the quality
of services, with the decision by municipalities to
employ workers with lower qualifications.
Lastly, the whole recovery plan and CGNAP were

drafted by a different government majority than
the one now in place since October 2022. It will be
important to see if the government will maintain the
same priorities as the two previous ones had on
childcare.

2.4 SPAIN
2.4. Spain and sharing 51.5% of the total with private centres.
In addition, since the regions are responsible for
providing childcare services, high disparities are
2.4.1. Status of childcare in Spain observed between and within regions. Private
provision and territorial disparities undermine
Early childhood education and care in Spain are split access, particularly to vulnerable children in poorer
between childcare services for children aged from 0 households or with unemployed parents or those
to 3 (first cycle, children enter the year of their second in precarious working conditions. According to
birthday) and preschool education for those aged 3 last available data from 2016, 26.3% children from
to 6 (second cycle, children enter the year of their households belonging to the poorest quintile of
third birthday). The government is legally obliged to income access childcare, while 62.5% of those in
provide free-of-charge places for all children only households in the highest income quintile access
in preschool, and therefore, provision has become childcare.
virtually universal. Instead, for childcare, public
provision is not guaranteed or free of charge, and As a result, although Spain is on track to reach,
coverage is lower. by 2030, the overall EU care target for coverage
of childcare, it is far from achieving other relevant
In 2020,55 there were 469,758childcare places, targets, in particular, that of reducing the gap in
representing 41.1% of the total population aged attendance between poorer children and the rest
0-3. Among them, the private provision is prevalent. of the population, and that of ensuring quality of
Table 1 indicates that public centres hold 244,319 services, in particular, of workforce conditions.
places, covering 21.4% of the population aged 0-3
“
Although Spain is on track to reach, by 2030, the overall
EU care target for coverage of childcare, it is far from
achieving other relevant targets: reducing the gap
in attendance and ensuring quality of services.
2.4.2. Main factors responsible for inequality

” Autonomas (CCAA) have large autonomy, and are
in access to quality childcare responsible for delivery childcare services, there are
significant territorial differences in coverage. Table
Territorial inequalities 1 shows the significant gap between the Basque
Country’s maximum of 56% and the Region of
Childcare service provision is decentralised to Murcia’s minimum of 21%. Involvement of the public
the regions (autonomous communities) and sector in childcare provision also varies significantly.
municipalities, which share the cost of provision with In the Principality of Asturias and Extremadura,
the central state but define their own service cost and public places represent more than 85%, and in the
access priorities. Since in Spain the Comunidades Valencian Community and Canary Islands, it is less
than 40%.56

Table 1. Places distribution and key resilience plan statistics.
Net schooling Public

Region Total places Public places
rate coverage
Andalusia 105,223 48% 39,816 18.2%

Aragon 11,296 37% 6,975 22.5%
Principality of Asturias 4,264 25% 3,775 22.0%
Balearic Islands 8,713 28% 5,572 17.7%
Canary Islands 10,478 23% 4,756 10.3%
Cantabria 3,704 32% 2,966 25.4%
Castile and Leon 11,013 24% 7,645 16.7%
Castilla La Mancha 18,014 36% 11,781 23.7%
Catalonia 78,279 40% 49,536 25.2%
Valencian Community 45,566 38% 20,200 16.9%
Extremadura 7,731 32% 6,922 28.7%
Galicia 25,679 50% 15,019 29.0%
Madrid Community 92,782 53% 43,030 24.4%
Region of Murcia 9,320 21% 4,549 10.2%
Community of Navarre 5,215 31% 4,326 25.5%
Basque Country 27,608 56% 14,933 30.3%
La Rioja 3,370 45% 1,669 22.2%
Ceuta 499 18% 302 10.9%
Melilla 1,004 27% 547 14.5%
Spain 469,758 41% 244,319 21.4%
Source: Ministerio de Educación y Formación (2022)
Criteria for access allow mothers’ early incorporation in the job market.
Progressively, regions have been introducing specific
Access to publicly provided childcare depends on criteria to help especially vulnerable groups, such
criteria set at regional and/or municipal levels, which as low income, disabled, single-parent households
weigh up an array of socio-economic individual and or victims of gender violence.57 However, parental
household circumstances, such as family income, employment is still a decisive criterion for access,
both parents’ employment, single-parenthood undermining vulnerable children’s enrolment in
situation, single working mother, minimum income childcare.
perception and disability. Most regions prioritise
parental or single-parenthood employment situations The design of application procedures also
over family income (see Table 2). The objective is to affects enrolment. For example, parents with low

educational skills find paperwork so burdensome to such as Barcelona, have introduced it). The cost
comply with that they fail to complete it properly or reduction is total or very significantly below an
give up during the process.58 They may also not be income threshold or is applied to those families
aware of the service’s characteristics and benefits who receive a regional minimum-income subsidy.
for their children. Furthermore, parents’ job instability In addition, Madrid and Pamplona have already
may reduce motivation to enrol their children in introduced a gratuity for the first cycle of infant
childcare. Atypical hours, location changes and job education (0-3), and Andalusia will go the same way
discontinuity hinder parents’ options to balance their in 2023. Others, such as Barcelona and Valencia,
job with their children’s school attendance. established a gratuity for preschooling for 2 year
olds, intending to extend free access to the entire
cycle in the future. However, the service cost is still
Affordability a critical barrier to access for most families. For
example, access criteria in the metropolitan area of
Concerning the cost of the services, most Barcelona show that the cost of sending children to
Comunidades Autonomas (Spanish regions) have childcare varies considerably, depending on whether
introduced a special price for vulnerable families, the municipality has some kind of social pricing in
except in Catalonia (some Catalan municipalities, place.59
Table 2.60 Access score to childcare public centres, by autonomous community
Single Single- Minimum- Disability

Both parents’ Family
working parenthood income or social
employment income
mother situation perception exclusion

Community of
High High High Medium Low Medium
Navarre
Basque Country Medium Medium Low Medium Low Low
Valencian
Low Low Medium Low High Medium
Community
Andalusia Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
Galicia High High Low Medium Low Low
Madrid
High High Low High Low Medium
Community
Catalonia Low Low Low Low Medium Medium
Note: High, above 25% of the total score; medium, between 10 and 15%; low, below 10%.
Source: Author’s elaboration on Navarro Varas, L. (2022) «La importancia del coste de los servicios de educación y
atención de la primera infancia en la ocupación laboral femenina de la metrópolis de Barcelona». Papers, 3(107) : e3076.
DOI: 10.5565/rev/papers.3076

Lack of quality As seen in Table 3, there is a critical education
gap between pre-primary and primary levels and
Quality aspects also matter to reduce inequalities in childcare teachers. Childcare employees also have
access. Quality is defined at the regional level. We a more precarious status (Table 5) and low incomes
find important variation here too. The child-educator (Table 4). Finally, the curricula are still defined at the
ratio for those below age 1 is 7-8; for children regional level but with some guidelines set up by
aged 1 to 2, it is 13-14; for those aged 2 to 3, it is central law.62 In this regard, the most recent National
18-20 (except Aragon, which is 6-7, 10-12 and 16- Law of Education (2020) highlights the importance
18, respectively).61 Regarding teachers’ educational of a curriculum aimed at developing competencies
level, the minimum requirement is short-cycle in three areas: growth in harmony; discovery and
tertiary education in all the communities. exploration of the environment; and communication
and representation of reality.
Table 3. Composition of the workforce (%) with teaching responsibility in the ECEC industry
and share of teachers holding a university degree, by segment and country.
ITA LY S PA I N
Pre- Pre-
Childcare Primary Childcare Primary
primary primary
Primary and ECEC teachers 69.5 91.9 99.2 37.7 87.3 86.4
Other teachers and

2.3 3.8 0.3 7.4 2.5 6.1
teaching professionals
Childcare workers and

12.8 2.3 0.2 40.8 9.5 5.9
teachers’ aides
Social professionals 15.4 2.1 0.3 14.1 0.7 1.5
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Source: León, M., C. Ranci, S. Sabatinelli et al. (2019) “Tensions between quantity and quality in social investment
agendas: working conditions of ECEC teaching staff in Italy and Spain”. Journal of European Social Policy, 4(29): 564-
576. DOI: 10.1177/0958928718808401

Table 4. Average working hours, average monthly (net, Italy; gross, Spain) and hourly wages,
length of employment by segment and relative gaps (only full-time teachers, Italy).
Childcare/ Pre-
Childcare Pre-primary Primary pre-primary primary/
gap primary gap
Italy
Percentage of teachers with a
31.4 9 5.7 - -
monthly salary lower than €1,000
Average net monthly wage (€) 1,129 1,312 1,407 −13.9 −6.7
Average weekly working hours 31 27 25 14.8 8
Average net hourly wage (€) 9.11 12.1 14.7 −25 −17.7
Spain
Average gross monthly wage (€) 1,661 2,124 2,614 −21.8 −18.7
576. DOI: 10.1177/0958928718808401
Table 5. Share of teachers with non-standard or part-time contracts and average

number of years of work with the same employer, by segment and country.
Italy Spain
Pre- Pre-
Childcare Primary Childcare Primary
primary primary
Non-standard 29.3 14.8 13.3 32.8 25.8 19.6
Part time 30.3 12.1 8.4 28.3 12.1 7.3
Average number of years

worked with the same 12.3 16 19.1 7.6 10.1 12.9
employer
576. DOI: 10.1177/0958928718808401

2.4.3. Does the CGNAP effectively address • an increase in the number of places in public
inequalities in childcare and propose centres;
solutions?
• in concordance with current policies at the
The Spanish CGNAP approved in 2022 sets up regional level, free access to the first cycle for
the objective of guaranteeing universal access to all children who live in households below the
the first cycle of early childhood education (0-3). poverty threshold;
Besides the Child Guarantee plan, the recovery,
transformation and resilience plan (2021)63 works • measures to make vulnerable families
on increasing ECEC places and improving curricula aware of the benefits of ECEC and a special
and professional training. accompaniment in the application processes to
address access problems regarding information
The plan includes information about the government and procedures, especially for low-income, low-
level responsible for childcare measures education households;
implementation: the Ministry of Education;
autonomous communities; or municipalities. In • the revision of access criteria aims to prioritise
addition, it outlines data about inequalities in low-income families and other vulnerable
access and main drivers of the lack of enrolment groups’ enrolment, which is the actual trend in
for most vulnerable children. Accordingly, the most autonomous communities;
CGNAP identifies four types of obstacles in policy
implementation: (1) economic barriers (access • reforms attempt to introduce greater flexibility in
costs); (2) institutional barriers (eligibility criteria, the provision of the service (for instance, in daily
long and complex bureaucratic procedures, limited schedules) to better cater for work-life balance
information, etc.); (3) structural or spatial barriers needs, especially for vulnerable and single-
(spaces that do not take into account the special parents families – another essential aspect of
needs of children, and distance to services and opportunity cost and the family’s decision to
transport difficulties); and (4) heterogeneity of send children to childcare; and
services at the regional and local levels (different
ways of targeting vulnerable children, access, • new state regulation of minimum requirements
resources and service quality). for the first cycle of infant education.
To address the objective of universal access, the More importantly, the plan proposes concrete targets
plan proposes several measures: and indicators. Table 6 describes the CGNAP’s
intermediate and final goals for 2025 and 2030, with
specific reference to inequality reduction.
Table 6. CGNAP goals to guarantee universal access to the first cycle of early childhood education.
Intermediate goal (2025) Final goal (2030)
1-year-old enrolment rate: 50% 1-year-old enrolment rate: 55%
2-year-old enrolment rate: 75% 2-year-old enrolment rate: 85%
First quartile enrolment rate (0-3 years old): 50%
Source: Spanish CGNAP.

Moreover, the CGNAP outlines the investment of new childcare places, this will cover 43,588
necessary to reach the targets: €983 million. Central, (66%) of the total number of places and will finish in
regional and municipal governments will invest 2023. After this date, the autonomous communities
€287 million, and European funds (FSE+) will invest will be responsible for the entire running costs of
€696 million. In addition, it is important to consider the new places. The risk is that municipalities in
that Spain will invest part of the RRF in expanding marginalised areas, with lower budgetary means,
and ameliorating the childcare system. In summary, will no longer able to afford the provision of services,
the RRF proposes €670.99 million for the creation of or, alternatively, they will lower the quality.
65,382 new places (infrastructure and equipment)
and the running expenditure of 43,588 places (staff All these features might undermine the achievement
and others). The investment calendar is €200.96 of the CGNAP’s target of reducing inequalities in
million in 2011, €333.82 million in 2022 and €136.21 access. Finally, it is important to underline that the
million in 2023, prioritising children between 1 and plan does not include appropriate monitoring and
2 years old. The criteria for distribution64 among evaluation mechanisms, making it difficult to track
communities rely on the total population aged the achievement of targets and spending.
0-2 multiplied by a weighting factor. This factor is
composed of (1) the average education level of
the population aged 18-65 (40%); (2) net rates of 2.4.4. Concluding remarks
schooling in childcare (40%); and (3) population
dispersion (20%). Then, the central government Spain has a relatively high enrolment level in
transfers the budget to the autonomous communities, childcare, but there is a lack of access to public –
which maintain and create new places. Autonomous and therefore, affordable – places, and vulnerable
communities also have to demonstrate the results children are negatively affected. The CGNAP is
of the investment in new places annually. In addition, certainly a quality analytical and programmatic
the resilience plan will invest €360 million in the document that includes actions to tackle deeply
orientation and development of centres with special entrenched inequality and increase access to
educational complexity, such as vulnerable or rural achieve a target of 50% of vulnerable children being
areas (objective of contracts with 3000 centres), enrolled by 2030. The plan also proposes several
and will invest €124,710 million in the creation of measures to support vulnerable families with the
“personal and family support and guidance units” application process and during course attendance.
for educationally vulnerable students (objective of However, a number of criticalities have emerged.
1148 units). Also, following the National Education The plan does not include concrete information
Law (2020), an additional €2.4 million will be about budgetary provision, governance and a
allocated to the design and application of a new specific schedule for implementation, along with
curricular model by key competencies, prioritising an appropriate monitoring and evaluation system.
fundamental learning and regulation of an inclusive As an example, the resilience plan seeks to address
academic organisation. part of the problem of creating 65,382 new places in
two years, but these places are insufficient to reach
In spite of the well-structured plan, a number of the expected target of the CGNAP, and criteria for
criticalities can be observed, mainly related to allocation do not actually ensure that funds will be
budget shortages or the modalities of allocation. mainly directed towards marginalised areas where
The RRF, which is the main source of funding, will vulnerable children live. Finally, quality issues do
only increase publicly funded childcare coverage not occupy any central consideration, in particular,
from 21.4% to 27%, with no certainty that the most reform curricula and to improve staff qualifications,
marginalised areas will be priorities, since criteria for training and working conditions. These criticalities,
allocation do not specifically focus on households’ in the end, might in fact jeopardise the success of a
socio-economic indicators.65 In addition, although well-structured and ambitious plan.
the RRF allocates funds for the running expenditure

3. CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
3. CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 7. Summary of the analysis of inequalities in access to childcare in four countries
(Belgium, Finland, Italy and Spain), and efficacy of CGNAPs in addressing inequalities.
Belgium
Finland Italy Spain
(Flanders)
Drivers of inequalities in access to quality childcare
Between and within regions. Between and within regions. Between and within regions. Between and within regions.
Territorial inequalities Funds not prioritise to marginali- Funds not prioritise to marginali- Funds not prioritise to marginali- Funds not prioritise to marginali-
sed areas. sed areas. sed areas. sed areas.
Progressivity in Fees but Progressivity in Fees but Progressivity in Fees but

Affordability amounts too high and no gratui- amounts too high and no gratui- amounts too high and no gratui-
ty for poorest children ty for poorest children ty for poorest children
Favoring employed and midd- Favouring employed and midd- Favouring employed and midd-
Criteria for access le-high earners, not unemployed le-high earners, not unemployed le-high earners, not unemployed
and poorest and poorest and poorest
Workforce low qualifications, Workforce low salaries, Workforce low salaries, Workforce low qualifications,
Lack of quality and salaries, shortage shortage shortage and salaries, shortage
Home Care Allowance alternati-

Other ve to enrollment in childcare
Child Guarantee Action Plan objectives

Only a mention of existing
Analysis of main drivers of inequalities in studies analyzing inequalities Affordability, criteria for access, Affordability, criteria for access,
access to quality childcare in access in Brussels Capital territorial inequalities territorial inequalities
is present
1-year-old enrollment rate: 55%.

Measurable objective and targets to Increase coverage to 50% with
2 years old enrollment rate:
increase places (publicly funded) 33% publicly funded services
85%.
Measurable objective and targets for Gratuity for children below Gratuity for children below
gratuity for poorest children poverty line poverty line
The overall objective is to

Measurable objective and targets to reduce reduce inequalities in access First quartile enrollment rate
gap in access for vulnerable children for vulnerable children, but no (0-3 years old): 50%
concrete target is established
Inclusive practices for reaching Curriculum reform, family

Proposals to increase accessibility and out vulnerable children; but no support, minimum requirements
quality of childcare (staff qualifications, actions on labour shortage, quality, and revision criteria to
working conditions, inclusive practices) salaries, and revision criteria access; but no actions on labour
to access. shortage, qualifications, salaries
Indication of funds allocated to achieve abo-

ve objectives and targets (in particular RFF)
Child Guarantee Action Plan implementation

The proposed targets of covera- The proposed targets of covera-
ge are coherent with allocation ge are somewhat coherent with
of resources through RFF allocation of resources through
Coherence between funds allocated and (which also prioritise vulnerable RFF and regular budget for
expected objectives and targets territories). But lack of sufficient maintenace. However, it might
regular budget for maintenace result limited to achieve targets,
costs of services might under- and no priorities are given to
mine achievements vulnerable territories
The plan includes monitoring

and evaluation mechanisms.
Monitoring and evaluation of
However, indicators are limited,
objectives and targets with regards to analysing ac-
cess for vulnerable children
Inequality driver Present Partially present Absent

The four countries selected for the study – Belgium but the presence of a homecare allowance, as
(Flanders), Finland, Italy and Spain – although they an alternative to enrolment in childcare services,
differ in the coverage rates of childcare – with discourages participation, in particular, of children
Belgium reaching above 50%, Spain around 40%, with low-income parents.
Finland 35% and Italy 25% – they have a main
commonality: inequalities in access are substantial In addition, all countries selected for the study
and particularly penalise children living in poor have issues related to the quality of services, with
households (very often from migrant backgrounds) shortages of qualified staff, due to a high workload
with unemployed parents, in contrast to objectives for very low financial compensation (in general,
and targets of the Child Guarantee and the EU Care lower than preschool educators).
Strategy.
The CGNAPs might be effective tools to propose
Inequalities across the countries studied are largely solutions to tackle drivers of inequalities in access
determined by the lack of publicly available services and promote the expansion of quality childcare as a
in marginalised areas. Territorial inequalities are legal entitlement for all children, especially the most
mainly the result of mechanisms of the allocation of vulnerable. However, to fulfil this scope, the CGNAP
funds between central (or regional) government and must include specific and measurable objectives,
the local authorities (municipalities), which do not with concrete actions to achieve them, along with
prioritise, in these countries, territories where most an adequate budget provision and monitoring and
of the vulnerable children live. These areas need evaluation system.
higher funding to build new childcare places and to
be able to maintain services, ensuring quality and The analysis of the CGNAPs in the four countries
gratuity for the poorest children. selected revealed that only two of them, Italy and Spain,
although not entirely, responded to these criteria. In
The lack of prioritisation in relation to children most both cases, a review correctly identifying the main
in need is also reflected in the criteria for accessing factors determining inequal access to childcare
services, favouring children with employed parents, services is present, along with specific objectives
and therefore, middle-high earners, and the lack and targets (to reach 50% and above coverage, with
of gratuity for children living in families below the particular attention to increasing public coverage;
poverty threshold. In Finland, this is not the case, affordability and, therefore, enrolment of vulnerable
“
The CGNAPs might be effective tools to propose solutions to
tackle drivers of inequalities in access and promote the expansion
of quality childcare as a legal entitlement for all children,
especially the most vulnerable. However, to fulfil this scope,
the CGNAP must include specific and measurable objectives,
with concrete actions to achieve them, along with an adequate
budget provision and monitoring and evaluation system.
”
children), to overcome inequality drivers. A budget to promote the expansion of childcare in the two
is allocated for this purpose, mainly referring to member states.
the RRF as the main source of public investment.
The fact that part of the RRF has been allocated Findings of the study suggest a number of actions
to expand childcare (and therefore, this spending that the EU can undertake to improve the process
must be adequately monitored through measurable and the quality and effectiveness of the CGNAPs:
indicators) certainly has helped the respective
governments to produce more adequate and precise
CGNAPs. Some criticalities nevertheless emerged.
In particular, there is little attention in the plan with
respect to adequacy of funding (in particular, regular (1) Data and indicators are key to analyse
funding from the government to municipalities) and the status of childcare, develop accurate
modalities of delivery (that might not necessarily plans, appropriately monitor results, and
prioritise marginalised territories).66 In the case of adjust and adapt policy actions. Yet, member
Spain, there is also a lack of coherence between states usually lack granular data enabling
the budget allocated and expected results and the them to investigate inequalities in access
absence of an effective system of monitoring of to services at the micro-territorial level and
implementation. Meanwhile, in the Italian CGNAP, their main drivers. In some cases, actually,
indicators and data to track progress are presented detailed data at the lower administrative
but limited. In both plans, finally, almost no level (e.g. municipal) about access and the
consideration is given to the quality of services, in character of children’s households, criteria
particular, the issue of staff shortages and the need to access and quality of services do exist,
to ameliorate their working conditions. especially for publicly funded services, but
they are not treated and aggregated by
Even though these criticalities might undermine central administrations. This is, in part, due
the implementation of activities and appropriate to the lack of financial resources by member
monitoring of results, it is nevertheless positive states to perform such data collection,
that Italy and Spain, which are countries with very but also by the fact that existing European
low coverage of public childcare services and high common indicators to monitor the EU Pillars
inequalities, have proposed accurate and ambitious of Social Rights and the Care Strategy,
plans. within the EU Semester and the Social
Scoreboard, are limited (to participation in
The same cannot be said for Belgium (Flanders and childcare at the national level only, along
Brussels’ Dutch-speaking community) and Finland. with weekly hours of services and possible
The former, even if already reaching the EU care target disaggregation between children at risk of
of 50% coverage of childcare, has not yet achieved poverty or not), and therefore, member states
equity either in access or in quality. Finland, instead, have no leverage to collect more detailed
acknowledges lower coverage rates, compared to information. It is of paramount importance
other Nordic countries, and is far from the targets that the EU reviews and upgrades existing
established at the European level. In both cases, the common indicators to monitor childcare,
CGNAP is more a “reference” document, referring to by expanding scopes and capacities, while
existing programmes or strategies, with no concrete also providing adequate funding to member
analyses of inequality drivers and, more importantly, states to perform data collection.
no indication of objectives and measurable, time-
bounded targets or budget allocated, along with
monitoring and evaluation instruments. It is hard
to see how these plans can represent useful tools

lack of qualifications required to enter the
(2) Technical assistance. Another factor service, limited investments in training,
undermining appropriate planning is the heavy workload and salary levels that are
lack of capacities of member states’ substantially lower than those of preschool
governments and local authorities to or primary school teachers. The EU Care
assess and design effective childcare Strategy is an important step forward in this
policies. Childcare policies have been respect, since it recognises the importance
largely neglected compared to other of the quality of the workforce. However, it
welfare policies or preschool and primary fails to promote decent working conditions
education. Knowledge and expertise in this and reduce salary gaps. This is also
field is scarce. Yet, there are, across Europe, reflected in the CGNAPs, where the issue of
experiences of childcare policies, mainly the quality of workforce is generally absent.
carried out by progressive cities and regions Therefore, a common European initiative,
(e.g. Berlin in Germany, Ghent in Belgium, setting the standards for the recognition
Reggio Emilia in Italy), which are recognised of the childcare profession, qualifications,
as best practices at the international level. decent working conditions and adequate
These models can share knowledge and financial compensations, is needed.
guide and support other territories willing
to plan and implement positive childcare
policies to reduce inequalities. A European
childcare knowledge hub should be created,
in this respect, to promote cooperation
among European policymakers and
practitioners. (4) Childcare as an investment from the
Stability Pact. Territorial inequalities in the
coverage of childcare, which are the key
factor undermining access for vulnerable
children, are usually the result of an
unequal distribution of financial resources,
penalising areas where low-income families
(3) Promoting common European standards live. The RRF, in some cases, like in Italy,
for quality workforce. The early years are aims to rebalance the allocation of funds,
sensitive times when key competencies by increasing available resources to expand
to live and grow up as active citizens in a childcare services in municipalities in
globalised world and economy start to form marginalised areas. However, the RRF only
(and so do inequalities), and therefore, the covers capital costs. Running costs must
personnel involved in childcare programmes be ensured by either government or local
have a paramount societal role. However, authorities. The Stability Pact has been
the shortage of qualified staff is common a brake, in recent years, on the growth of
across member states and represents one investments in social services, particularly
of the major determinants of inequalities by local administrations. As the Stability
in both access and quality of provision of Pact will soon be unfrozen, after the pause
childcare, with negative effects on child during the COVID-19 pandemic, the risk is
development. Staff shortages are mainly that marginalised areas will not be able to
due to the absence of “recognition” of the fully exploit the possibility of the RRF and
value of this profession, as testified by the be unwilling to build infrastructure to create

childcare places and settings that will be
unable to run, or they will opt to reduce
quality. In both cases, inequalities risk being
exacerbated rather than reduced. It is time
to consider childcare as an investment to
promote present and future economic and
social development of the EU, and not mere
spending , and therefore a strategy social
infrastructure for, subject to the strict rules
of the Stability Pact.
(5) Towards a Child Union. Most of CGNAPs

submitted to the European Commission
at present have shown little commitment
towards ambitious goals to expand childcare
and reduce inequalities. Campaigns and
initiatives must be promoted by European
progressive forces, targeting policymakers
in central and local governments, to
raise awareness about the need for a
Child Union. A Union that guarantees all
children their legal entitlements to quality
childcare, as a means to promote their early
learning and emancipation and break the
intergenerational cycle of inequalities.

ENDNOTES
1 EU-SILC, 2019.
2 Levy, F. and R. Murnane (2013) “Third Way”.
3 World Economic Forum (2015) New Vision for Education Unlocking the Potential of Technology.
4 Morbito, C. and M. Vandenbroeck (2020) Towards a Child Union! Reducing Inequalities in the EU through Investment in Children’s
Early Years (Brussels: Foundation for European Progressive Studies).
5 Ibid.
6 European Commission (2013) “Investing in Children”.
7 European Commission (2022) “Structural Reform Support”
8 European Commission (2017) “The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan”
9 European Commission (2015) “Proposal for a quality framework on early childhood education and care (ECEC)”
10 European Commission (2019) “European Child Guarantee”
11 European Parliament (2015) “Resolution on reducing inequalities with a special focus on child poverty”.
12 European Parliament (2019) “Legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Coun-
cil on the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+)”.
13 European Commission (2022) “Communication on the European Care Strategy”. COM(2022).
14 Kind en Gezin (2021).
15 Opgroeien (2022) Brochure inkomenstarief voor ouders (Brussels: Opgroeien).
16 Based on EU-SILC 2018, calculations by W. Van Lancker, KU Leuven.
17 Guio, A., E. Marlier and H. Frazer (2020) “Feasibility study for a child guarantee: final report”. Publications Office European Com-
mission DG Employment Social Affairs and Inclusion. DOI: 10.2767/772097
18 Van Lancker, W. and M. Vandenbroeck (2019) De verdeling van de kinderopvang in Vlaanderen en in de centrumsteden: spanning
tussen de economische en sociale functie van kinderopvang (Leuven: Team Sociaal Werk en Sociaal Beleid - Centrum voor Sociolo-
gisch Onderzoek).
19 Morbito, C. and M. Vandenbroeck (2020) Towards a Child Union! Reducing Inequalities in the EU through Investment in Children’s
Early Years (Brussels: Foundation for European Progressive Studies).
20 Ibid.
21 Devlieghere, J., M. Dierckx, L. Van Lombergen et al. (2021) Cartografie van de Nederlandstalige Gezinsvoorzieningen in Brussel
(Brussels: Gezin Brussel).
22 Huylebroek, K. and S. Vastmans (2016) Onderzoek Opvang bestellen = opvang betalen (Ghent: VGC).
23 Devliegher et al. (2021).
24 Vandenbroeck, M., F. Laevers, H. Hulpia et al. (2016) MeMoQ Deelrapport 14. Samenvatting van de nulmeting (Brussels, Ghent,
Leuven: Kind en Gezin, UGent, KU Leuven). See also M. Vandenbroeck, H. Hulpia and P. Slot (2021) “Quality in family childcare provid-
ers: variations in process quality”. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, (2)29: 261-277.
25 Calculations by W. Van Lancker.
26 VIONA is a steering group consisting of the Ministry of Labour, employers and unions, who launched a call for labour incentives
and improved salaries.
27 It concerns the previously mentioned study by Devliegher et al. (2021).
28 Teppers et al. (2019).
29 The governmental agency responsible for young children.
30 Early and close by.
31 Opgroeien (2022). Toekomstconcept kinderopvang in een geïntegreerd gezins – en jeugdhulpbeleid.
32 Kagan, S. L. (ed.) (2018) The Early Advantage: International Case Studies of Early Childhood Education and Care Systems, Finland
(Washington, DC: NCEE).

33 OECD (2021) Education at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators (Paris: OECD Publishing). DOI
34 OECD (2022) “Finland’s right to learn programme: achieving equity and quality in education”. OECD Education Policy Perspec-
tives, 61.
35 Ibid.
36 “Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA): Results from PISA 2018”. OECD, 2018.
37 Eurydice (2021) “Finland – Population: Demographic situation, languages and religions”. European Commission, 16 June.
38 Finlex (2021) “Laki kunnan peruspalvelujen valtionosuudesta”.
39 Bernelius, V. and H. Huilla (2021) “Education equality, regional and social segregation and opportunities for positive discrimina-
tion”.
40 OECD (2020) “OECD Economic Surveys: Finland” and OECD (2022) “Finland’s right to learn programme: achieving equity and
quality in education”. OECD Education Policy Perspectives, 61.
41 Finland Child Guarantee National Action Plan, 2022.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 OECD (2022) “Finland’s right to learn programme: achieving equity and quality in education”. OECD Education Policy Perspecti-
ves, 61.
45 ISTAT (2021) Nidi e Servizi Educativi per la Prima Infanzia. Anno 2019 (Rome: ISTAT).
46 Alleanza per l’Infanzia and educAzioni (2020) Investire nell’infanzia.
47 ISTAT (2021) Nidi e Servizi Educativi per la Prima Infanzia. Anno 2019 (Rome: ISTAT).
48 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
51 UNICEF (2022) “Deep dive into the European child guarantee – Italy”.
52 Corti F., Morabito, C., Ruiz, T., Luongo, P. The Role of the recovery and resilience facility in strengthening childcare policies (2022).
Foundation for European Progressive Policies.
55 Ministerio de Educación y Formación (2022) «Las cifras de la educación en España. Curso 2019-2020 (Edición 2022)”.
56 Ibid.
57 León, M., D. Palomera, Z. Ibáñez et al. (2022) “Between equal opportunities and work-life balance: balancing institutional design
in early years education in Spain”. Papers, 3(107): e3084. DOI: 10.5565/rev/papers.3084
58 Palomera, D. (2022) “A welfare state for all? An analysis of social inequalities in applications for and use of public childcare
services, and the role of social policy in alleviating them”. Papers, 3(107): e3068. DOI: 10.5565/rev/papers.3068
59 Navarro Varas, L. (2022) «La importancia del coste de los servicios de educación y atención de la primera infancia en la ocupación
laboral femenina de la metrópolis de Barcelona». Papers, 3(107) : e3076. DOI: 10.5565/rev/papers.3076
60 Ibid.
61 «Ratio alumno/profesor en el primer ciclo de educación infantil». Eurydice.
62 Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional (2022) “Real Decreto 95/2022, de 1 de febrero, por el que se establece la orde-
nación y las enseñanzas mínimas de la educación infantil”.
63 Spanish government (2021) “Plan de recuperación, transformacion y resiliencia”. 27 April.
64 Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional (2021) “Resolución de 23 de diciembre de 2021, de la Secretaría de Estado de
Educación, por la que se publica el Acuerdo de la Conferencia Sectorial de Educación de 25 de noviembre de 2021, por el que se apru-
eba la propuesta de distribución territorial de los créditos destinados al Programa de impulso de escolarización en el primer ciclo de
Educación Infantil, en el marco del componente 21 del Mecanismo de Recuperación y Resiliencia”.

AUTHORS,
ABOUT FEPS
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
CHRISTIAN MORABITO
Christian Morabito is an international researcher and expert with

more than 15 years of experience in the field of inequalities in early
childhood care, education and childcare. During the course of his
career, he has worked with the United Nations (UNDP, UNESCO and
UNICEF), the World Bank, OECD and the European Commission, in
managing and evaluating poverty reduction and early educational
reforms, policies and programmes. One of his recent commitments
was as Senior Researcher for the international NGO Save the Children
on developing indicators to measure multidimensional educational
poverty in Italy and Europe.
MARGARITA LEÓN
Margarita León is Associate Professor of Political Science at

Universitat Autònoma Barcelona (UAB). Between 2010 and 2015,
she was Ramón y Cajal Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of
Government and Public Policies, UAB. From 2003 until 2010, she
was a lecturer on European social policy at the University of Kent.
From 2001 and 2003, she held a Marie Curie post-doctoral fellowship
at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European
University Institute, Italy. She was a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at the
University of Berkeley, California (2018). Her main areas of research
are comparative public policy and welfare-state reform.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
EMMANUELE PAVOLINI
Emmanuele Pavolini is Full Professor of Economic Sociology and

Social Policy at the University of Macerata (Italy). His research
interests are related to two fields: (1) welfare-state studies from a
comparative perspective, specific social policies (i.e. family policies,
elderly care/LTC, healthcare and education), inequalities in the access
to welfare-state provision, occupational and fiscal welfare, welfare
mix and third-sector organisations; and (2) research on the labour
market and economic development. He is a national expert for Italy
of the European Commission Expert Network ESPN (European Social
Policy Network). He is currently co-editor of the Journal of European
Social Policy.
MICHEL VANDENBROECK
Michel Vandenbroeck is Associate Professor of Family Pedagogy.

His research and teaching are on early childhood care and education
and family policies, with a special focus on diversity and equal
opportunities. Michel is also chair of the VBJK Centre for Innovation
in the Early Years and sits on the advisory board of Opgroeien, the
governmental agency for ECEC in Flanders. He regularly consults
on national and international policy (i.e. European Commission).
Together with Liselott Olsson, he coordinates the ground-breaking
book series Contesting Early Childhood (Routledge).

ABOUT THE FOUNDATION FOR EUROPEAN
PROGRESSIVE STUDIES (FEPS)
The Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS) is the think tank of the progressive
political family at EU level. Its mission is to develop innovative research, policy advice, training
and debates to inspire and inform progressive politics and policies across Europe.
FEPS works in close partnership with its 68 members and other partners -including renowned
universities, scholars, policymakers and activists-, forging connections among stakeholders
from the world of politics, academia and civil society at local, regional, national, European and
global levels.
Avenue des Arts 46, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium +32 2 234 69 00

[email protected]
www.feps-europe.eu
@FEPS_Europe

The EU recognises the role of childcare as an equaliser and essential component of the Pillar
of Social Rights. As part of the initiatives that have been launched to promote equal access to
childcare, a mechanism of monitoring within the EU Semester has been put in place. Member states
are therefore required to submit Child Guarantee National Action Plans (CGNAPs), identifying key
actions to reach this objective, with means, financing and tools to assess progress.
These plans represent a key instrument, on one hand, for member states to push their childcare
agenda forward, and, on the other hand, for European institutions to monitor the progress of
member states in reducing inequalities in access to childcare. The objective of this study is to
assess the efficacy of CGNAPs in addressing inequalities in access to childcare, taking four
member states as case studies: Belgium; Finland; Italy; and Spain.
The findings of the study suggest that, at present, CGNAPs might provide limited support for the
promotion of equitable childcare policies across the EU, apart from a few member states that have
invested in childcare provision through the Recovery and Resilience Facility, have action plans, and
monitor results and spending.
Progressives must continue to fight, in member states and EU institutions, for a Child Union, a
union that recognises and invests in childcare as a right and the foundation of education and
emancipation of European citizens in the 21st century. This is a paramount welfare policy to
promote present and future fairness, prosperity and the resilience of European societies and
economies.
POLICY STUDY PUBLISHED IN JANUARY 2023 BY:
Copyright © 2023 by FEPS
ISBN: 9782931233023

Delivering On The Child Guarantee PS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Delivering On The Child Guarantee PS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Delivering On The Child Guarantee PS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLICY STUDY

Margarita León, Christian Morabito,

THE FOUNDATION FOR EUROPEAN

This Policy Study was produced with the financial support

Copyright © 2023 by the Foundation for European Progressive Studies.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 2

2. COUNTRY CASE STUDIES ........................................................................................................................ 11

2.1. Belgium (Flanders and Brussels’ Dutch-speaking community)........................................................................................ 12

3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 38

AUTHORS, ABOUT FEPS ............................................................................................................................... 46

4. ABOUT THE AUTHORS .............................................................................................................................. 47

5. ABOUT FEPS .................................................................................................................................................... 49

Delivering on the Child Guarantee 3

A number of actions can be taken, at the EU level, to

(1) increase the availability of granular data (at the

(2) build the capacities of local authorities for

(3) an EU initiative to promote the quality of the

In addition, the expansion of childcare provision

Finally, progressives must continue to fight, in

4 Delivering on the Child Guarantee

Figure 1. Percentage of children in childcare programmes in the EU.

Delivering on the Child Guarantee 7

8 Delivering on the Child Guarantee

Delivering on the Child Guarantee 9

Member states might, according to national

• proposals to increase the quality and

10 Delivering on the Child Guarantee

Delivering on the Child Guarantee 13

2.1.2 Main factors responsible for inequality

Figure 2. Relationship between median fiscal revenue and number of

Source: Van Lancker and Vandenbroeck (2019).

14 Delivering on the Child Guarantee

Source: Kind en Gezin.

Delivering on the Child Guarantee 15

16 Delivering on the Child Guarantee

18 Delivering on the Child Guarantee

20 Delivering on the Child Guarantee

The Finnish CGNAP certainly has important

Delivering on the Child Guarantee 21

22 Delivering on the Child Guarantee

Delivering on the Child Guarantee 23

Source: ISTAT (2021).

Delivering on the Child Guarantee 25

Source: ISTAT (2021).

26 Delivering on the Child Guarantee

Lack of quality These actions are conceived to tackle the main

Delivering on the Child Guarantee 27

In addition, doubling the childcare public coverage

Lastly, the whole recovery plan and CGNAP were

Delivering on the Child Guarantee 29

2.4.2. Main factors responsible for inequality

Delivering on the Child Guarantee 31

Net schooling Public

Andalusia 105,223 48% 39,816 18.2%

Source: Ministerio de Educación y Formación (2022)

32 Delivering on the Child Guarantee

Table 2.60 Access score to childcare public centres, by autonomous community

Single Single- Minimum- Disability

Basque Country Medium Medium Low Medium Low Low