Towards inclusive service delivery through social investment in Portugal. An analysis of five sectors, with particular focus on early childhood education and care (ECEC)

Portugal was submitted to Troika Memorandum of Understanding (2012-2014) and fiscal consolidation measures were implemented to achieve efficiency costs. Spending cuts in education, health system and social security were performed. The access to social benefits such as family allowance, social insertion income, unemployment benefits was making more difficult and stringent. In a context of social crisis the numbers of recipients as well as the amounts have been reduced and expenditure in social policies also decreased. The current RE-InVEST Workpackage 6[1] - Building blocks for social investment model: Social minimum standards in service markets - report analyses social (dis)investment in relation to human rights and capabilities in five basic service sectors using two perspectives. The first perspective is based on a macro analysis of the recent reforms in four service sector (housing, health care, drinking water services and financial services). The analyses are mostly based on a literature study, which was initiated by our RE-InVEST sector experts[2] and completed by the authors of this report. The second perspective is regarding to early childhood education and care sector to which was made a more deep analysis reflecting the experience of 8 mothers in vulnerable situation, and complemented by the interviews of pre-school educators, and executive director of social organization. Moreover it was undertake interviews to policy makers and academics. The aim is to see in the last years of austerity how poor families have access to quality ECEC services, whether they are affordable to meet their needs. This in order to see if there has been a public spending in ECEC services and an adequate protection of human rights and well-being of all citizens, particularly of poor families. Which concerns to the affordability and quality of four services (housing, drinking water services health care and financial services) of vulnerable groups, this study shows that Portugal performs relatively well in drinking water services macro–accessibility. Between 2007 and 2011 the coverage rate of water provision services reached 95%. Nonetheless, households were disconnected from water services during crisis period and still existing problems of drinking water in rural areas. In housing sector the public expenditure has not met the needs have in mind the poverty rate. The period between 1972 and 2012, housing and collective services did not exceed 1.5% of public expenditure for all the period considered. In a diagnosis of housing conditions published in February 2018 shows 187 municipalities (from total of 308) have precarious housing conditions, 25,762 families are unsatisfied with their housing conditions and 14,748 buildings and 31,526 dwellings do not have minimum housing standards. In health services, self-reported unmet needs for medical examination by sex, age, main reason declared and income quintile, between 2007 and 2016, improved significantly in Portugal: (9.2 in 2007 to 2.4 in 2015, 2.0 in 2016) nearing EU 27 figures (2.6 in 2007 to 2.0 in 2015, 1.6 in 2016). However it shows the worst performing country in the EU for unmet needs for dental care due to cost (13.8 of persons aged 16 contrasting with 3.7 European average). In financial services, Portugal ranks fifth place in the financial attitudes indicator, and ranks in eighth place in the financial behaviour and thirteenth place in the field of financial knowledge (in the international survey of financial literacy of INFE/OECD in 2016). The Bank of Portugal study point out that (72%) of those who do not have a bank account have incomes below €500, and the main reason (67%) is ‘not having income that justifies it’. Inactivity (retirement, study, domestic work) or unemployment, as well as low educational levels are associated with being disconnected from the financial system. The same report underlines that 88% of people say they do not have savings practices, because their ‘incomes do not allow’. There is a lack of knowledge about the nature of housing loans: 10% do not know what type of benefit is associated with their loans and 41% do not know which spread is applied by the bank. In terms of ECEC services this report analyses the recent policies and market regulations from a perspective of vulnerable families. Family policies shifted toward a ‘mixed’ welfare state model focusing on family care supported by services and benefits and underlining a specific ‘solidarity’ welfare mix in which different actors - families, public, private profit and non-profit institutions - take on responsibility jointly (Wall, Samitca and Correia, 2013). Portuguese families are among those that spend more on preschool 35% of total attendance costs for children and the State covers 65%. The lowest shares of total expenditure from public sources compared to the OECD average of 83% (Education at Glance 2017). Although the educational component is free of charge, families pay for family social activities such as meals, which are an accrued cost, especially for the most vulnerable families. Total expenditure on pre-primary educational institutions amounts to 0.6% of Portugal’s gross domestic product (GDP), the same as the OECD average. Portugal’s annual expenditure per student is below average: USD 6 300 compared to the OECD average of USD 8,700. Portugal lies in the 8th place with the best coverage rate (48%) than OECD average (34%). The participation rate at 5 years old is 96%, at 4 and 3 years old is 91% and 77% respectively. According to the OECD 53% children attend public network and 31% attend private institutions of social solidarity, private non-profit network, based on the agreements concluded with the State, the 16% attend private institutions. In metropolitan areas the access of 0-3 children of median and low income families to ECEC services is threaten due to the lack of public network of créches. The liberalization of amas service has placed great responsibility on families. High quality services enhancing vulnerable household’s well-being and freedom of choice. The mothers who participated in this project are very satisfied with quality services provided in the non-profit organization with regards to pedagogical activities, appropriate care and feeding, the articulation of health professionals and educators and the global wellbeing of children as top priority for parents. The smooth communication and trust relation with education staff is also is highly valued. Mothers are very conscious of the low co-payment of ECEC services and the need for more public funding to maintain and improve quality services. A positive discrimination is required to balance the financial sustainability of non-profit organizations to provide good services targeted to vulnerable households. The increasing competition between non-profit organisations threats the access to good services for poor families. Moreover, the trend of privatization and liberalization of social facilities (crèches and kindergartens for children and day centres and nursing homes for the elderly) by Social Security Institute strengths the idea of the market interests logic instead of vulnerable households rights. In one mother words, this idea can be summarised as follows: ‘You never saw the State close schools of wealthy people; this kind of measures are always implemented to poor’. The austerity policies implemented substantial cuts in social benefits for vulnerable families, resulting in a social disinvestment. The universal social rights was been gradually became a selective social rights approach. Participants are worried about the future concerning to housing, which is linked with their well-being. The rents are increasing and the waiting list to afford social housing is 3 to 4 years. They felt the risk of eviction and to live their houses. They fear to move and breaking the ties within the community and consequently change the ECEC providers. [1] http://www.re-invest.eu/workpackages/wp6 [2] The names of the experts are listed in the footnotes to the respective sections