1. COVERAGE AND NON-TAKE UP SPAIN
Graciela Malgesini, EMIN COORDINATOR
HELSINKI, March 13th, 2018

2. ECONOMIC ACTIVE POPULATION SURVEY (EUROSTAT), 2018
585,000 HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT INCOME
MORE THAN 1 MILLION INDIVIDUALS

3. 27,9% of the population is in AROPE, but with important regional differences

4. The systems of income guarantee are diverse, they are split between the administration level: regional and state.
Social and Employment Competences are mostly the 19 Regions (Autonomous Communities)’ competences and it is hard to establish sinergies and a high level of coordination among them.
There are differences in the protection level regarding the different regions.
However, the national administration also has competences in certain aspects and manages a series of resources. There are also resources which are funded nationally, but are managed regionally….
Moreover, the social protection schemes are divided into contributory and non contributory.
The result is a complex scheme, showed in the following slide.

6. Evolution of the beneficiaries and social assistance expenses: “Rentas mínimas” (managed by the regions) and “RAI” do not have a significant weight.

7. MI in EU28, in relation to poverty reduction
Low coverage regarding the poverty threshold: Spain’s average is around 35%
MI in EU28, in relation to poverty reduction
14 countries cover less than 40% of the poverty threshold

8. AROPE LEVELS in progression of red (Survey of living conditions 2017) and minimum amounts of MI at the different regions.
Poverty threshold for a single person household is 684 euro/month.
The MI amounts are similar in most of them, despite the AROPE levels differ.

9. Country Report 2018 (The Semester)
For the fourth consecutive time, the Country Specific Recommendation to Spain from the Council refer to the need of improve the efficiency of MI schemes, regarding poverty.
Country Report 2018 (The Semester)

10. Coverage and non-take up
SURVEY RESULTS BASED ON EMIN NETWORK REPRESENTATIVES

11. Autonomous Communities who took part in the research and official coverage figures of MI regarding 1000 inhabitants
Galicia
Cantabria
Castilla y León
Euskadi (Basque Country)
Murcia
Comunitat Valenciana
Ceuta
Navarra
Aragón
Andalucía
Asturias
Galicia
50/1000
Cantabria
Castilla y León
Euskadi
68,93/1000
Región de Murcia
35,2/1000
C. Valenciana
Ciudad Autónoma de Ceuta
11/1000
Navarra
55/1000
Aragón
Andalucía
Asturias
15/1000
GALICIA’s government mentioned that this proportion should be adjusted regarding active population, and not general population, as their biggest group are the elderly, who cannot apply to this resources…

12. DISCOURAGING REQUISITES ARE PREVENTING PEOPLE TO GET THE BENEFITS

13. MAIN VULNERABLE GROUPS THAT CANNOT ACCESS TO MI: immigrants and homeless

14. ESTIMATED PERCENTAGES OF NON TAKE UP BY GROUPS

15. CAUSES OF NON-TAKE UP

16. Other reasons (Easi Progress Survey, June 2016)
Having a house in property, even if it is split among various persons.
Having had some income the year before, even if it was unemployment benefit or PREPARA (the scheme given at state-level, after the unemployment benefit has ended).
Having had movement in their bank accounts.
Having alimony for the children. If the beneficiary is divorced/separated, the alimony is reduced from the amount of the MI. For example, this may mean that a family can get as low as 1.50 euro as MI, if she/he is receiving 420 euro from the children’s divorced parent (despite the number of children implied).
Not having a bank account.
Beneficiaries switch between state-level and regional-level MI, according to the different requirements and non-coverage characteristics. For example, between the RAI and the MI (different type of requirements).
The treatment the social assistants give them (empathy, discrimination, rejection) could be discouraging on many occasions. Many claim they feel threatened or closely looked by the MI systems, and they had to drop some activities as they might be wrongly understood by the social assistants.
Activation as a requirement is also seen as a difficulty, in cases of women with large families, carers, and chronically ill persons.
Not having Internet was not particularly important, as most of the proceedings are done face to face.

17. CURRENT CHANGES…. EMIN PROPOSALS Coverage:
1) The Basque Country’s experience could be transferable.
2) It is OK to meanstest, but there must be flexibility in granting MI, according to the individual Social Reports, in order to reach homeles and other vulnerable groups.
3) The “right to a decent income” belongs to the individual and it should be portable within the territory. The different administration levels should better coordinate in order to grant this individual right.
Non-take-up:
1) Irregular migrants, Roma, homeless… different approaches are needed, as their legal situation could differ.
2) Outreach: social services should go where the people live and to other places, like schools or soup kitchens.
3) Language barriers: revise administrative language to make it simple and clear.
4) Support NGOs in their accompaniment process.
Recentralization of (some) MI schemes? Very politically- oriented debate.
A Basic allowance at the national level, topped by the AC? There is a law proposal (Popular Legislative Initiative presented to the Parliament), but it is related to activation and to people seeking employment. It does not cover the issue of child benefits, housing or other basic needs, and the proposed amount is 426 euro per month.