‘ve got The education and participation package was once seen as a great idea. Children from poor families should get from the state support for school materials, trips, tutoring and music school, or the sports club. The then-family Minister Ursula von der Leyen (CDU) had it introduced in 2011. In order for the parents not to buy beer or a flat screen TV bother welshing on, it was tied directly to spending on education. Today, the education package is regarded as a bureaucracy monster. How much it costs exactly, nobody knows. But it is estimated that of the total available, almost a third goes towards administration. Add to this that too few eligible families to apply for it at all.

one has poor parents suspect?

And, above all, there is the question of whether it is entitled to poor parents in such a way to suspect. The Bertelsmann Foundation comes with a commissioned data analysis to the conclusion: no, the state should trust the parents prefer. The study data from 1984 to 2016 from the German socio-economic Panel (SOP) is based on a long-term survey, which checks many parameters, not solely on social security benefits aimed at. The centre for European economic research (ZEW) has compared families who received a state education money, with similar families who were in other States none. In addition, they were able to compare, if the children’s increased money about by changes in the law, what the families have spent the increase.

The result is: Neither from the state education money is still bought by more and More children money, parents and more alcohol or consumer electronics. Prior to 2006, there was an increase in child benefit is a slight increase in expenditure on cigarettes, but after 2008, it was not the effect. The parents gave the children money often for more living space for the Hobbies of the children and their care.

care, sports, and music

100 Euro Each children’s money is rising, according to the Bertelsmann-analysis, the probability that a child attends a kindergarten or a day school, five points; after the year 2000 even by ten percentage points – likely because since there is a better supply of day-care centres and all-day schools.

eight To eleven percentage points in the expenditure for Sport and music courses have increased. The recipients of the education allowance to buy themselves more time for their children. They reduced often their working hours – a desirable effect to the disputed education money.

studies on this topic are difficult to perform. Experimental set-UPS might be ethically questionable. In targeted surveys, people’s answers often as it is desired or according to your prejudices. In a survey of the Diakonisches Werk in Braunschweig the parents said, they would only save the very last in spending for the children when money is tight. Social workers and Spzialarbeiter, however, were rather of the opinion that the same parents would be the last to save on coffee, alcohol and cigarettes. Holger Stichnoth and his Team from the ZEW analysed, therefore, on behalf of the Bertelsmann Foundation, the data of the SOP.

Precisely, this data can not reflect the reality. But you suggest that parents help spend benefits more for a better care of the whole family and their children than for themselves. Benefits in kind do not have therefore: Good care in day-care centres and all-day schools and counselling services for poor families should be expanded, the Bertelsmann study argues. All assistance should be paid directly to the families, in the Form of a part of money. That is, children, money, funds from the education and participation package, a children’s Supplement and Similar should no longer be applied for separately, and paid. All the families get there, only that The higher the income of the parents, the less money it will.