For instance, the coefficient of -0.03 in 2012 (Model 1 in Table A5) means that the difference of lOppt in the MIP indicator (say, between Belgium (50%) and the Czech Republic (40%) in 2011) is associated with 35% greater odds of a child being poor in 2012, all else being equal.28 Using the coefficients from the model, Figure A3 in the Annex shows a steady decrease in the predicted probability of a child being poor across the range of values of the MIP indicator. Thus, children in countries with more generous minimum income protection schemes are less likely to be poor during the crisis, but the generosity of social assistance could be picking up the effect of the overall size of the welfare state. When social spending is entered in the model, the MIP effect becomes smaller and less precisely estimated, remaining significant only in 2009 and 2012 (model 2 Table A5).