Child poverty and child well-being

Jonathan Bradshaw

Workshop

ACWA08Strong, safe and sustainable; responding to children, young people

and families in civil society

Sydney Convention & Exhibition Centre18 August 2008

Background

Comparisons of state efforts on behalf of children Work at York on children: Bradshaw and Mayhew

(2005) Child well-being in the UK, Save the Children Luxembourg Presidency EU: Atkinson recommends

“child mainstreaming” and development of child well-being indicators for EU.

We develop of an index of child well-being based on existing comparative data sources for EU (Bradshaw, J., Hoelscher, P. and Richardson, D. (2007) An index of child well-being in the European Union 25, Journal of Social Indicators Research, 80, 133-177.)

UNICEF asks us to adapt it for Innocenti Report Card 7

Now working on Index for CEE/CIS countries for UNICEF: Geneva

FAMILY SPENDING 2003

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Cash Services Tax breaks towards family OECD-24 (2.4%)

Child poverty rate (circa 2000) by family exp. as % GDP 2003 (OECD data)

Background: We can compare inputs

OECD comparisons of welfare state effort – social expenditure on families with children

Child tax/benefit packages

“Average” child benefit package 2005

Child benefit package 2005

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

den

aus ire fin

cze

usa

hun

lux

ice

swe

ger

uk ost

bel

net

nor

pol

slo ita can fra

jap

swi

nz por

spa

gre

kor

tur

% m

ore

th

an

ch

ildle

ss

Fertility and the child benefit package

We can compare outcomes for children

OECD comparisons of welfare state effort – social expenditure on families with children

Research on child outcomes has usually been comparisons of child poverty

Child poverty

EU, OECD, LIS (and UNICEF) have most commonly compared child well-being using relative income poverty measures.

Flawed Income is not well-being Income data unreliable Income poverty thresholds arbitrary and Level of living different Equivalence scales contested Income poverty rates hide gaps and persistence.

RP 7 an attempt to move beyond income – to put it into perspective

Our background

Work at York on children: Bradshaw and Mayhew (2005) Child well-being in the UK, Save the Children

Luxembourg Presidency EU: Atkinson recommends “child mainstreaming” and development of child well-being indicators for EU.

We develop of an index of child well-being based on existing comparative data sources for EU (Bradshaw, J., Hoelscher, P. and Richardson, D. (2007) An index of child well-being in the European Union 25, Journal of Social Indicators Research, 80, 133-177.)

UNICEF asks us to adapt it for Innocenti Report Card 7

Now completed on Index for CEE/CIS countries for UNICEF: Geneva

UNICEF

UNICEF Innocenti Centre has been publishing Report Cards since 2000

League Tables of rich (OECD) nations 1 and 6 on income poverty 2 on child deaths 3 on teenage births 4 on educational inequality 5 on abuse and neglect

Latest 7 on child well-being “to encourage monitoring, to permit comparison and to stimulate the discussion and development of policies to improve children’s lives.”

Conceptualisation of child well-being

Multi-dimensional approach Based on children’s rights as outlined in the

UN CRC Ideology

Child the unit of analysis What children think and feel is important Well-being more important than well-becoming

Every Child Matters: Outcomes framework Economic well-being: having sufficient income and

material comfort to be able to take advantage of opportunities.

Being healthy: enjoying good physical and mental health and living a healthy lifestyle.

Staying safe: being protected from harm and neglect and growing up able to look after themselves.

Enjoying and achieving: getting the most out of life and developing broad skills for adulthood.

Making a positive contribution: developing the skills and attitudes to contribute to the society in which they live.

Multinational indicators for monitoring and

measuring child well-being

Safety and physical status Personal life Civic life Economic resources and contribution Activities  Source: http://multinational-indicators.chapinhall.org

Well-being of children in Ireland

Conceptualisation of child well-being

Multi-dimensional approach Based on children’s rights as outlined in the

UN CRC Ideology

Child the unit of analysis What children think and feel is important Well-being more important than well-becoming

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)

contains 54 articles that cover every aspect of a child’s life, applying without exception or discrimination to all children

under 18. The articles of the UNCRC divide into the broad areas of

survival rights, development rights, protection rights and participation rights.

The Convention states that the primary consideration in all actions concerning children must be in their best interest and their views must be taken into account

Conceptualisation of child well-being

Multi-dimensional approach Based on children’s rights as outlined in the

UN CRC Ideology

Child the unit of analysis What children think and feel is important Well-being more important than well-becoming

Data Sources I: Surveys

Health Behaviour of School Aged Children (HBSC) 36 countries at 2001 (Australia not covered)

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 32 countries at 2000, 41 at 2003

Data Sources II: Series

WHO mortality data base 1993-1999, all countries except DK & CY

World Bank World Development Indicators 2003, all countries

OECD (2004) Education at a Glance, 2002 data Other OECD sources World Bank (2002) Health, Nutrition and Population

Data

Structure

40 indicators organised into 19 components making 6 dimensions

Material Health and safety Education Peer and family relationships Behaviours and risks Subjective well-being

Overall child well-being: OECD Domain

Rank Country Overall material health education relationships behaviour subjective 1 Netherlands 116.95 10 3 6 3 3 1 2 Sweden 116.87 1 1 5 1 15 7 3 Iceland 112.57 2 13 4 Finland 109.75 3 4 4 6 17 11 5 Denmark 107.97 4 5 9 12 9 12 6 Norway 107.97 2 9 10 13 10 8 7 Spain 106.34 12 6 19 5 8 2 8 Switzerland 106.13 5 10 16 10 4 6 9 Belgium 102.59 7 14 1 19 5 16 10 Australia 102.52 13 15 7 11 Ireland 102.25 22 22 8 4 7 5 12 Italy 101.27 15 7 23 9 1 10 13 Germany 101.2 14 12 11 11 13 9 14 Greece 99.22 17 21 20 7 11 3 15 Canada 98.55 6 17 2 17 18 15 16 France 97.27 9 8 18 14 12 18 17 Poland 96.65 24 19 3 2 14 19 18 Czech Republic 96.6 11 11 12 8 19 17 19 Japan 95.24 18 13 20 Austria 94.55 8 15 22 15 16 4 21 Portugal 94.25 19 18 24 16 2 14 22 Hungary 90.90 23 20 15 18 6 13 23 New Zealand 85.88 16 24 17 24 United States 79.32 20 25 14 20 20 25 United Kingdom 77.18 21 16 21 21 21 20

Overall child well-being index: EU

Overall child well-being index: CEE/CISTable 0.1

Average rank

Material Housing Health EducationPersonal and

Social

Family Forms and Care

Risk and Safety

Croatia 3.4 1 1 1 4 1 7 9

Bosnia Herzegovina 4.8 9 3 13 - 2 1 1

FYR Macedonia 6.3 8 10 3 6 3 4 10

Serbia 6.6 5 6 9 11 7 3 5

Uzbekistan 7.5 14 2 6 - 13 8 2

Turkmenistan 7.6 - 9 15 - 4 6 4

Belarus 8.3 6 5 4 2 11 14 16

Montenegro 8.6 7 11 8 13 7 2 12

Bulgaria 10.6 2 7 14 5 16 12 18

Ukraine 10.6 4 13 7 8 9 19 14

Kazakhstan 11.1 15 12 10 1 12 17 11

Russia 11.3 3 15 5 3 17 16 20

Kyrgyzstan 11.7 16 17 11 18 5 9 6

Romania 12.0 10 19 16 7 14 5 13

Armenia 12.1 17 8 19 12 15 11 3

Georgia 13.6 18 4 17 15 6 18 17

Turkey 14.0 13 - 12 17 - - -

Azerbaijan 14.1 11 16 20 16 19 10 7

Albania 14.4 12 14 18 9 20 13 15

Tajikistan 14.4 19 18 21 10 10 15 8

Moldova 16.1 20 20 2 14 18 20 19

Material

Relative child income poverty OECD Child deprivation

Lacking car, own bedroom, holidays last year, a computer HBSC

Lacking a desk, quiet for study, a computer, calculator, dictionary, text books PISA

Less than ten books in the home PISA Parental worklessness OECD

FIG. 1.1: Relative income poverty: percentage of children (0-17) in households with equivalent income less than 50 per cent of the median

0 5 10 15 20 25

Denmark

FinlandNorway

SwedenBelgium

SwitzerlandCzech Republic

FranceNetherlands

GermanyAustralia

GreeceHungary

AustriaCanada

JapanPoland

PortugalSpain

IrelandItaly

United KingdomNew Zealand

United States

OE

CD

Nat

ions

Date: 2000,1999 (Australia, Austria and Greece), 2001 (Germany, New Zealand and Switzerland).

FIG. 1.3: COMPOSITE TABLE OF CHILD MATERIAL DEPRIVATION (COMBINING FIGS. 1.3A, 1.3B, 1.3C)

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Norway

Sweden

Australia

Canada

Finland

New Zealand

Germany

Spain

Denmark

Austria

United Kingdom

Netherlands

France

Switzerland

Czech Republic

Italy

Belgium

United States

Ireland

Hungary

Portugal

Greece

Poland

Japan

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

FIG. 1.2: Percentage of working-age households with children without an employed parent

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

JapanPortugal

SwitzerlandAustria

United StatesGreece

SwedenCanadaFinland

ItalyBelgium

DenmarkSpain

NorwayNetherlands

FranceIreland

New ZealandCzech RepublicUnited Kingdom

GermanyPoland

AustraliaHungary

Israel

OE

CD

Nat

ions

Non

-O

EC

DN

atio

ns

Date: 2000, 1999 (Japan and Canada), 1998 (Switzerland), 2001 (Spain, the Netherlands, and Germany), 2002 (Austria, Norway and Poland). Non-OECD, 2004 (Israel).

FIG. 1.0: THE MATERIAL WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN, AN OECD OVERVIEW

80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 120.0

Sweden

Norway

Finland

Denmark

Switzerland

Canada

Belgium

Austria

France

Netherlands

Czech Republic

Spain

Australia

Germany

Italy

New Zealand

Greece

Japan

Portugal

United States

United Kingdom

Ireland

Hungary

Poland

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

Child well-being by child poverty r=0.75

Health

Health at birth Infant mortality rates (WDI 2003) Low birth weight (OECD Health Data)

Immunisation Measles WDI (2003) DPT3 WDI HNP (2002) Pol3 WDI HNP (2002)

Child mortality All child deaths: All under 19 deaths per 100,000

children, WHO mortality database, 3 year averages, MRD

FIG. 2.0: THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF CHILDREN, AN OECD OVERVIEW

80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125

Sweden

Iceland

Netherlands

Finland

Denmark

Italy

Spain

France

Norway

Switzerland

Czech Republic

Germany

Japan

Australia

United Kingdom

Canada

Portugal

Poland

Belgium

Hungary

Greece

Ireland

Austria

New Zealand

United States

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

25

FIG. 2.1A: Infant mortality rate (deaths before the age of 12 months per 1000 live births)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

IcelandJapan

FinlandSwedenNorway

Czech RepublicFrance

PortugalSpain

GermanyBelgium

ItalySwitzerland

DenmarkAustria

AustraliaGreece

NetherlandsIreland

United KingdomCanada

New ZealandPoland

United StatesHungary

SloveniaIsraelMalta

CroatiaEstonia

LithuaniaLatvia

OE

CD

Nat

ions

No

n-O

EC

DN

atio

ns

Date: 2003, 2002 (Canada and the USA), 2001 (New Zealand). Non-OECD 2003

FIG. 2.1B: Low birth weight rate (% births less than 2500g)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

IcelandFinland

SwedenIreland

NorwayNetherlands

DenmarkCanadaPoland

New ZealandAustraliaBelgium

ItalySwitzerland

Czech RepublicFrance

GermanySpain

AustriaPortugal

United KingdomUnited States

GreeceHungary

Japan

EstoniaLithuania

LatviaCroatia

MaltaRussian Federation

SloveniaIsrael

OE

CD

Nat

ions

Non

-OE

CD

Nat

ions

Date: 2003, 2002 (Australia, Canada, Greece, Switzerland), 2001 (Spain, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands), 1995 (Belgium). Non-OECD 2001, 2000 (Croatia).

FIG. 2.2: Percentage of children age 12 - 23 months immunized against the major vaccine-preventable diseases

70 75 80 85 90 95 100

HungaryCzech Republic

PolandDenmark

NetherlandsSwedenFinland

PortugalSpain

FranceAustralia

IcelandUnited States

JapanGermany

CanadaItaly

SwitzerlandNorwayGreece

United KingdomBelgium

New ZealandIrelandAustria

LatviaLithuania

EstoniaRussian Federation

CroatiaIsraelMalta

Slovenia

OE

CD

Nat

ions

Non

-OE

CD

Nat

ions

Date: Measles data , all countries (2003), Pol3 and DPT3 data, all countries (2002)

FIG. 2.3: Accidental and non-accidental deaths under 19 per 100,000 (average of latest three years available)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

SwedenUnited Kingdom

NetherlandsItaly

IcelandSpain

SwitzerlandFranceJapan

NorwayGermany

GreeceCanadaFinlandIrelandAustria

AustraliaBelgiumHungary

PolandCzech Republic

PortugalUnited StatesNew Zealand

MaltaCroatia

SloveniaLithuania

EstoniaLatvia

Russian FederationIsrael

OE

CD

Nat

ions

Non

-OE

CD

Nat

ions

Date: 1993-1995 (Finland, Hungary, Iceland, The Netherlands, Norway), 1994-1996 (Poland, Sweden), 1995-1997 (Australia, Belgium, Germany), 1996-1998 (Spain, US), 1997-1999 (Canada, France, New Zealand, UK), 1999-2001 (Austria, Ireland, Italy, Portugal), 2000-2002 (Switzerland, Greece). Non-OECD: Israel (2003), Russian Federation (2000-2002) Lithuania (1995-97), Estonia, Slovenia (1994-96), Latvia (1993-95), Malta, Croatia (1992-94).

Behaviours and Risks Health behaviour

Eating fruit every day (HBSC) Eating breakfast before school (HBSC) Physical activity (HBSC) Obesity and pre obesity (HBSC)

Experience of violence Young people who were involved in physical fighting at least once in

the previous 12 months 11, 13 and 15 years (%) - HBSC 2001/02 Young people who were bullied at least once in the previous couple

of months 11, 13 and 15 years (%) - HBSC 2001/02 Risk behaviour

Teenage pregnancy (adolescent fertility rate), adolescent fertility rate, births per 1000 women 15-19 - WDI, 2003.

Young people who have had sexual intercourse, 15 years (%) - HBSC 2001/02

Young people who used a condom during their last sexual intercourse, 15-year-olds (%) - HBSC 2001/02

Cigarette smoking at least once per week HBSC 2001 Drunk two or more times HBSC 2001 Cannabis used in the last 12 months HBSC 2001

FIG. 5.2F: Teenage fertility rate: births per 1,000 women age 15 - 19

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

JapanNetherlandsSwitzerland

DenmarkItaly

SpainSwedenFinlandFranceNorwayBelgium

GermanyIrelandPolandGreece

AustraliaCanadaAustria

Czech RepublicPortugalHungary

United KingdomNew ZealandUnited States

SloveniaCroatia

IsraelEstonia

LatviaLithuania

Russian Federation

OE

CD

Nat

ions

Non

-OE

CD

Nat

ions

Date: 2003

Child well-being and teenage fertility rate

r = 0.82***

Subjective Well-being

Personal well-being Young people with scores above the middle of a life

satisfaction scale 11, 13 and 15 years (%) - HBSC 2001/02 Students who agree or strongly agree to 'I feel like an

outsider (or left out of things)', 15 years (%) - PISA 2003 Students who agree or strongly agree to 'I feel awkward

and out of place', 15 years (%) - PISA 2003 Students who agree or strongly agree to 'I feel lonely', 15

years (%) - PISA 2003 Well-being at school

Young people liking school a lot 11, 13 and 15 years (%) - HBSC 2001/02

Self defined health Young people rating their health as fair or poor 11, 13 and

15 years (%) - HBSC 2001/02

FIG. 5.3B: PERCENTAGE OF 15 YEAR-OLDS AGREEING OR STRONGLY AGREEING WITH SPECIFIC NEGATIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT PERSONAL WELL-BEING

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

AustraliaAustria

BelgiumCanada

Czech RepublicDenmark

FinlandFrance

GermanyGreece

HungaryIcelandIreland

ItalyJapan

NetherlandsNew Zealand

NorwayPoland

PortugalSpain

SwedenSwitzerland

United Kingdom

IsraelLatvia

Russian Federation

OE

CD

Nat

ions

Non

-O

EC

DN

atio

ns

‘I feel like an outsider or left out of things’. ‘I feel awkward and out of place’. ‘I feel like an outsider or left out of things’.

Date: 2003. Non-OECD 2003, 2000 (Israel).

Peer and family relationships

Quality of family relations Students whose parents eat the main meal with them

around a table several times a week, 15 years (%) - PISA 2000

Students whose parents spend time just talking to them several times a week, 15 years (%) - PISA 2000

Family structure Young people living in 'single parent' family structures 11,

13 and 15 years (%) - HBSC 2001/02 Young people living in 'Stepfamily' family structures 11, 13

and 15 years (%) - HBSC 2001/02

Peer relationships Young people finding their peers kind and helpful 11, 13

and 15 years (%) - HBSC 2001/02

FIG. 4.2A: Percentage of 15 year-olds who eat the main meal of the day with their parents 'several times per week'

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

ItalyIcelandFrance

NetherlandsSwitzerland

BelgiumNorway

PortugalJapan

DenmarkSweden

SpainGermany

PolandIreland

HungaryCzech Republic

CanadaAustralia

GreeceAustria

United KingdomUnited StatesNew Zealand

Finland

Russian FederationLatviaIsrael

OE

CD

Nat

ions

No

n-O

EC

DN

atio

ns

Date: 2000

FIG. 4.2B: Percentage of 15 year-olds whose parents spend time 'just talking to them' several times per week

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

HungaryItaly

FinlandCzech Republic

DenmarkNetherlands

PortugalUnited States

NorwayFranceIreland

United KingdomJapanSpain

GreeceBelgium

New ZealandSweden

AustraliaPoland

SwitzerlandAustria

CanadaIceland

Germany

Russian FederationLatviaIsrael

OE

CD

Nat

ions

Non

-O

EC

DN

atio

ns

Date: 2000

Overall child well-being and % of young people saying they lived in a lone parent family

Education

Achievement Reading literacy achievement, 15 years - PISA, 2003 Mathematics literacy achievement, 15 years - PISA, 2003 Science literacy achievement, 15 years - PISA, 2003

Participation Full-time and part-time students in public and private

institutions, by age: 15-19 as a percentage of the population of 15 to 19-year-olds (2003) LU SK (2002)

Aspirations Percentage of the youth population not in education, not in

the labour force or unemployed - age 15-19 - OECD, 2003 Proportion of pupils aspiring to low skill work, 15 years -

PISA, 2000

FIG. 3.1: EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF 15 YEAR-OLDS, A COMPOSITE OF READING, MATHEMATICALS AND SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

FinlandCanada

AustraliaJapan

NetherlandsNew Zealand

BelgiumSwitzerland

United KingdomSweden

IrelandCzech Republic

FranceIceland

GermanyPolandAustriaNorway

DenmarkHungary

United StatesSpain

ItalyPortugalGreece

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

25

Date: 2003

FIG. 3.3B: Percentage of pupils age 15 expecting to find work requiring low skills

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

United StatesPolandGreece

PortugalBelgium

DenmarkCanadaIreland

New ZealandAustralia

ItalySpain

FinlandSwedenNorway

HungaryIcelandAustria

NetherlandsGermany

United KingdomCzech Republic

SwitzerlandFranceJapan

LatviaRussian Federation

Israel

OE

CD

Nat

ions

Non

-O

EC

DN

atio

ns

Date: 2000

Child well-being and educational attainment

r = 0.15 (ns)

What explains these variations?

Very difficult Probably depends on domain – need for

more detailed work National wealth matters

Overall child well-being and GDP per capita complete countries

WHY?

Very difficult Probably depends on domain – need for

more detailed work National wealth matters Policy effort matters

Child well-being and expenditure on social protection benefits as % GDP 2003

WHY?

Very difficult Probably depends on domain – need for

more detailed work National wealth matters Policy effort matters Direction of that effort matters

Child well-being by expenditure on family benefits and services as % GDP all countries

Self criticism

Partly data driven Countries dropped Indicators missing for some countries - USA Some well-being indicators not available – housing,

citizenship…. Validity and reliability of indicators – low birth weight Focus on older children Out of date Summarising indicators

Z scores Implied weights Weighting equal except differences in indicators per dimension No direct access to HBSC Cumulating % without regard to confidence intervals No measures of dispersion

Thoughts about further work

First attempt: Obviously good if Australia, Iceland, Japan and NZ were in HBSC And US asked HBSC questions about sexual

behaviour and children’s feelings! Also to have HBSC data more quickly and

direct access Also OECD updated their poverty estimates

more regularly Further analysis worthwhile – data available Is it pie in the sky to ask for a better

international survey of children?

Child poverty and child well-being

Workshop

jrb1@york.ac.uk

ACWA08Strong, safe and sustainable; responding to children, young people

and families in civil society

Sydney Convention & Exhibition Centre18 August 2008