Child well-being in the EU Expert meeting - Budapest, 28 April 2011 Testing a potential indicator portfolio for regular monitoring András Gábos – István György Tóth KÖZIGAZGATÁSI ÉS IGAZSÁGÜGYI MINISZTÉRIUM TÁRSADALMI FELZÁRKÓZÁSÉRT FELELŐS ÁLLAMTITKÁRSÁG

Commissioned by the Social Inclusion Department of the Hungarian Ministry of Public Administration and Justice Aim: –to assist the Ch WB indicator development process –to test a potential indicator portfolio for regular monitoring Time frame: 1 December 2010 – 31 May 2011 In terms of indicator development, the report is a direct follow-up of the EU Task-Force report (2008) and of TÁRKI/Applica report (2010) About the report

Conclusions of the TÁRKI/Applica report (2010) There is a need for a comprehensive set of indicators to monitor ChP and WB, instead of filling in the reserved slot for child well-being with only one or two well-being indicators A first version of the portfolio was suggested The new set should: –reflect most of the child well-being dimensions –incorporate already agreed Social OMC indicators at the largest extent –include a few new material well-being indicators –include a whole range of non-material indicators –include new breakdowns for the already existing indicators

Value added of this report Refines the first version of the portfolio reflects on the ongoing indicators development within the EU strengthens equity aspects : how outcomes are spread across social groups puts emphasis on trends upgrades existing indicators by improving the selection process for non- material dimensions External expertise has been provided Data update for 2008/2009 New report on the situation of children in the EU in a cross-country comparative frame at individual counry level: policy marker report cards

An overview of the situation of children in the EU and in individual MSs INDICATOR PORTFOLIO COUNTRIES Cross-country analysis Country level analysis

2 The situation of children in the EU - cross-country comparative analysis 1 An integrated child well-being indicator portfolio 3 Mapping individual countries - policy marker report card prototype

1 An integrated child well-being indicator portfolio

Main aspects of portfolio-building To have a balanced portfolio of indicators across dimensions and across main phases of childhood To keep the structure of the portfolio as simple as possible To strenghten coherence To rely as much as possible on the already agreed Social OMC indicators and EU2020 indicators To distinguish between resource based measures and forward-looking indicators of child outcomes To reflect the policy need of breaking the intergenerational transmission of poverty

An integrated child well-being indicator portfolio - main indicators Dimensions Child age groups A1: Income At-risk-of-poverty rate Relative median poverty risk gap Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate (Dispersion around the poverty threshold) A2: Material deprivation Primary indicator of mat. depr. (Secondary indicator of mat. deprivation) Severe material deprivation A3: Housing Housing costs Overcrowding A4: LM attachment Share of children in jobless households Share of children in low work- intensity (including jobless) households Childcare use B1: Education Participation in pre-primary education (Low) Reading lit. perf. - 10y Educational deprivation (Low) Reading lit. perf. – 15y Educational deprivation Early school-leavers (18–24) B2: Health (Life expectancy) (Perinatal mortality) Infant mortality Vaccination Low birth weight Breastfeeding Oral health Fruit daily Breakfast every school day (Overweight) General life satisfaction Physical activity (Self-perceived general health) B3: Risk behaviour Teenage births Daily smoking Regular alcohol use; Heavy episodic drinking Illicit drug use; Tranquill. use B4: Social part., fam. envir. (Share in single-parent households) B5: Local environment (Crime in the area is a problem) (Pollution or dirt is a problem in the area)

An integrated child well-being indicator portfolio - breakdowns DimensionIndicator with 0-17 age breakdownBreakdown A1: Income A1: At-risk-of-poverty rateChild age, work intensity, household type, migrant st. A1.2 Relative median poverty riskChild age A2: Material deprivation A2.1: Material deprivationChild age, work intensity, household type, migrant st. A2.2: Severe material deprivationChild age, work intensity, household type, migrant st. B1: Education B1.1: Low reading literacy performance of pupils aged 15Parents’ education, migrant status B1.2: Low reading literacy performance of pupils aged 10Parents’ education B1.5 Educational deprivationParents’ education B2: Health B2.1 Infant mortalityGender B2.2a-c Vaccination in childrenGender B2.3 Low birth weightGender B2.4 Exclusive breastfeedingGender B2.5: General life satisfactionGender, family affluence scale B2.2: Oral healthGender, family affluence scale B2.3: Eating fruit dailyGender, family affluence scale B2.4: Having breakfast every school dayGender, family affluence scale B3: Risk behaviour B3.2 Daily smokingGender B3.3 Regular alcohol useGender B3.4 Heavy episodic drinkingGender B3.5 Illicit drug useGender B3.6 Tranquillizers/medicines useGender

DoneStill to be done – medium term A. Material WB A1. IncomeExcl: dispersion around povety threshold Further work on persistent poverty (how it reflects on absolute poverty and how it relates to mat. depr.?) A2. Material deprivation Excl: sec. indicator of material deprivation Incl: severe material deprivation Further work on agreed indicators? To develop a child-focused indicator that could be regularly monitored on the EU-SILC A3. HousingFurther work on agreed indicators? To simplify the overcrowding indicator (skewed against EU-10 countries) A4. LM attachment Children in low work intensity hhs adjusted to EU2020 Work on an adequate child care indicator What has been done and what still needs to be done regarding the indicator development

DoneStill to be done – medium term B. Non-material WB B1. Education Excl: none Incl: educational deprivation Exporative research has been done on early childhood outcome indicator To consider math and science literacy as main indicator at both age 10 and 15 Further work on educational deprivation indicator (regularly monitored on EU-SILC) Further work on early childhood outcome indicator B2. Health Excl.: life expectancy, perinatal mortality, overweight, self- perceived general health Incl: oral health, general life satisfaction, breakdowns by FAS for healthy behaviour To consider other indicators that show strong correlation with later performance and SES To prefer objective vs. subjective indicators (e.g. overweight) Access to micro database B3. Risk behaviour Switch in the main datasource: from HBSC to ESPAD Change in the definition of smoking habit, alcoholconsumption and drug use indicators according to the datasource Additional indicator for alcohol consumption and drug use To further explore ESPAD and HBSC datasets Further work and suggestions on breakdowns by SES

DoneStill to be done – medium term B. Non-material WB B4. Social participation and relationships, family environment Not consideredFurther research is needed An emphasis should be put on the role of social capital in the present well-being and later performance of children B5. Local environment Not consideredFurther research is needed An emphasis should be put on the role of social capital in the present well-being and later performance of children Others Specific focus should be put on the most vulnerable: - migrant children (both unaccompanied minors and children of migrant families), - children from an ethnic minority background, - children with a disability (or whose parents are disabled), - children in or leaving institutions A set of context indicators (in line with the practice of other Social OMC indicator portfolios) needs to be defined for the child well-being portfolio. The portfolio of indicators is complemented by specific recommendations

3 Mapping individual countries - policy marker report card prototype

1. Overall country picture based on main indicators Figures for children Figures for overall pop. EU-27 average figures Trends Unweighted EU- average Relative perf. to the EU-27

2. Suggested breakdowns to complete main indicators Unreliable estimate (N<20) A. Material well-beingB. Non-material well-being

3. Country’s rel. performance Main indicators EU-27 max EU-27 min Lead indicators HIGH performance: the value of that specific indicator differs by at least 30% the EU-average in the ‘good’ direction LOW performance: the value of that specific indicator differs by at least 30% the EU- average in the ‘good’ direction

An overview of the situation of children in the EU and in individual MSs Not much variance Scarce resources - Mixed to predominantly bad outcomes Affluent resources - Predominantly bad outcomes BUT - no MS without low performance according to at least two individual indicators - no MS without high performance according to at least three individual indicators

Table of contents of the report 1. Motivation, policy context and value adeded of the report 2. The situation of children in the European Union –2.1 Material well-being of children in the European Union Income poverty Material deprivation Housing Labour market participation of parents Children in the light of EU2020 poverty target indicators Material well-being: interantional benchmarking and key challenges for each MS –2.2 Non-material well-being of children in the European Union Education Health Exposure to risk and risk behaviour 3. Mapping individual countries – policy marker report card prototype 4. Conclusions Online Annex 1: Expert background papers: Education, Health, Risk behaviour Online Annex 2: policy marker report cards for EU27 Online Annex 3: integrated list and evaluation of the suggested indicators and indicator breakdowns

Child well-being in the European Union: trends and policy markers Expert meeting Budapest, 28 April 2011 KÖZIGAZGATÁSI ÉS IGAZSÁGÜGYI MINISZTÉRIUM TÁRSADALMI FELZÁRKÓZÁSÉRT FELELŐS ÁLLAMTITKÁRSÁG

Lead indicators Income poverty: at-risk-of-poverty rate Material deprivation: severe material deprivation rate Housing: overcrowding rate Labour market participation of parents: children in low work intensity households Education: early school-leavers Health: low birth-weight Exposure to risk and risk behaviour: daily smoking

Specific recommendations (illustrative example) The child at-risk-of-poverty rate –to be analysed together with: poverty threshold at-risk-of-poverty gap persistent poverty at-risk-of-poverty rate in th previous years/period at-risk-of-poverty rate of the overall pop. at-risk-of-poverty rate before social transfers severe material deprivation and share of children in low WI hhs (EU2020 poverty target indicators) –to provide results and analysis on the composition of children at risk of poverty by household type and work intensity of household