Logic/outline: To start with: some important causal mechanisms on the relationship between education, well being and adult performance (and GDP at the end) Wide dispersion in country level performances, mostly due to institutional differences There is a need for monitoring, benchmarking and policy comparisons, much of what can be initiated and operated by the EU István György Tóth and András Gábos (Tárki, Budapest, Material and non-material dimensions of child well-being in Europe

For less waste of human capital in a country: - The longer the education is the better - Less institutional selectivity brings better overall results - Early childhood is crucial for both current well being and for adult performance - Chain of transmission of adverse conditions can best be broken by education These mechanisms create a relationship between education and performance and well being in adulthood (and GDP at the end). The above are rarely questioned in research, (but not that often respected in policy …)

There is a large cross country variance of child poverty outcomes between EU countries (country clusters by relative at risk of poverty rates) Indicators included in this presentation: –at-risk-of-poverty rate –relative median poverty gap (both based on EU-SILC) z-scores based on –the difference between the national figure for children and the overall national figure –the difference between the national figure and the EU average for children z-scores added together, without weighting Six clusters –to maximise the “steps” between the groups –to minimise within-group variance Bulgaria, Romania Italy, Spain, Portugal, Lithuania, Poland, Greece Latvia, Slovakia, Hungary, UK, Luxemburg Malta, Ireland, Czech Rep. France, Belgium Estonia, Austria, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands Slovenia, Finland, Cyprus, Denmark

There are consistently „good” and „bad” performers in the EU ( Relative outcomes of countries - child poverty risk and main determinants) Child poverty risk outcomesJoblessness In-work poverty Impact of social tr. Good performers (in all dimensions) Denmark+ + + Finland Slovenia Sweden Cyprus – Estonia+ ++– Netherlands+ + Austria France+++ Bad performers in all dimensions Slovakia–––+ Latvia––– UK–– – ––+ Lithuania– – – Romania– – –– – Source. TÁRKI (2011) Child Well-being in the European Union commissioned by the HU Pres, which has been a a follow-up of the TÁRKI-Applica (2010) report and EU Task-Force (2008) report. Notes. Data are derived from the EUROSTAT database,. All data refer to Child poverty outcomes: at-risk-of-poverty rate, relative median poverty gap (EU-SILC). Joblessness: share of children in jobless households (EU-LFS) In-work poverty: at-risk-of-poverty rate of children in hhs with WI>= 0.5 (EU-SILC) Impact of social transfers: (EU-SILC): at-risk-of-poverty rate before and after social transfers (excl. pensions)

Child poverty risk outcomes Joblessness In-work poverty Impact of social tr. Joblessness is a challenge Belgium+ – + Czech Republik+ – Germany+ – Ireland+ – –– – Hungary –– –– – Bulgaria (?) – – –– – –– + – – –– – – In work poverty is a challenge Greece – –– – – –– –– – –– – – Spain – –– – + – – –– – –– – –– – – Italy – –– – + – – –– – –– –– – Luxemburg – – –– – + Poland – –– – + – –– –– Portugal – –– – + – –– –– –– – Source. TÁRKI (2011) Child Well-being in the European Union commissioned by the HU Pres, which has been a a follow-up of the TÁRKI-Applica (2010) report and EU Task-Force (2008) report. Notes. Data are derived from the EUROSTAT database,. All data refer to Child poverty outcomes: at-risk-of-poverty rate, relative median poverty gap (EU-SILC). Joblessness: share of children in jobless households (EU-LFS) In-work poverty: at-risk-of-poverty rate of children in hhs with WI>= 0.5 (EU-SILC) Impact of social transfers: (EU-SILC): at-risk-of-poverty rate before and after social transfers (excl. pensions) Depending on labour markets and institutional setting, in some countries joblessness, in others in work poverty hits children more

To monitor child well being a complex and integrated child well-being indicator portfolio is needed 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. Env. (Share in single-parent households) B5: Local environment (Crime in the area is a problem), (Pollution or dirt is a problem in the area)

To better advance policy feedback, analytic and monitoring instruments are suggested to be introduced 1. Policy marker report card Overall country picture based on main indicators Suggested breakdowns to complete main indicators Relative performance 2. Child well being monitoring framework Relative performance assessment for each Member States along each indicator  Seven country groups based on distribution of z-scores (sample: EU-27)  Definitions and cut-off points

Presentation of countries’ relative policy performance in a policy marker report card Main indicators EU-27 max EU-27 min Lead indicators LOW performance: the value of that specific indicator differs from the EU-average in the ‘bad’ direction (by at least 1 SE) HIGH performance: the value of that specific indicator differs from the EU- average in the ‘good’ direction (by at least 1 SE)

A general finding: the relationships between material and non-material well-being outcomes - There is a significant correlation between material well-being on the one hand and education and health performance on the other - This is not the case for risk behaviour RoBG IE EL NL, DK, SE, FI, FR UK, HU IE BG Ro NL, DK, SE, MT SE, FI, CY DK, NL, FR, AT Ro BG EL HEalthHEalth EducATIOnEducATIOn RiskbehavIurRiskbehavIur

Suggestion 1: New education, health and risk behaviour indicators be introduced to fill in the reserved child well-being slot within the Social OMC portfolio of indicators Suggestion 2: Build-up a comprehensive and separate set of child well-being indicators to allow for monitoring their situation in a comparative way across the MSs Suggestion 3: To complement this portfolio with context indicators (e.g. institutional indicators or measures of intergenerational redistribution) Suggestion 4: To improve and adjust the data infrastructure accordingly Suggestions for the improvement of policy feedback (to enable countries learning from each others good practices)

Suggestion 5: Focus on equality of opportunities: to improve on education performance and to improve on family background disparities Suggestion 6: Focus on interventions in early childhood Suggestion 7: Improve strategies to strenghten family AND to improve formal care institutons Suggestion 8: Adjust the incentive system to foster the largest possible education and health service take-up Suggestions for policies for more equitable (and effective) human capital formation

András Gábos – István György Tóth Thank you

Annex slides

Surveyed datasets The EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) The Labour Force Survey (LFS) The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) Health Behaviour in School-aged Children survey (HBSC) European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD)

Relative performance – methods for computing Seven country groups based on distribution of z-scores (sample: EU- 27) Definitions and cut-off points NotationRange of z-score* Very high+++2 < High++1 < 2 Moderately high+0.25 < 1 Average < Moderately low--1 < Low---2 < -1 Very low--- < -2 Cut-off points: the distance from average of EU-27, measured by standard deviations

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 15 Parents’ education, migrant status B1.2: Low reading literacy performance of pupils aged 10 Parents’ 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

Lead indicators of the policy marker report cards: a first list for consideration 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

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

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

Educational deprivation among children Source: Social Situation Observatory research note. Note. Results are estimations using EU-SILC 2009 specific module on material deprivation. The source of the OECD results is the PISA 2009 survey. The OECD indicator is a composite index based on 7 items. Deprived: has less than 5 out of 7 items. MDR – material deprivartion rate. Suitable books: affordability of books at home suitable for child’s age – every child aged 1-15 in the hh must have the item. Suitable place to study: affordability of a plcae to study or do homework – every child aged less than 16 and attending school must have the item. Countries are ranked according to the material deprivation rate among children at hh level.

Reading literacy performance – 15 yrs Definition: share of 15-year- old pupils who are at level 1 or below on the PISA combined reading literacy scale. Rec: to follow changes in country performances according to maths and science literacy scores. Source: OECD, PISA survey, Definition: Difference in average reading literacy scores between pupils who have at least one parent with completed tertiary education and pupils who have at least one parent with only lower secondary education (or below), (score point diff.)

Reading literacy performance – 10 yrs Definition: share of 10-year-old pupils at or below the Low International Benchmark in reading Rec: to reflect on performance in later phases of child’s cognitive development (based on PISA). Source: PIRLS survey, 2006 Definition: test- score difference in the average literacy performance according to the education level of parents

Early school-leavers Definition. Numerator: persons aged 18–24 (i) with the highest level of education ISCED 0, 1, 2 or 3c; (ii) and who declared that they had not received any education or training in the four weeks preceding the survey. Denominator: consists of the total population of the same age group. Source: Eurostat, EU-LFS

Educational deprivation Definition: % of students who report having less than 5 out of 7 educational items in their homes. Items: quiet place to study, desk, computer, educational software, internet connection, textbook, dictionary. Rec: further work on item selection and regular monitoring using EU-SILC is strongly recommended. Source: OECD, PISA survey, 2009