1. The UNICEF Innocenti Report Card 7 Child poverty in perspective: An Overview of Child Well-being in Rich Countries Jonathan Bradshaw International Society for Child Indicators Inaugural Conference June 26-28 2007 Allerton Hotel, Chicago, USA

2. Background  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.”

3. Child poverty in perspective  EU, OECD, LIS (and UNICEF) have most commonly compared child well-being using relative income 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

4. We can compare inputs for children  OECD comparisons of welfare state effort – social expenditure on families with children

5. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Denmark France Sweden Australia Norway Iceland Austria Finland Germany United Kingdom Ireland Belgium Czech Republic New Zealand Netherlands Spain Japan United States Canada Mexico Korea 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 CashServicesTax breaksAverage total (2.4%) Public spending on family benefits in cash, services and tax measures Percentage of GDP, in 2003

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

7. Background: We can compare inputs  OECD comparisons of welfare state effort – social expenditure on families with children  Child tax/benefit packages

8. “Average” child benefit package in Euros purchasing power parities. Jan 2004

9. Background:  OECD comparisons of welfare state effort – social expenditure on families with children  Child tax/benefit packages  Better to have data on outcomes – well- being

10. Background  Luxembourg Presidency: 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

11. Conceptualisation of child well-being  Multi-dimensional approach  Based on children’s rights as outlined in the UN CRC  Drawing on national and multi-national experiences in indicator development

12. Data Sources I: Surveys  Health Behaviour of School Aged Children (HBSC) 36 countries at 2001  Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 32 countries at 2000, 41 at 2003

13. 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

14. 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

15. Overall child well-being

16. Overall child well-being all countries

17. Child well-being by child poverty r=0.75

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. Child well-being and teenage fertility rate r = 0.82***

22. 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

23. 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

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

25. 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

26. Child well-being and educational attainment r = 0.15 (ns)

27. What explains these variations?  Very difficult  Probably depends on domain – need for more detailed work  National wealth matters

28. Overall child well-being and GDP per capita complete countries

29. WHY?  Very difficult  Probably depends on domain – need for more detailed work  National wealth matters  Policy effort matters

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

31. WHY?  Very difficult  Probably depends on domain – need for more detailed work  National wealth matters  Policy effort matters  Direction of that effort matters

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

33. 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  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

34. Thoughts about further work  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?  ISCI?

35. The UNICEF Innocenti Report Card 7 Child poverty in perspective: An Overview of Child Well-being in Rich Countries jrb1@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators Inaugural Conference June 26-28 2007 Allerton Hotel, Chicago, USA