Child poverty and child well-being in the European Union

– determinats, policies, indicators –

András GábosTÁRKI Social Research Institute

ECASS Colloquium on methods for cross-national analysis of inequalities and distributionISER - Colchester, 2nd of February 2010

The „Study on child poverty” project

Commissioned by: DG Employment of the European Commission, Unit E2

Consortium: Tárki Social Research Institute, Budapest Applica sprl, Brussels

Affiliated experts from the U of Essex, Eurocentre (Vienna)

Steering Committe:

Terry Ward (chair) ApplicaMichael F. Förster OECDHugh Frazer National Univ. of IrelandPetra Hoelscher UNICEFEric Marlier CEPS/INSTEADHolly Sutherland University of EssexIstván György Tóth TÁRKI

11 country case studies byJoachim Frick Nada StropnikAnders Vörk Markus JänttiHugh Frazer Jonathan BradshawManos MatsaganisMichel LegrosDaniela Del BocaZsuzsa BlaskóIrena Wóycicka

Main tasks carried out within the project

Task 1. „An in-depth empirical analysis of child poverty and the related key challenges for each Member State, starting from the analytical framework developed up by the EU Task-Force report.”

Task 2. „An assessment of the effectiveness of policies for combating child poverty and promoting social inclusion among children and the identification of policy mixes that seem to be most effective in tackling the specific factors underlying child poverty.”

Task 3. „The formulation of recommendations for a limited set of indicators and breakdowns that are most relevant from a child perspective and best reflect the multidimensional nature of child poverty and well-being in the European Union.”

The EU policy context of the project

2005: March EU Presidency Conclusions and Luxembourg Presidency initiative on “Taking forward the EU Social Inclusion Process”

2006: Commission’s Communication ‘Towards an EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child, Communication from the Commission’

Since 2006: streamlining of Social OMC, more systematic attention to children and reports and recommendations on tackling child poverty and social exclusion produced under PROGRESS by independent experts and anti-poverty networks

2007: EU Task-Force on Child poverty and Child Well-Being 2008: formal adoption of the report and their incorporation into the EU

acquis, National Strategy Reports of child poverty 2009: „Study on child poverty and child well-being” 2010: planned publication of a Commission staff working paper on child

poverty.

Main parts of the presentation

1. Key determinants and policies tackling child poverty and social exclusion in the EU

2. Indicators of child poverty and child well-being in the EU

International benchmarking and key challenges for each Member State

To assess the performance of countries in the field of child poverty relative to the national average/adult population the EU-average

Following the EU Task-Force (2008) methodologyFour dimesions: 1 on outcome side and 3 on determinant side Child poverty risk outcomes Joblessness In-work poverty Impact of social transfers

Child poverty outcomes

Input indicators: at-risk-of-poverty rate relative median poverty gap

z-scores based on the difference between the

national figure for children and the overall national figure

the difference between the national figure for children and the EU average for children (for the rate only)

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

FI CY DK SE SI DE FR NL BE AT IE EE CZ LV HU SK LU UK PT ES EL LT IT PL

z-scores added together, without weightingSix clusters

to maximise the “steps” between the groups

to minimise the variations within the groups+++ highest performance

- - - lowest performance

Joblessness

Input indicators: share of children in

jobless hhs based on EU-LFS

z-scores based on the difference between

the national figure for children and the overall national figure

the difference between the national figure for children and the EU average for children-5

-3

-1

1

3

5

7

SI FI EL LU IT DK SE CY AT ES PT NL PL FR EE DE CZ LT LV BE SK IE HU UK

In-work poverty

Input indicators: in-work poverty: at-risk-of-

poverty rate for those living in hhs with WI>=0.50, 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 for children and the EU average for children

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

DE SE BE DK FI SI FR CZ IE CY AT HU UK NL EE SK LV PT LT LU EL PL IT ES

The new measure of work intensity

WI – measuring the LM attachment of the household

• ftemi – nr of months in full-time employment• ptemi – nr of months in full-time employment• unemi – nr of months in unemployment• stmi - nr of months studying• rmi – nr of months in retirement• inacmi – nr of months in inactivityof each hh member in the last 12-month income period

64

18

*

iiiiii

iii

inacmrmstmunemptemftemptemaftem

EUROSTAT0.000.01-0.490.50-0.99 1.0

APPLICA0.000.01-0.49 0.500.51-0.99 1.0

Sensitivity of risk of poverty rate to alternative measures of low work intensity

Source: own calculations based on EU-SILC 2007.Note. BG, MT and RO are not included.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

WI=0 WI=0.01-0.33 WI=0.33-0.49 WI=0.50 WI=0.51-0.65 WI=0.66-0.74 WI=0.75-0.874 WI=0.875-0.99 WI=1

At-risk-of-poverty rate of children Share of all children

The variation of the risk of poverty of children by the detailed WI measure, EU, 2007 (%)

The shift is near WI=0.33Largest: DK, SE, NL, IE, UK, HUSmallest: BE, FR, PT

Impact of social transfers

Input indicators: poverty reduction

effect of social tranfers (excl. pensions), based on EU-SILC

z-scores based on the difference between

the national figure for children and the EU average for children

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

FI SE DK AT HU SI FR DE IE CZ BE NL UK LU CY SK EE LV PL LT PT IT ES EL

EUROMOD as an alternative source for assessing the effectiveness of the tax-benefit system

Relative outcomes of countries related to child poverty risk and main determinants

Group A: good performers in all dimensions

 Child poverty risk

outcomes JoblessnessIn-work

poverty

Impact of social

transfersGroup A FI + + + + + + + + + + +

CY + + + + + + + –

DK + + + + + + + + +

SI + + + + + + + + +

SE + + + + + + + + + +

FR + + + + + + +

NL + + + +

AT + + + + + +

Determinants and policies in place in Group A countries

High levels of economic activity and employment generally – high share of dual earner families in most countries The Netherlands: the second earner being in part-time job is predominant Austria: the single earner model is dominant, high earnings and income

support compensating for the lack of a second earner; the model featuring one full-time earner and a part-time earner is also considerable

Extensive and affordable childcare provision Cyprus: informal childcare arrangements

Adequate income support DK, SE, FI: high level of universal income support and extensive support for

parents to enter/re-enter employment Slovenia: high level of support targeted on low-income families in SI Income support narrowly targeted, focus on maternity benefits in France

Relative outcomes of countries related to child poverty risk and main determinants

 Child poverty risk

outcomes JoblessnessIn-work

poverty

Impact of social

transfers

Group B

DE + + – + + + + +

BE + – + + + +

SK – – + –

EE – – + –

CZ – – + + +

IE – – – + + +

HU – – – + + +

UK – – – – + +

Group B: joblessness is key challenge

Determinants and policies in place in Group B countries

Large number of children living with lone parents (BE, DE, EE, IE, UK)But in HU: 2 parents 3+ children are affceted by worklessness Children with migrant background are at high risk and count for a large share of those at risk of poverty in most of these countriesRelatively effective income support in reducing child poverty, but in some cases the benefits prove disincentives to LM participation (and further may have severe negative long-term consequences)Inadequate childcare provision – limited in number of place, opening hours and affordabilityLow level of support to help women with children into employmentInflexible working hours

Relative outcomes of countries related to child poverty risk and main determinants

 Child poverty risk

outcomes JoblessnessIn-work

poverty

Impact of social

transfers

Group C

LV – – – –

LT – – – – – –

Group D

PT – + – – –LU – + + + – – –EL – – + + + – – – – –PL – – – + – – –ES – – + – – – – – –IT – – – + + – – – – –

Group C: relatively bad performance in all dimensions Group D: in-work poverty is key challenge

Determinants and policies in place in Group D countries

Employment rates low generally and support policies limited; fixed term jobs common (exc. IT)

Low activity of mothers (exc. PT, LU), low levels of part-time empl. (excl. LU) one earner households are predominant

Lack of childcare provision

Relatively high share of children with self-employed parents (mostly in agriculture): EL, IT, PL

Low earnings

No minimum wages in EL or IT and set at low level in PL

Low levels of income support

Support narrowly targeted – in PL on very poorest or lone parents (6% of children), in EL on large families (10%)

Determinants and policies in place in the New Member States

NMSs can be found in all four clusters Low earningsLow employment ratesLow levels of non-standard forms of emplyomentLow level of support to help women with children into employmentInadequate childcare provision – limited in number of place, opening hours and affordability (most countries)Low income support, only HU spends above EU-average in terms of family benefits as % of GDPSome countries widely use means test (CZ, PL, SI), while others rely more on universal benefits or use categorical targeting

Indicators of child poverty and child well-being in the EU

István György Tóth – András Gáboswith contributions from

the TÁRKI and Applica team, Orsolya Lelkes (Eurocentre, Vienna)

Domains of child poverty and well-being (according to the EU Task-Force report)

A. Material well-being: factors relating to the material resources of the household that the child has access to or lacks during his/her development, which include indicators of

(A1) income, (A2) material deprivation, (A3) housing,(A4) labour market attachment.

 B. Non-material dimensions of child well-being, which may reflect on both

the resources a child has access or lacks during his/her development and outcomes in different stages of this development:

(B1) education, (B2) health, (B3) exposure to risk and risk behaviour,(B4) social participation and relationships, family environment,(B5) local environment.

Supporting multi-dimensional and multi-sectoral policy mixes

Distinctions between resource based measures of the risk of child poverty (like income poverty and material or housing deprivation) and forward-looking indicators of child outcomes (like education and health status)

To reflect the policy need of breaking the intergenerational transmission of poverty, life cycle and poverty persistence are important aspects

Children: 0-17 (broad) age group. However, internal age breakdowns are necessitated by mixture of theoretical (developmental, child psychology) and practical considerations (related to institutional arrangements or to data availability)

Special attention to be paid to migrant status or belonging to an ethnic minority

 a broad based collection of potentially relevant indicators in each dimension

 work on indicator development (customising the selection criteria)

 suggestions for breakdowns wherever possible

 to fill out an indicator fiche for each and every indicators (example )

 statistical validation of all material indicators (where data allows)

 identifying data gaps formulating suggestions

In search of additional indicators: tasks completed within the project

A1.1a At-risk-of-poverty rate by age of child, 2007

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

At-

risk-

of-p

over

ty ra

te, %

0-23-56-1112-17

0-2 15,8 19,8 13,8 15,4 13,0 11,3 13,2 18,5 17,9 13,2 10,1 19,0 14,9 22,6 18,7 14,0 17,7 10,9 21,0 15,1 12,4 12,3 15,3 16,8 24,7

3-5 15,4 16,9 12,2 15,3 14,6 9,9 16,5 18,2 21,1 10,5 15,8 20,4 14,7 23,7 18,1 24,2 18,3 15,3 19,6 17,3 10,0 7,9 18,4 18,2 22,7

6-11 14,5 14,5 9,8 16,3 12,1 8,7 16,7 24,6 25,2 8,2 15,7 18,9 21,2 25,2 22,7 19,2 20,0 14,3 23,7 22,2 9,9 11,0 15,5 18,8 22,6

12-17 14,2 17,6 13,6 17,3 15,6 9,1 22,0 27,3 28,6 12,5 18,6 17,8 21,8 28,1 24,2 21,2 22,5 14,4 26,9 23,4 13,2 12,7 18,5 20,9 21,7

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK Total UK

Robustness problems with the detail of the breakdown

Sample indicator charts with some tipical data problems

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Girl %Boy %

Girl % 51 62 62 68 76 77 77 78 79 80 80 81 81 83 84 85 85 86 86 87 88 89 89 89 90 90 91 91 93

Boy % 68 49 73 86 86 83 83 82 85 82 85 81 83 88 84 84 84 86 89 88 90 90 84 89 90 88 90 88 90

EL MT PL SI FR IT RO BG LV BE

(French)

LU EE SK BE (Fle

mish) LT FI PT DE ES Scotl

and NL AT CZ SE HU Wales DK IE Engl

and CY

B4.5a 11-year-olds who have three or more close friends of the same gender

Very low cross-country variance

Sample indicator charts with some tipical data problems

 B1.2a Difference in average reading literacy between pupils whose parents have completed tertiary education and pupils whose parents have lower secondary education or below (PIRLS 2006)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Difference

Difference 148 132 112 100 89 79 76 75 74 66 63 62 61 61 58 58 56 52 39

SK RO HU SI AT BG PLBE (FR

)FR SE LT DE

BE (Fl

emiLV LU ES DK IT NL FI EE IE MT CZ PT CY EL

England

Scotland

Good quality indicator, with some data gaps

Sample indicator charts with some tipical data problems

B2.6 Breastfeeding, EU-27, proportion of children who wereexclusively breastfed at various ages

0,0

20,0

40,0

60,0

80,0

100,0

120,0Three monthsFour months Six months

Three months 51,6 41,2 35,0 49,8 20,0 54,7 61,2 63,0 95,8 35,4 48,0 51,0 13

Four months 14,6 59,8 34,0 38,4 19,0 55,0 63,1 51,0 34,0 7

Six months 12,4 14,9 19,3 25,0 27,7 32,0 34,1 34,4 38,4 41,0 43,9

CY SE ES NLEU- averag

IT PT RO CZ SK HU AT BE BG DE DK EE EL FI FR IE LT LU LV MT PL SI UK

Serious data gaps for many countries

Sample indicator charts with some tipical data problems

1. Various phases of childhood need to be reflected, therefore …

filling in the “reserved slot” for child well-being is neither feasible nor desirable with only one or two well-being indicators

2. A slot for one or a set of child well-being indicators can be filled with an unbalanced set to cover currently inadequately covered in the social OMC

3. There is a need for a comprehensive set of indicators to monitor child poverty and well-being

Main conclusions

There is a need for a comprehensive set of indicators to monitor child poverty and well-being

The new set could:

reflect most of the child well-being dimensions as set out in the EU Task-Force report

incorporate OMC indicators already having a 0-17 age breakdown

include a few new material well-being indicators (educational deprivation and childcare)

include new breakdowns for the already existing indicators a whole range of non-material indicators

Child age groups

Dimension 0-5 (0-2, 3-5) 6-11 12-17

A1: Income Poverty rate Poverty rate Poverty rate

Relative median poverty risk gapPersistent at-risk-of-poverty rate

Dispersion around the poverty threshold

A2: Material deprivation Primary deprivation Primary deprivationEducational deprivation

Primary deprivationEducational deprivation

Secondary deprivation

A3: Housing Housing costsOvercrowding

Housing costsOvercrowding

Housing costsOvercrowding

A4: Labour market attachment Living in low work intensity (including jobless) households

Child care

Living in low work intensity (including jobless) households

Child care

Living in low work intensity (including jobless) households

B1: Education Participation in pre-primary education

(Low) Reading literacy performance of pupils aged 10

(Low) Reading literacy performance of pupils aged 15

Early school-leavers (when 18-24)

B2: Health Infant mortality (by SES)Perinatal mortalityVaccinationLow birth weight Breastfeeding

OverweightFruit dailyBreakfast every school day

Self-perceived general healthPhysical activity

Life expectancy at birth (by SES)

B3: Exposure to risk and risk behaviour

Teenage birthsSmokingAlcohol consumptionDrug consumption

B4: Social participation and relationships, family environment

Share in single parent households

Share in single parent households Share in single parent households

B5: Local environment Crime in the area is a problemPollution or dirt is a problem in the area

Context information is needed on child and family related social expenditures, within the OMC reporting routines

Further work on statistical validation necessitates opening up microdata access to some core datasets on non-material dimensions

Incentives to support substitute or alternative datasets in national contexts is needed

Conclusions (4-6): There is a need to develop data infrastructure

… to monitor the social situation of the children of

- migrants- Roma

… to further investigate the potential for utilising national administrative datasets

… to invest in panel surveys (national or EU level) to facilitate exploring causal relationships

… to involve researchers in questionnaire development

Conclusions (7-11): Further attempts to improve data situation are needed …

Final report will be available soon at:

www.tarki.hu