Download - Child poverty and child well-being in the European Union – determinats, policies, indicators –
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