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, www.tarki.hu)

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 …)

Child poverty and child-well being in the European Union

Report for the European CommissionDG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities

Unit E.2

TARKI Social Research Institute (Budapest, Hungary)Applica (Brussels, Belgium)

January 2010Budapest – Brussels

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

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

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

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 outcomes Joblessness

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 2008.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

outcomesJoblessness

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 2008.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

0-5 6-11 12-17

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. - 10yEducational deprivation

(Low) Reading lit. perf. – 15yEducational deprivationEarly school-leavers (18–24)

B2: Health (Life expectancy)(Perinatal mortality)Infant mortality VaccinationLow birth weightBreastfeeding

Oral healthFruit dailyBreakfast every school day(Overweight)

General life satisfactionPhysical activity(Self-perceived general health)

B3: Risk behaviour Teenage birthsDaily smokingRegular alcohol use; Heavy episodic drinkingIllicit 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 behaviourRo BG

IE

EL

NL, DK, SE, FI, FRUK, HU

IE

BG

Ro

NL, DK, SE,

MT

SE, FI, CY

DK, NL, FR, AT

Ro

BG

ELHEalth

EducATIOn

Risk behavIur

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

http://www.tarki.hu/en

Thank you Child poverty and child-well being in the European

Union

Report for the European CommissionDG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities

Unit E.2

TARKI Social Research Institute (Budapest, Hungary)Applica (Brussels, Belgium)

January 2010Budapest – Brussels

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

Notation Range of z-score*

Very high +++ 2 <

High ++ 1 < 2

Moderately high + 0.25 < 1

Average 0 - 0.25 < + 0.25

Moderately low - -1 < -0.25

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

Dimension Indicator with 0-17 age breakdown Breakdown

A1: Income A1: At-risk-of-poverty rate Child age, work intensity, household type, migrant st.

A1.2 Relative median poverty risk Child age

A2: Material deprivation

A2.1: Material deprivation Child age, work intensity, household type, migrant st.

A2.2: Severe material deprivation Child 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 deprivation Parents’ education

B2: Health B2.1 Infant mortality Gender

B2.2a-c Vaccination in children Gender

B2.3 Low birth weight Gender

B2.4 Exclusive breastfeeding Gender

B2.5: General life satisfaction Gender, family affluence scale

B2.2: Oral health Gender, family affluence scale

B2.3: Eating fruit daily Gender, family affluence scale

B2.4: Having breakfast every school day Gender, family affluence scale

B3: Risk behaviour

B3.2 Daily smoking Gender

B3.3 Regular alcohol use Gender

B3.4 Heavy episodic drinking Gender

B3.5 Illicit drug use Gender

B3.6 Tranquillizers/medicines use Gender

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 indicatorsA. Material well-being B. Non-material well-being

Unreliable estimate (N<20)

Educational deprivation among children

Source: Social Situation Observatory 2011-7. 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, 2006-2009

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