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
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.”
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
We can compare inputs for children

OECD comparisons of welfare state effort –
social expenditure on families with children
Public spending on family benefits in cash, services and tax measures
Percentage of GDP, in 2003
Cash
Services
Tax breaks
Average total (2.4%)
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
Child poverty rate (circa 2000) by family exp.
as % GDP 2003 (OECD data)
Background: We can compare inputs

OECD comparisons of welfare state effort –
social expenditure on families with children

Child tax/benefit packages
US
he A
rla
nd
Ice s
lan
d
Cz
ec
Ca h
na
da
Ne Jap
a
w
Ze n
ala
nd
Ne
t
U
No K
rw
Au ay
str
a
De lia
nm
a
Be rk
lgi
Ge u m
rm
an
Sw y
ed
en
Ir e
l an
d
Fi
nla
nd
Fr
an
ce
tr i
a
Au
s
Euro ppps per month
“Average” child benefit package in Euros
purchasing power parities. Jan 2004
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Background:

OECD comparisons of welfare state effort –
social expenditure on families with children

Child tax/benefit packages

Better to have data on outcomes – wellbeing
Background

Luxembourg Presidency: Atkinson recommends
“child mainstreaming” and development of child wellbeing 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 wellbeing 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
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
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
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
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
Overall child well-being
Country
Netherlands
Sweden
Finland
Spain
Switzerland
Denmark
Norway
Belgium
Italy
Ireland
Germany
Greece
Canada
France
Poland
Czech Republic
Austria
Portugal
Hungary
United States
United Kingdom
Average
rank
4.2
5.0
7.3
8.0
8.0
8.2
8.3
10.0
10.0
10.2
11.2
11.8
12.0
12.5
12.5
12.7
13.7
14.0
14.5
18.0
18.5
Material
Situation
10
1
3
12
5
4
2
7
14
19
13
15
6
9
21
11
8
16
20
17
18
Health
and
Safety
2
1
3
5
9
4
8
12
6
19
11
18
14
7
16
10
20
15
17
21
13
Education
Children’s
relationships
Subjective
Wellbeing
Behaviour
and
lifestyles
6
5
4
16
14
8
9
1
20
7
10
17
2
15
3
11
19
21
13
12
18
3
15
17
8
4
9
10
5
1
7
13
11
18
12
14
19
16
2
6
20
21
1
7
11
2
6
12
8
16
10
5
9
3
15
18
19
17
4
14
13
3
1
6
5
10
12
13
19
9
4
11
7
17
14
2
8
15
16
18
20
21
20
Overall child well-being all countries
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
75
Swe
Net
Ice
Fin
Nor
Den
Swi
Spa
Bel
Aus
Ire
Ita
Ger
Gre
Fra
Can
Pol
Cze
Jap
Por
Aut
Hun
NZ
USA
UK
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
Child well-being by child poverty r=0.75
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

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
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

Child well-being and teenage fertility rate
r = 0.82***
Subjective Well-being

Personal well-being





Well-being at school


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
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
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
Overall child well-being and % of young people
saying they lived in a lone parent family
Education

Achievement




Participation


Reading literacy achievement, 15 years - PISA, 2003
Mathematics literacy achievement, 15 years - PISA, 2003
Science literacy achievement, 15 years - PISA, 2003
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
Child well-being and educational attainment
r = 0.15 (ns)
What explains these variations?
Very difficult
 Probably depends on domain – need for
more detailed work
 National wealth matters

Overall child well-being and GDP per capita
complete countries
WHY?
Very difficult
 Probably depends on domain – need for
more detailed work
 National wealth matters
 Policy effort matters

Child well-being and expenditure on social
protection benefits as % GDP 2003
WHY?
Very difficult
 Probably depends on domain – need for
more detailed work
 National wealth matters
 Policy effort matters
 Direction of that effort matters

Child well-being by expenditure on family benefits
and services as % GDP all countries
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
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?
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