1 / 22

David Parker, MPA, MPH, PhD Deputy Director UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre

International Society for Child Indicators Inaugural Conference, June 26-28, 2007 Chicago, USA Children and the Policy Agenda: Government Responses to the Innocenti Report Card. David Parker, MPA, MPH, PhD Deputy Director UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. BACKGROUND.

Download Presentation

David Parker, MPA, MPH, PhD Deputy Director UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. International Society for Child IndicatorsInaugural Conference, June 26-28, 2007Chicago, USAChildren and the Policy Agenda: Government Responses to the Innocenti Report Card David Parker, MPA, MPH, PhD Deputy Director UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre

  2. BACKGROUND • UNICEF and child indicators • The Innocenti Research Centre • UNICEF and rich countries • Academic partnerships in research • Innocenti Report Cards

  3. THE INNOCENTI REPORT CARDS • Focus on rich countries • Rankings using league tables • Academic/technical underpinning • Written for lay audience, readable format • Background papers for in-depth analysis • Communication strategy

  4. REPORT CARDCOMMUNICATION STRATEGY • Partnership with UNICEF Offices, National Committees, academics, others • Joint planning of launch and dissemination • Information kits – focus on strategic audiences, developed with close involvement of the research area • Advance distribution of PDFs and hard copies • Translation into French, Spanish & Italian; subsequently to Korean, Portuguese and Russian • Interviews - newspaper, TV, radio • Link with IRC website – research area and media centre • Coordination in followup

  5. LAUNCH OF THEREPORT CARD • Embargo until 14 February 10am • Launched on 14 February in OECD Countries, mainlaunch in Berlin. • UNICEF German National Committee organized international media launch with the IRC Director and Prof. Hans Betram, author of the German country case study. • Launch the following day at the European Commission, with Isabelle Engsted-Maquet, Secretary of the Indicators Sub-Group of the EU Social Protection Committee, and Anne-Marie Brooks, Office of the Minister for Children, Ireland. • Simultaneous launches in other countries in Europe and beyond, incl. Australia, Denmark, Finland, Italy, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain and the UK.

  6. MEDIA COVERAGE – OVERALL • Extensive coverage, in print and web services • Virtually global coverage – all continents, all major media services • Second print run of hard copies • Approx 40,000 downloads from IRC website in first month • Strong coverage in editorial columns, blogs

  7. News Headlines from the Report Card

  8. THE UNITED KINGDOM - CONTEXT • Public attention to “happiness”(vs economic growth and material attainment) • Inquiry into the state of childhood (R. Layard) • Concern about the state of youth – gang violence • Time of national self-reflection – leadership (PM) transition • Child poverty as a policy target, recent assessments

  9. UK – LAUNCHING AND NATIONAL RESPONSE • Last in overall ranking of CWB • BBC broke media embargo, gave intensive coveragewith interviews, debates, commentary and repeatedattention - “Are we failing our children”? • Initial Government reaction – defensive, incl. data out of date • Support of findings by experts, incl. the Children’s Commissioner of England (A. Aynsley) • Criticism of the RC among some media – relative poverty issue • Support by NGOs (looking to society, not only government) • Criticism by opposition particies, 2 statements by PM Blair • Debates in all legislative branches of British government • Role in additional budget allocation against child poverty? • Ditchley Park conference

  10. GERMANY • UNICEF National Committee supported the preparationof the study • National case study prepared, as done also for RC6 • Held EU Presidency at time of launch • Middle ranking in CWB (headlined as “merely mediocre”) • 70 journalists at launch/press conference • Est. 1000 media articles, reaching 120m readers & viewers • Politicians supported the report; strong national debate • National case study author is an adviser to the Ministry of Family • NGOs and parliamentarians used launch occasion to discuss children’s rights and movement to advance protection of children’s rights nationally

  11. U.S.A. • Not an active launch process – UNICEF focuson work in developing countries • Story picked up in US media, national coverage for 2+ weeks • Most critical media reception – questioning low US ranking, relevance of inequality measure • Did not become a political issue at national level • But strong local coverage, focus of debate and issue coverage • Continues to arise - Op-Ed columns

  12. COVERAGE ELSEWHERE –Shaping National Debates • Netherlands, Nordic countries – high rankingsspurred media coverage • Poland – higher ranking than US/UK • Greece – explanations, commentary • Hungary – relatively low ranking • Italy - + family relations, - educational rankings • Others – focus on rankings, methodology, individual component scores

  13. SOME OTHER GOVERNMENT RESPONSES AND FOLLOW-UP • France and US – questioned some indicators • Canada – used to promote idea of a Children’s Charter • European Parliament – launch followup; statements by issued by Socialist and Conservative groups • EU/EC – support to existing movement toward multi-dimensional approach; attention to child poverty and social exclusion (Bradshaw index) • Various: more complete and up to date data available

  14. ACADEMIC REACTIONS • Excluded dimensions in the analysis • More nuance in poverty measures • How to differentiate within countries (particularly large countries, minority groups) • To weight or not to weight? • General appreciation of data availability constraints • Overall support – with calls to refine the multidimensional approach

  15. ELEMENTS IN NATIONAL RESPONSE MESSAGE “Packaging” AGENTS (media, other actors) “Resonance” “Connectivity” CONTEXT

  16. ISSUES ARISING: MESSAGE • Stresses the multidimensional nature of CWB • Appeal: indicators deal with feelings and relationships • The RC shows “what it is like being a child” (J. Unwin) • Parents, children and the public can relate to individual dimensions; quotable, discussable • Highlight weak link between GDP/capita and CWB ranking • Decomposable – presentation stresses individual dimensions of CWB • “All countries can do better” (UNICEF) vs focus on rankings – winners and losers • Relative income poverty – an issue in RC6, carried over to RC7- Ideological to some – the importance of inequality- Is poverty meaningful when minimum needs are met?

  17. ISSUES ARISING: MEDIA • Diverse interests and approaches • Not possible to have anticipated the demand • Media ‘tipping point’ reached early: BBC (though brokeembargo) set momentum and tone of coverage around the world • Unusual for a report to have such coverage, esp. if not ‘exclusive’ • Active debate in media – but little questioning of validity or methods • Confusion noted in interpretation of RC statistics:- relative vs absolute nature of country scores- ranges and scaling of graphics- interpreting relative income poverty

  18. ISSUES ARISING: OTHER ACTORS, including Governments • UNICEF – credible, impartial, known locally • Academic base – consultations; Bradshaw et al; Bertram • UNICEF National Committees – press conferences, press releases, forums – 13+ were actively involved • Role of NGOs – resonated with their concerns, thoughtful commentary • A higher technical bar working in with governments than working with media – and a different bar than in working with academia • Consult in advance with governments?

  19. ISSUES ARISING: CONTEXT • In many countries, effectiveness arose from links topre-existing national debates on CWB, family, etc • Data issues important: completeness, up-to-dateness(recognition of govt engagement) • Complementarity – international comparison vis a vis national (multi-year, subnational, etc) studies • At what point does context determine the relevance of particular CWB indicators? (implications for global comparability) • Multiple layers of debate: Children in current politics >> children and the “state of the nation” • Using indicators to stimulate new national debates on child and social well-being • Future IRC work on child well-being?

  20. Innocenti Report Card No. 7Child Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Well-being in Rich CountriesThank You www.unicef-irc.org

More Related