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

1. ECASS Colloquium on methods for cross-national analysis of inequalities and distribution ISER - Colchester, 2nd of February 2010 Child poverty and child well-being in the European Union – determinats, policies, indicators – András Gábos TÁRKISocial Research Institute

2. 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)Applica Michael F. FörsterOECD Hugh Frazer National Univ. of Ireland Petra Hoelscher UNICEF Eric Marlier CEPS/INSTEAD Holly Sutherland University of Essex István György TóthTÁRKI 11 country case studies by Joachim Frick Nada Stropnik Anders Vörk Markus Jäntti Hugh Frazer Jonathan Bradshaw Manos Matsaganis Michel Legros Daniela Del Boca Zsuzsa Blaskó Irena Wóycicka

3. Main tasks carried out within the project Task 1. „An in-depthempirical analysis of child povertyand the related key challenges for each Member State, starting from the analytical framework developed up by the EU Task-Force report.” Task 2. „Anassessment of the effectiveness of policiesfor 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 ofrecommendations for a limited set of indicatorsand 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.”

4. The EU policy context of the project • 2005: MarchEU 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 adoptionof 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.

5. 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

6. 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) methodology • Four dimesions: 1 on outcome side and 3 on determinant side • Child poverty risk outcomes • Joblessness • In-work poverty • Impact of social transfers

7. 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) • z-scores added together, without weighting • Six clusters • to maximise the “steps” betweenthe groups • to minimise the variations within the groups +++ highest performance - - - lowest performance

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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 inactivity of each hh member in the last 12-month income period EUROSTAT 0.00 0.01-0.49 0.50-0.99 1.0 APPLICA 0.00 0.01-0.49 0.50 0.51-0.99 1.0

11. Sensitivity of risk of poverty rate to alternative measures of low work intensity • The shift is near WI=0.33 • Largest: DK, SE, NL, IE, UK, HU • Smallest: BE, FR, PT The variation of the risk of poverty of children by the detailed WI measure, EU, 2007 (%) Source: own calculations based on EU-SILC 2007. Note. BG, MT and RO are not included.

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

13. Relative outcomes of countries related to child poverty risk and main determinants Group A: good performers in all dimensions

14. 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

15. Relative outcomes of countries related to child poverty risk and main determinants Group B: joblessness is key challenge

16. 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 countries • Relatively 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 affordability • Low level of support to help women with children into employment • Inflexible working hours

17. Relative outcomes of countries related to child poverty risk and main determinants Group C: relatively bad performance in all dimensions Group D: in-work poverty is key challenge

18. 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%)

19. Determinants and policies in place in the New Member States • NMSs can be found in all four clusters • Low earnings • Low employment rates • Low levels of non-standard forms of emplyoment • Low level of support to help women with children into employment • Inadequate 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 GDP • Some countries widely use means test (CZ, PL, SI), while others rely more on universal benefits or use categorical targeting

20. Indicators of child poverty and child well-being in the EU István György Tóth – András Gábos with contributions from the TÁRKI and Applica team, Orsolya Lelkes (Eurocentre, Vienna)

21. Domains of child poverty and well-being (according to the EU Task-Force report) • A. Material well-being:factors relating to the materialresourcesof 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 outcomesin 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.

22. Supporting multi-dimensional and multi-sectoral policy mixes • Distinctions betweenresource basedmeasures of the risk of child poverty (likeincome 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 theintergenerational transmissionof poverty, life cycle and poverty persistence are important aspects • Children: 0-17 (broad) age group. However,internal age breakdownsare necessitated by mixture of theoretical (developmental, child psychology) and practical considerations (related to institutional arrangements or to data availability) • Special attention to be paid tomigrant statusor belonging to an ethnic minority

23. In search of additional indicators: tasks completed within the project • a broad basedcollection of potentially relevant indicatorsin each dimension •  work onindicator development(customising the selection criteria) •  suggestions forbreakdownswherever possible •  to fill out an indicator fichefor each and every indicators (example) • statistical validationof all material indicators (where data allows) •  identifying data gaps •  formulatingsuggestions

24. Sample indicator charts with some tipical data problems A1.1a At-risk-of-poverty rate by age of child, 2007 Robustness problems with the detail of the breakdown

25. Sample indicator charts with some tipical data problems B4.5a 11-year-olds who have three or more close friends of the same gender Very low cross-country variance

26. 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) Good quality indicator, with some data gaps

27. Sample indicator charts with some tipical data problems B2.6 Breastfeeding, EU-27, proportion of children who were exclusively breastfed at various ages Serious data gaps for many countries

28. Main conclusions 1. Various phases of childhood need to be reflected, therefore … filling in the “reserved slot” for child well-being is neither feasible nor desirable withonly 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

29. There is a need fora comprehensive set of indicators to monitor child poverty and well-being • The new set could: • reflect most of thechild well-being dimensionsas set out in the EU Task-Force report • incorporate OMC indicators already having a0-17 age breakdown • include a few new material well-being indicators(educational deprivation and childcare) • include new breakdownsfor the already existing indicators • a whole range of non-material indicators

31. Conclusions (4-6): There is a need to develop data infrastructure • Context information is neededon child and family related social expenditures, within the OMC reporting routines • Further work on statistical validation necessitates opening up microdata accessto some core datasets on non-material dimensions • Incentives to support substitute or alternative datasets in national contexts is needed

32. Conclusions (7-11): Further attempts to improve data situation are needed … • … to monitor the social situation of the children of • - migrants • Roma • … to further investigate the potential for utilising nationaladministrative datasets • … to invest inpanel surveys (national or EU level) to facilitate exploring causal relationships • … toinvolve researchersin questionnaire development

33. Final report will be available soon at: www.tarki.hu