Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    1/52

    For every childHealth, Education, Equality, ProtectionADVANCE HUMANITY

    An overview ofchild well-beingin rich countriesA comprehensive assessment of the lives

    and well-being of children and adolescents

    in the economically advanced nations

    UNICEFInnocenti Research Centre

    Report Card 7

    Child poverty in perspective:

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    2/52

    This publication is the seventh in a series oInnocenti Report

    Cards, designed to monitor and compare the perormance o

    the OECD countries in securing the rights o their children.

    Any part o theInnocenti Report Card may be reely

    reproduced using the ollowing reerence:

    UNICEF, Child poverty in perspective:

    An overview o child well-being in rich countries,

    Innocenti Report Card 7, 2007

    UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.

    The United Nations Childrens Fund, 2007

    Full text and supporting documentation can be downloaded

    rom the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre website.

    The support o the German Committee or UNICEF in the

    development oReport Card 7 is grateully acknowledged.

    Additional support was provided by the Swiss Committee or

    UNICEF.

    The UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre in Florence, Italy, was

    established in 1988 to strengthen the research capability o

    the United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF) and to support

    its advocacy or children worldwide.

    The Centre (ormally known as the International Child

    Development Centre) generates research into current and

    uture areas o UNICEFs work. Its prime objectives are to

    improve international understanding o issues relating to

    childrens rights and to help acilitate the ull implementation

    o the United Nations Convention on the Rights o the Child

    in both industrialized and developing countries.

    The Centres publications are contributions to a global debate

    on child rights issues and include a wide range o opinions.

    For that reason, the Centre may produce publications that do

    not necessarily reect UNICEF policies or approaches on

    some topics.

    The views expressed are those o the authors and do not

    necessarily reect the policy or views o UNICEF.

    UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre

    Piazza SS. Annunziata, 12

    50122 Florence, Italy

    Tel: (+39) 055 20 330

    Fax: (+39) 055 2033 220

    [email protected]

    www.unice.org/irc

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    3/52

    UNICEF

    Innocenti Research Centre

    The true measure of a nations standing is

    how well it attends to its children their

    health and safety, their material security,

    their education and socialization, and

    their sense of being loved, valued, and

    included in the families and societies into

    which they are born.

    Report Card 7

    I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7 1

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    4/52

    The chart be presents the ndings thisReport Card in summar rm. Cuntries are isted in rder their

    aerage rank r the six dimensins chid e-being that hae been assessed.1 A ight bue backgrund

    indicates a pace in the tp third the tabe; mid-bue dentes the midde third and dark bue the bttm third.

    Dimension 1 Dimension 2 Dimension 3 Dimension 4 Dimension 5 Dimension 6

    Dimensions ofchild well-being

    Aeragerankingpsitin(r a 6dimensins)

    Materiae-being

    Heath andsaet

    Educatinae-being

    Fami andpeerreatinships

    Behaiursand risks

    Subjectiee-being

    Netherands 4.2 10 2 6 3 3 1

    Seden 5.0 1 1 5 15 1 7

    Denmark 7.2 4 4 8 9 6 12

    Finand 7.5 3 3 4 17 7 11

    Spain 8.0 12 6 15 8 5 2

    Sitzerand 8.3 5 9 14 4 12 6

    Nra 8.7 2 8 11 10 13 8

    Ita 10.0 14 5 20 1 10 10

    Ireand 10.2 19 19 7 7 4 5

    Begium 10.7 7 16 1 5 19 16

    German 11.2 13 11 10 13 11 9

    Canada 11.8 6 13 2 18 17 15Greece 11.8 15 18 16 11 8 3

    Pand 12.3 21 15 3 14 2 19

    Czech Repubic 12.5 11 10 9 19 9 17

    France 13.0 9 7 18 12 14 18

    Prtuga 13.7 16 14 21 2 15 14

    Austria 13.8 8 20 19 16 16 4

    Hungar 14.5 20 17 13 6 18 13

    United States 18.0 17 21 12 20 20

    United Kingdm 18.2 18 12 17 21 21 20

    This Report Cardprovides a comprehensive assessment o

    the lives and well-being o children and young people in

    21 nations o the industrialized world. Its purpose is to

    encourage monitoring, to permit comparison, and to

    stimulate the discussion and development o policies to

    improve childrens lives.

    The report represents a signicant advance on previous

    titles in this series which have used income poverty as aproxy measure or overall child well-being in the OECD

    countries. Specically, it attempts to measure and compare

    child well-being under six dierent headings or dimensions:

    material well-being, health and saety, education, peer and

    amily relationships, behaviours and risks, and young

    peoples own subjective sense o well-being. In all, it draws

    upon 40 separate indicators relevant to childrens lives and

    childrens rights (see pages 42 to 45).

    Although heavily dependent on the available data, this

    assessment is also guided by a concept o child well-beingthat is in turn guided by the United Nations Convention on

    the Rights o the Child(See box page 40). The implied

    C H I l D w E l l - B E I N G I N R I C H C o U N T R I E S :A S U M M A R y T A B l E

    oECD cuntries ith insucient data t be incuded in the erie: Austraia, Iceand, Japan, luxemburg, Mexic, Ne Zeaand,

    the Sak Repubic, Suth Krea, Turke.

    2 I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    5/52

    denition o child well-being that permeates the report is

    one that will also correspond to the views and the

    experience o a wide public.

    Each chapter o the report begins by setting out as

    transparently as possible the methods by which these

    dimensions have been assessed.

    Main fndings

    The Netherlands heads the table o overall child well-being, ranking in the top 10 or all six dimensions o

    child well-being covered by this report.

    European countries dominate the top hal o the overall

    league table, with Northern European countries

    claiming the top our places.

    All countries have weaknesses that need to be addressed

    and no country eatures in the top third o the rankings

    or all six dimensions o child well-being (though the

    Netherlands and Sweden come close to doing so).

    The United Kingdom and the United States nd

    themselves in the bottom third o the rankings or ve

    o the six dimensions reviewed.

    No single dimension o well-being stands as a reliable

    proxy or child well-being as a whole and several

    OECD countries nd themselves with widely diering

    rankings or dierent dimensions o child well-being.

    There is no obvious relationship between levels o child

    well-being and GDP per capita. The Czech Republic,

    or example, achieves a higher overall rank or child

    well-being than several much wealthier countries

    including France, Austria, the United States and the

    United Kingdom.

    Measurement and policy

    What is to be gained by measuring and comparing child

    well-being in dierent countries?

    The answer lies in the maxim to improve something, rst

    measure it.Even the decision to measure helps set

    directions and priorities by demanding a degree oconsensus on what is to be measured i.e. on what

    constitutes progress. Over the long-term, measurement

    serves as the handrail o policy, keeping eorts on track

    towards goals, encouraging sustained attention, giving early

    warning o ailure or success, uelling advocacy, sharpening

    accountability, and helping to allocate resources more

    eectively.

    Internationally, measurement and comparison gives an

    indication o each countrys strengths and weaknesses. It

    shows what is achievable in practiceand provides both

    government and civil society with the inormation to argueor and work towards the ullment o childrens rights and

    the improvement o their lives. Above all, such comparisons

    demonstrate that given levels o child well-being are not

    inevitable but policy-susceptible; the wide dierences in

    child well-being seen throughout this Report Cardcan

    thereore be interpreted as a broad and realistic guide to the

    potential or improvement in all OECD countries.

    Given the potential value o this exercise, every attempt has

    been made to overcome data limitations. Nonetheless, it is

    acknowledged throughout that the available data may be

    less than ideal and that there are prominent gaps. Childrens

    exposure to violence in the home both as victims and as

    witnesses,2 or example, could not be included because o

    problems o cross-national denition and measurement.

    Childrens mental health and emotional well-being may

    also be under-represented, though attempts have been made

    to refect these dicult-to-measure dimensions (see, or

    example, the results o surveys into childrens own

    perceptions o their own lives on pages 34 and 38). Age and

    gender dierences are also insuciently attended to, againrefecting a lack o disaggregated data and the act that the

    majority o the available statistics relate to the lives o older

    children. A particularly important omission is the level o

    participation by three and our year-olds in early childhood

    education (or which, again, no internationally comparable

    data are available).

    Acknowledging these limitations, Report Card 7

    nonetheless invites debate and breaks new ground by

    bringing together the best o currently available data and

    represents a signicant step towards a multi-dimensional

    overview o the state o childhood in a majority o the

    economically advanced nations o the world.

    I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7 3

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    6/52

    M A T E R I A l w E l l - B E I N G

    Dimension 1

    Figure 1.0 The material well-being of children, an OECD overview

    Three cmpnents ere seected t represent chidren's materia e-being (see bx be).

    Figure 1.0 aerages each cuntrs scre er the three cmpnents and is scaed t sh each

    cuntrs distance abe r be the aerage (set at 100) r the 21 cuntries eatured.

    80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

    Poland

    Hungary

    Ireland

    United Kingdom

    United StatesPortugal

    Japan

    Greece

    New Zealand

    Italy

    Germany

    Australia

    Spain

    Czech Republic

    Netherlands

    France

    Austria

    BelgiumCanada

    Switzerland

    Denmark

    Finland

    Norway

    Sweden

    CoMPoNENTS INDICAToRS

    reatie incmepert

    percentage chidren iing inhmes ith equiaent incmes

    be 50% the natina

    median

    husehdsithut jbs

    percentage chidren in

    amiies ithut an emped

    adut

    reprteddepriatin

    percentage chidren reprting

    ami afuence

    percentage chidren reprting

    e educatina resurces

    percentage chidren reprtingeer than 10 bks in the

    hme

    Assessing material well-beingThe table on the right shows how the index o

    childrens material well-being has been constructed.

    The choice o individual indicators reects the

    availability o internationally comparable data.

    For each indicator, countries have been given a score

    which reveals how ar that country stands above or

    below the OECD average. Where more than one

    indicator has been used, scores have been averaged.

    In the same way, the three component scores have

    been averaged to arrive at each countrys overall

    rating or childrens material well-being (see box on

    page 5). Materiawe-being

    Dimension 1 Material wel l -being

    Note: Each country has been placed on a scale determined by the average score or the group as a whole. The unit used is the standard deviation

    (the average deviation rom the average). To ease interpretation, the results are presented on a scale with a mean o 100 and a standard deviation o

    10.

    I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    7/52

    This overview o child well-being

    looks rst at material well-being.

    Three dierent components have been

    considered relative income poverty,

    children in households without an

    employed adult, and direct measures o

    deprivation. Figure 1.0 (opposite)

    brings these three components into

    one overall ranking table o childmaterial well-being.

    Main fndings

    The lowest rates o relative income

    poverty (under 5%) have been

    achieved in the our Nordic

    countries.

    A total o nine countries all in

    northern Europe have brought

    child poverty rates below 10%.

    Child poverty remains above the

    15% mark in the three Southern

    European countries (Portugal, Spain,

    Italy) and in three anglophone

    countries (the United States, the

    United Kingdom, and Ireland).

    The Czech Republic ranks above

    several o the worlds wealthiest

    countries including Germany, Italy,

    Japan, the United States and the

    United Kingdom.

    Ireland, despite the strong economic

    growth o the 1990s and sustained

    anti-poverty eorts, is placed 22nd

    out o the 25 countries.

    Income Poverty

    Two previous issues o the Report

    Cardhave been devoted to child

    income poverty in the OECD

    countries (see Box 7).

    The evidence rom many countries

    persistently shows that children who

    grow up in poverty are more

    vulnerable: specically, they are more

    likely to be in poor health, to have

    learning and behavioural diculties,

    to underachieve at school, to become

    pregnant at too early an age, to have

    lower skills and aspirations, to be low

    paid, unemployed, and welaredependent. Such a catalogue o

    povertys ills runs the risk o ailing to

    respect the act that many children o

    low-income amilies do not all into

    any o these categories. But it does

    not alter the act that, on average,

    children who grow up in poverty are

    likely to be at a decided and

    demonstrable disadvantage.

    Ideally child poverty would be

    assessed by bringing together data

    under a variety o poverty headings

    including relative poverty, absolute

    deprivation, and depth o poverty

    (revealing not only how many all

    below poverty lines but also by how

    ar and or how long). Nonetheless,

    the poverty measure used here

    represents a more comprehensive viewo child poverty than has previously

    been available.

    Relative income poverty

    Child poverty can be measured in an

    absolute sense the lack o some

    xed minimum package o goods and

    services. Or it can be measured in a

    relative sense alling behind, by

    Childrens material well-being

    Dimension 1 Material wel l -being

    Throughout thisReport Card, a countrys overall score or each

    dimension o child well-being has been calculated by averaging its

    score or the three components chosen to represent that dimension.

    I more than one indicator has been used to assess a component,

    indicator scores have been averaged. This gives an equal weighting

    to the components that make up each dimension, and to the

    indicators that make up each component. Equal weighting is thestandard approach used in the absence o any compelling reason to

    apply dierent weightings and is not intended to imply that all

    elements used are considered o equal signifcance.

    In all cases, scores have been calculated by the z scores method

    i.e. by using a common scale whose upper and lower limits are

    defned by all the countries in the group. The advantage o this

    method is that it reveals how ar a country alls above or below the

    average or the group as a whole. The unit o measurement used on

    this scale is the standard deviation (the average deviation rom the

    average). In other words a score o +1.5 means that a countrys

    score is 1.5 times the average deviation rom the average. To ease

    interpretation, the scores or each dimension are presented on a

    scale with a mean o 100 and a standard deviation o 10.

    A common scale

    I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7 5

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    8/52

    Dimension 1 Material wel l -being

    more than a certain degree, rom the

    average standard o living o the

    society in which one lives.

    The European Union oered its

    denition o poverty in 1984: the

    poor are those whose resources (material,

    cultural, and social) are so limited as to

    exclude them rom the minimum

    acceptable way o lie in the Member

    States in which they live. For practical

    and statistical purposes, this has usually

    meant drawing national poverty lines

    at a certain percentage o national

    median income.

    Figure 1.1 shows the percentage o

    children growing up in relativepoverty dened as living in a

    household where the equivalent

    income is less than 50% o the

    national median or 24 OECD

    countries.3

    Critics have argued that relative

    poverty is not real poverty, pointing

    out that many o those who all below

    relative poverty lines enjoy a standard

    o living higher than at any time in

    the past or than most o the worlds

    children in the present. But this ails

    to acknowledge that in todays OECD

    nations the cutting edge o poverty is

    the contrast, daily perceived, between

    the lives o the poor and the lives o

    those around them.

    Nonetheless an international

    comparison based on a poverty linedrawn at 50% o the median national

    income presents only a partial picture

    in that it makes no allowance or

    dierences in national wealth. It

    shows, or example, that the child

    poverty rate in the United States is

    higher than in Hungary, but ails to

    show that 50% o median income (or

    a couple with two children) is

    approximately $7,000 in Hungary and

    $24,000 in the United States. The act

    that a smaller percentage o children

    are growing up poor in the Czech

    Figure 1.1 Reatie incme pert: Percentage chidren (0-17 ears) in

    husehds ith equiaent incme ess than 50% the median.

    0 5 10 15 20 25

    Date: 2000,1999 (Australia, Austria and Greece), 2001 (Germany, New Zealand and S witzerland).

    United States

    United Kingdom

    Italy

    Ireland

    Spain

    Portugal

    New Zealand

    Poland

    Japan

    Canada

    Austria

    Hungary

    Greece

    Australia

    Germany

    Netherlands

    France

    Czech Republic

    Switzerland

    Belgium

    Sweden

    Norway

    Finland

    Denmark

    OECD Nations

    Figure 1.2 Percentage rking-age husehds

    ith chidren ithut an emped parent

    Date: 2000, 1999 (Japan and Ca nada), 1998 (Switzerland), 2001 (Spain, the Netherlands, and Germany), 2002 (Austria, Norway and Poland).

    Non-OECD, 2004 (Israel).

    0 2 4 6 8 10 12

    Israel

    Hungary

    Australia

    Poland

    Germany

    United Kingdom

    Czech Republic

    New Zealand

    Ireland

    France

    Netherlands

    Norway

    Spain

    Denmark

    Belgium

    Italy

    Finland

    Canada

    Sweden

    Greece

    United States

    Austria

    Switzerland

    Portugal

    Japan

    OECD Nations

    Non-OECD Nations

    I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    9/52

    Dimension 1 Material wel l -being

    Republic than in France, or in Poland

    than in Italy, does not mean that

    Czech or Polish children are more

    afuent but that their countries have a

    more equal distribution o income. In

    other words Figure 1.1 tells us much

    about inequality and exclusion but

    little about absolute material

    deprivation.

    Even within individual countries,

    relative income poverty does not

    reveal howar amilies all below

    poverty lines, or or how long.

    Furthermore all such measurements o

    child poverty are based on household

    income and assume a well-

    unctioning amily in which availableresources are allocated with reasonable

    airness with necessities taking

    priority over luxuries. A child

    suering acute material deprivation

    caused by a parent's alcohol or drug

    habit, or example, is not counted as

    poor i the amily income is greater

    than 50% o the national median.

    Relative poverty is thereore a

    necessary but not sucient indicator

    o childrens material well-being, and

    needs to be complemented by some

    measure o deprivation.

    Unemployment

    Various studies have ound that

    growing up in a household without

    an employed adult is closely associated

    with deprivation, particularly i theunemployment is persistent. The

    proportion o children who are

    growing up in households with no

    employed adult has thereore been

    chosen as the second component or

    building a more rounded picture o

    childrens material poverty.

    Figure 1.2 is clearly measuring a

    dierent aspect o poverty. The United

    States, or example, has risen rom the

    bottom o Figure 1.1 to th place in

    Figure 1.2, while Norway has allen

    Report Card 1 (2000) and Report Card 6 (2005) addressed the issue o

    child income poverty in the OECD countries. Some o the main fndings:

    In recent years, child poverty has risen in 17 out o 2 OECD

    countries or which data are available.

    Norway is the only OECD country where child poverty can be

    described as very low and continuing to all.

    Higher government spending on amily and social benefts is

    associated with lower child poverty rates. No OECD country devoting

    10% or more o GDP to social transers has a child poverty rate

    higher than 10%. No country devoting less than 5% o GDP to social

    transers has a child poverty rate o less than 15%.

    Variation in government policy appears to account or most o thevariation in child poverty levels between OECD countries.

    There appears to be little relationship between levels o employment

    and levels o child poverty. It is the distribution o employment among

    dierent kinds o household, the proportion o those in work who are

    on low-pay, and the level o state benefts or the unemployed and

    the low-paid, that contribute most to dierences in child poverty rates

    between countries.

    Variations between countries in the proportion o children growing up

    in lone-parent amilies do not explain national poverty rates. Sweden,

    or example, has a higher proportion o its children living in lone-

    parent amilies than the United States or the United Kingdom but amuch lower child poverty rate than either.

    There is considerable variation in child poverty rates even in countries

    with broadly similar levels o government spending.

    A realistic target or all OECD countries would be to bring relative

    child poverty rates below 10%. For the countries that have already

    achieved this, the next aim might be to emulate the our Nordic

    countries in bringing child poverty rates below 5%.

    In many OECD countries there is a pronounced trend towards lower

    relative earnings or the lowest paid.

    There is a trend or any increase in social spending in OECD countries

    to be allocated principally to pensions and health care, leaving little

    or urther investment in children.

    From previousReport Cards

    I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7 7

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    10/52

    rom third to ourteenth place. Such

    changes could refect low pay or

    employed adults in some countries and

    generous benets or unemployed

    adults in others. Either way, it adds to

    the picture o child poverty. But what

    is lacking is some more direct measure

    o childrens material deprivation.

    Deprivation

    Unortunately, there are no

    internationally comparable measures o

    material deprivation or agreed

    denitions o what the right to an

    adequate standard o living means. It is

    thereore not possible to compare the

    proportion o children in each country

    who are materially deprived in thesense that they lack such basics as

    adequate nutrition, clothing, and

    housing. Again, individual governments

    may have indicators refecting this

    kind o deprivation at national level

    but, in the absence o cross-national

    denitions and data, three indicators

    have been selected which, taken

    together, may oer a reasonable guide

    (Figures 1.3a, 1.3b, and 1.3c).Date: 2001/02

    0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

    Russian Federation

    Latvia

    Lithuania

    Croatia

    Malta

    Estonia

    Israel

    Slovenia

    Poland

    Czech Republic

    Hungary

    Portugal

    Greece

    Spain

    Ireland

    Finland

    Belgium

    Austria

    Germany

    France

    United Kingdom

    Denmark

    United States

    Switzerland

    Canada

    Sweden

    Netherlands

    Norway

    OECD Nations

    Non-OECD Nations

    Figure 1.3a Percentage chidren age 11, 13 and 15 reprting ami afuence

    In recent years, relative child poverty has become a

    key indicator or the governments o many OECD

    countries. The European Unions eorts to monitor its

    Social Inclusion Programme, or example, include

    relative child poverty and the percentage o children in

    workless amilies as the only indicators specifcally

    related to children (drawing the poverty line as the

    proportion o children in each country living in

    households with an equivalent income o less than

    0% o the median or that country).

    Almost always, it is the national median that is used as

    the basis or the measurement o relative poverty. But

    rom the point o view o the child it could be argued

    that the basis o comparison should be a dierent

    entity the province, state, city, or neighbourhood.

    Would the picture o child poverty change radically i

    the question poverty relative to what? were to beanswered in these dierent ways?

    Little data are available to answer this question, but

    Report Card 1 drew upon the evidence available in

    the year 2000 to suggest some answers. It pointed

    out, or example, that the child poverty rate in

    Americas richest state, New Jersey, would have

    jumped rom 1% to 22% i the basis o comparison

    had been the median income or New Jersey rather

    than or the United States as a whole. On the same

    basis, the child poverty rate in Arkansas would have

    allen rom 2% to 1%. Similar changes would

    undoubtedly be revealed in other countries where the

    mean state income diers signifcantly rom the mean

    national income. Spains poorest province,

    Extremadura, or example would have seen its child

    poverty rate almost halved i the poverty line had

    been re-drawn in this way. In countries such as

    Australia and Canada, where variations in average

    income between regions are smaller, the changeswould be less dramatic.

    Relative Poverty

    Dimension 1 Material wel l -being

    8 I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    11/52

    Date: 2003. Non-OECD 2003, 2000 (Israel)

    0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

    Russian Federation

    Latvia

    Israel

    Greece

    Non-OECD Nations

    Japan

    Hungary

    Poland

    Portugal

    Ireland

    Czech Republic

    Denmark

    Italy

    France

    Spain

    United States

    Switzerland

    New Zealand

    Canada

    Belgium

    Finland

    United Kingdom

    Netherlands

    Sweden

    Germany

    Austria

    Australia

    Norway

    OECD Nations

    Figure 1.3b Percentage chidren age 15 reprting ess

    than six educatina pssessins

    Figure 1.3a uses the Family Afuence

    Scale, deployed as part o WHOs

    survey oHealth Behaviour in School-

    age Children (see box on page 17). The

    survey put our questions to

    representative samples o children aged

    11, 13 and 15 in each o 35 countries.

    The questions were:

    Does your amily own a car,

    van or truck?

    Do you have your own

    bedroom or yoursel?

    During the past 12 months,

    how many times did you

    travel away on holiday with

    your amily?

    How many computers doesyour amily own?

    The results were scored and scaled to

    give a maximum afuence score o 8

    with low amily afuence being

    dened as a score o 0-3. Figure 1.3a

    shows the percentage o children in

    each country reporting low amily

    afuence so dened.

    Among the worlds wealthiest countries, it is in Italy

    that the change in the basis o comparison produces

    the most dramatic results. In 2000, nationally-based

    poverty lines revealed a child poverty rate that was

    our times higher in the mid-South than in Lombardy,

    whereas state-based poverty lines showed almost no

    dierence between the two. In other words, it was

    possible or a amily living in Sicily or Calabria to all

    below the national poverty line whilst being no worse

    o than most o their ellow Sicilians and Calabrians

    (the relative child poverty rate or Sicily and Calabria

    ell by more than hal, rom 5% to 19%, when the

    state rather than the national median was used).

    The childs own context o comparison needs to be

    taken into account and it would be helpul to have

    more data on dierences in child well-being within

    nations as well as between nations. But it is at thenational level that policy is made and or most practical

    purposes it makes sense or poverty lines to be drawn

    in relation to national medians. AsReport Card 1

    concluded: In a world where national and

    international media are enlarging the society that

    people eel themselves to be living in uniying

    expectations and homogenizing the concept o the

    minimum acceptable way o lie it is probable that

    the nation will remain the most widely used basis o

    comparison. Children in Arkansas or Sicily or

    Extremadura watch the same television programmes as

    their contemporaries in New Hampshire or Emilia

    Romagna or Madrid. Which brings us to the

    uncomortable thought that the same programmes and

    the same commercials are today also watched by

    children in Lagos and Delhi and Mexico City. In theory,

    there is as strong a case or enlarging the basic unit o

    comparison as or shrinking it.

    Dimension 1 Material wel l -being

    I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7 9

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    12/52

    There are weak spots in the Family

    Afuence Scale. Variations in the

    number o vehicles owned by the

    amily, or example, may indicate levels

    o urbanization, or the quality o public

    transport systems. The number o

    holidays taken may refect traditions

    such as regular holidays taken with

    relatives. Not sharing a bedroom may

    also refect dierent cultural traditions,

    average amily size, or rural/urban

    dierences.

    Perhaps the greater problem with

    Figure 1.3a, or present purposes, is

    that it tells us little about the more

    severe kinds o deprivation.

    Nonetheless the Family Afuence Scalehas the advantage o being based on

    tangible denitions that correspond to

    widely held notions o material well-

    being.

    For present purposes, Figure 1.3a also

    provides a snapshot that is clearly

    dierent rom the picture o relative

    poverty depicted in Figure 1.1. It can

    immediately be seen, or example, that

    Hungary, the Czech Republic and

    Poland, all ranked mid-table when

    measured by relative income poverty,

    drop to the bottom o the league when

    ranked by the Family Afuence Scale.

    Conversely the United States and the

    United Kingdom move rom the

    bottom o the table into the top ten.

    Cultural and educational

    resources

    Another important way o looking at

    children's material well-being is to ask

    whether, in the words o the

    Convention on the Rights o the Child,

    the childs circumstances are such as to

    allow the development o the child's

    personality, talents and mental and

    physical abilities to their ullest potential.

    In this respect, many commentators

    have argued that the lack o

    educational and cultural resources

    should rank alongside lack o income,

    and that the educational resources o-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

    Japan

    Poland

    Greece

    Portugal

    Hungary

    Ireland

    United States

    Belgium

    Italy

    Czech Republic

    Switzerland

    France

    Netherlands

    United Kingdom

    Austria

    Denmark

    Spain

    Germany

    New Zealand

    Finland

    Canada

    Australia

    Sweden

    Norway

    Figure 1.3 Cmpsite tabe chid materia depriatin

    (cmbining Figures 1.3a, 1.3b and 1.3c)

    Date: 2003. Non-OECD 2003, 2000 (Israel)

    0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

    Israel

    Russian Federation

    Latvia

    Portugal

    Non-OECD Nations

    Netherlands

    United States

    Belgium

    Switzerland

    Ireland

    Japan

    United Kingdom

    Austria

    France

    Italy

    Poland

    Denmark

    Greece

    Germany

    Canada

    New Zealand

    Finland

    Australia

    Norway

    Sweden

    Spain

    Hungary

    Czech Republic

    OECD Nations

    Figure 1.3c Percentage chidren age 15 reprting ess than 10 bks in the hme

    Dimension 1 Material wel l -being

    1 0 I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    13/52

    Comparable survey fndings rom a wide variety o sources, covering

    as many OECD countries as possible, have been brought together

    and analysed or this report. A ull description o the data sources and

    methodologies (including sensitivity analyses) is available in thebackground paper reerred to on page 13.

    All o the raw data used in this report are set out on pages 2 to 5.

    In all cases, the data sets used are the latest available and in general

    apply to the period 2000-2003 (see pages to 7 or dates to which

    individual data sets reer).

    Comparable data on several OECD countries such as Turkey and

    Mexico are unortunately not available.

    Some non-OECD countries have been included as a separate list in

    some o the tables used in thisReport Card. These have been

    selected on the basis o data availability (and in the hope that they

    will demonstrate the potential useulness o this approach to manymiddle-income countries not currently members o the OECD).

    Data

    the home, in particular, play a critical

    role in children's educational

    achievement.

    The diculties o measuring cultural

    and educational deprivation are

    evident, but some insight into this

    aspect o child poverty is oered by

    tables 1.3b and 1.3c. Both draw on

    data rom the Programme o

    International Student Assessment(see

    box on page 17) which, among many

    other questions, asked representative

    groups o 15 year-olds in 41 countries

    whether they had the ollowing eight

    educational items at home:

    a desk or study

    a quiet place to work a computer or schoolwork

    educational sotware

    an internet connection

    a calculator

    a dictionary

    school textbooks.

    Dimension 1 Material wel l -being

    Figure 1.3b shows the percentage who

    report having ewer than six o these

    resources.

    Drawing on the same source, Figure

    1.3c shows the percentage o children

    reporting ewer than 10 books in the

    home a suggested indicator o the

    deprivation o cultural resources.

    Combined as in Figure 1.3, these

    three indicators show that children

    appear to be most deprived o

    educational and cultural resources in

    some o the worlds most

    economically developed countries.

    ConclusionThe available data all short o

    capturing all the complexities o child

    poverty, being unable, or example, to

    address important issues such as the

    depth and duration o child poverty,

    or the extent o more extreme orms

    o deprivation. Clearly, there is a need

    or more understanding o the links

    between income poverty and material

    deprivation. In particular, there is a

    need to know more about the links

    between income poverty, deprivation,

    and the kind o social exclusion which

    inhibits the development o potential

    and increases the risk o perpetuating

    poverty rom one generation to the

    next.

    Despite these necessary reservations, it

    is argued that the indicators deployed

    and combined in the summary table

    or this chapter (Figure 1.0) represent

    a signicant improvement on income

    poverty measures alone, and that theyoer the best currently available

    comparative overview o childrens

    material well-being in the worlds

    developed economies.

    I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7 1 1

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    14/52

    H E A l T H A N D S A F E T y

    Dimension 2

    80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125

    United States

    New Zealand

    Austria

    Ireland

    Greece

    Hungary

    Belgium

    Poland

    Portugal

    Canada

    United Kingdom

    Australia

    Japan

    Germany

    Czech Republic

    Switzerland

    Norway

    France

    Spain

    Italy

    Denmark

    FinlandNetherlands

    Iceland

    Sweden

    CoMPoNENTS INDICAToRS

    heath at age 0-1 number inants ding bereage 1 per 1,000 births

    percentage inants brn ith

    birth eight (

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    15/52

    Dimension 2 Health and saety

    By almost any available measure, the

    great majority o children born into

    todays developed societies enjoy

    unprecedented levels o health and

    saety. Almost within living memory,

    one child in every ve in the cities o

    Europe could be expected to die

    beore his or her th birthday; today

    that risk is less than one in a hundred.

    Loss o lie among older children iseven more uncommon; ewer than

    one in every 10,000 young people die

    beore the age o 19 as a result o

    accident, murder, suicide or violence.

    This, too, represents an historically

    unheard o level o saety.

    Nonetheless, health and saety remain

    a basic concern o all amilies and a

    basic dimension o child well-being. It

    can also be argued that the levels o

    health and saety achieved in a

    particular country are an indicator o

    the society's overall level o

    commitment to its children.

    Health and saety are assessed here by

    three components or which

    internationally comparable data are

    available: child health at birth, child

    immunization rates or children aged

    12 to 23 months, and deaths rom

    accidents and injuries among young

    people aged 0 to 19 years.

    The chart opposite (Figure 2.0) brings

    these components together into an

    overview table o child health and

    saety in 25 OECD countries.

    European countries occupy the top

    hal o the table, with the top ve

    places claimed by the our Nordiccountries and the Netherlands. The

    Czech Republic ranks ahead o

    wealthier countries such as Germany,

    Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada

    and the United States.

    Inant survival and health

    The rst component o the index,

    child health at birth, has been assessed

    by two separate indicators: the inant

    mortality rate (the number o deaths

    beore the age o one per thousandlive births) and the prevalence o low

    birth weight (the percentage o babies

    born weighing less than 2500g.).

    The inant mortality rate (IMR) is a

    standard indicator o child health 5 and

    refects a basic provision o the

    Convention on the Rights o the Child

    which calls on all countries to ensure

    the childs enjoyment o the highest

    attainable standard o health, including

    by diminishing inant and child

    mortality. In the developing world, in

    particular, the IMR refects the extent

    to which childrens rights are met in

    such undamental areas as adequate

    nutrition, clean water, sae sanitation,

    and the availability and take-up o

    basic preventative health services. In

    the OECD countries it could be

    argued that inant deaths have now

    been reduced to such low levels that

    the IMR is no longer a revealing

    indicator. But as Figure 2.1b shows,

    substantial dierences still exist among

    OECD countries with IMR

    ranging rom under 3 per 1,000 births

    in Iceland and Japan to over 6 per

    1,000 in Hungary, Poland and the

    United States.

    Signicant in itsel, the inantmortality rate can also be interpreted

    as a measure o how well each

    country lives up to the ideal o

    protecting every pregnancy, including

    pregnancies in its marginalized

    populations, and taking all necessary

    precautionary and preventative

    measures rom regular antenatal

    check-ups to the ready availability o

    emergency obstetric care by which

    inant mortality rates have been so

    dramatically reduced over the last 80years. A society that manages this so

    eectively as to reduce inant deaths

    below 5 per 1,000 live births is clearly

    a society that has the capacity and the

    commitment to deliver other critical

    components o child health.

    Childrens health and safety

    Background to

    Report Card 7

    ThisReport Card is supported

    by a background paper

    Comparing Child Well-Being in

    OECD Countries: Concepts

    and Methods, Innocenti

    Working Paper No. 200-03,

    Jonathan Bradshaw, Petra

    Hoelscher and Dominic

    Richardson, UNICEF Innocenti

    Research Centre, Florence,

    200.

    The paper, setting out in more

    detail the methods and

    sources used in this overview,

    is available on the Innocentiweb-site (www.unice.org/irc).

    I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7 1 3

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    16/52

    The second o the two indicators

    chosen to represent health in the

    earliest stage o lie is the prevalence

    o low birth weight (Figure 2.1a). This

    is a well-established measure o

    increased risk to lie and health in the

    early days and weeks o lie, but has

    also been associated with a greater risk

    to cognitive and physical development

    throughout childhood. It may also

    speak to wider issues in that low birth

    weight is known to be associated with

    the mothers health and socio-

    economic status. Mothers whose own

    diets have been poor in their teenage

    years and in pregnancy, or who smokeor drink alcohol in pregnancy, are

    signicantly more likely to have low

    birth weight babies. This indicator

    thereore also refects the well-being

    o mothers a critical actor or

    virtually all aspects o child well-being.

    Immunization

    The second component selected or

    the assessment o child health is the

    national immunization rate, refecting

    not only the level o protection

    against vaccine preventable diseases

    but also the comprehensiveness o

    preventative health services or

    children.7 Immunization levels also

    serve as a measure o national

    commitment to primary health careor all children (Article 24 o the

    Convention on the Rights o the Child).

    Figure 2.2 ranks 25 OECD countries

    by the percentage o children aged

    between 12 and 23 months who have

    received immunization against

    measles, polio, and diphtheria,

    pertussis and tetanus (DPT3). Overall,

    it shows high levels o coverage with

    no country alling below an average

    rate o 80%. But in the case o

    immunization the standard must

    surely be set at a very high level

    indeed. Vaccination is cheap, eective,

    sae, and oers protection against

    several o the most common and

    serious diseases o childhood (and

    ailure to reach high levels oimmunization can mean that herd

    immunity or certain diseases will not

    Figure 2.1b l birth eight rate

    (% births ess than 2500g)

    Dimension 2 Health and saety

    Israel

    Slovenia

    Russian Federation

    Malta

    Croatia

    Latvia

    Lithuania

    Estonia

    Japan

    Non-OECD Nations

    Hungary

    Greece

    United States

    United Kingdom

    Portugal

    Austria

    Spain

    Germany

    France

    Czech Republic

    Switzerland

    Italy

    Belgium

    Australia

    New Zealand

    Poland

    Canada

    Denmark

    Netherlands

    Norway

    Ireland

    Sweden

    Finland

    Iceland

    OECD Nations

    Date: 2003, 2002 (Australia, Canada, Greece, Switzerland), 2001 (Spain, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands),

    1995 (Belgium). Non-OECD 2001, 2000 (Croatia).

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    Figure 2.1a Inant mrtait rate

    (deaths bere the age 12 mnths per 1000 ie births)

    Russian Federation

    Latvia

    Lithuania

    Estonia

    Croatia

    Malta

    Israel

    Slovenia

    Hungary

    Non-OECD Nations

    United States

    Poland

    New Zealand

    Canada

    United Kingdom

    Ireland

    Netherlands

    Greece

    Australia

    Austria

    Denmark

    Switzerland

    Italy

    Belgium

    Germany

    Spain

    Portugal

    France

    Czech Republic

    Norway

    Sweden

    Finland

    Japan

    Iceland

    OECD Nations

    Date: 2003, 2002 (Canada and the USA), 2001 (New Zealand). Non-OECD 2003

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

    1 I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    17/52

    be achieved and that many more

    children will all victim to disease).

    Furthermore, immunization rates may

    have broader signicance in as much

    as the small dierences in levels may

    be indicative o the eort made by

    each nation to 'reach the unreached

    and provide every child, and

    particularly the children o

    marginalized groups, with basic

    preventative health services.

    Had adequate data been available, the

    percentage o inants who are breast-

    ed up to six months o age wouldalso have been included in this picture

    o child health in the rst year o lie.

    Apart rom its unrivalled nutritional

    and immunological advantages in the

    earliest months, breast milk has also

    been associated with long-term

    advantages rom improved cognitive

    development to reduced risk o heart

    disease. The percentage o inants

    being breast-ed in each country

    might also be interpreted as an

    indicator o the extent to which the

    results o todays health research are

    put at the disposal o, and adopted by,

    the public at large. Unortunately

    denitional problems and a lack o

    data or the majority o OECD

    countries led to the exclusion o thisindicator (though it is worth noting in

    passing that available data on at least

    partial breast-eeding at the age o six

    months show unusually wide

    variations across the OECD rom a

    high o 80% in Norway to a low o

    just over 10% in Belgium).

    Saety

    The third and nal component used

    to assess child health and saety is the

    rate o deaths among children and

    young people caused by accidents,

    murder, suicide, and violence.

    Although this bundles together risks

    o very dierent kinds, it nonetheless

    serves as an approximate guide to

    overall levels o saety or a nations

    young people.

    Drawing on the World Health

    Organizations mortality database,

    Figure 2.3 ranks 25 OECD countries

    according to the annual number o

    deaths rom such causes or every

    100,000 people in the 0-19 age group.

    As deaths at this age are thankully

    rare, random year-on-year variations

    have been smoothed by averaging the

    statistics over the latest three years or

    which data are available.

    Four countries Sweden, United

    Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Italy

    can be seen to have reduced the

    incidence o deaths rom accidents and

    injuries to the remarkably low level o

    ewer than 10 per 100,000. O the

    other OECD countries, all but two

    are recording rates o ewer than 20

    per 100,000.

    These gures represent rapid and

    remarkable progress; over the last 30

    years, child deaths by injury in OECD

    countries have allen by about 50%.8

    Nonetheless, some countries have

    clearly achieved higher standards o

    child saety than others and the

    dierences are signicant. I all OECD

    countries had the same child injury

    death rate as Sweden, or example,

    then approximately 12,000 child

    deaths a year could be prevented. As is

    Date: Measles data , all countries (2003), Pol3 and DPT3 data, all countries (2002)

    70 75 80 85 90 95 100

    Slovenia

    Malta

    Israel

    Croatia

    Russian Federation

    Estonia

    Lithuania

    Latvia

    Austria

    Non-OECD Nations

    Ireland

    New Zealand

    Belgium

    United Kingdom

    Greece

    Norway

    Switzerland

    Italy

    Canada

    Germany

    Japan

    United States

    Iceland

    Australia

    France

    Spain

    Portugal

    Finland

    Sweden

    Netherlands

    Denmark

    Poland

    Czech Republic

    Hungary

    OECD Nations

    Figure 2.2 Percentage chidren age 12-23 mnths immunized against the

    majr accine-preentabe diseases

    Dimension 2 Health and saety

    I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7 1 5

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    18/52

    so oten the case, the likelihood o a

    child being injured or killed is

    associated with poverty, single-

    parenthood, low maternal education,

    low maternal age at birth, poor

    housing, weak amily ties, and parental

    drug or alcohol abuse.9

    Omissions

    There are important omissions in this

    picture o child health and saety. In

    particular, some direct indicator o

    childrens mental and emotional health

    would have been a valuable addition.

    National suicide rates among

    adolescents were considered, but the

    research suggests that suicide is more

    to be seen as a rare event related to

    particular circumstance than as an

    indicator o overall mental health

    among a nations young people.

    The overview would also have

    beneted rom some indicator o the

    level o child abuse and neglect in

    each nation. The lack o common

    denitions and research

    methodologies, plus inconsistencies

    between countries in the current

    classication and reporting o child

    abuse, have or the moment ruled out

    this possibility. Report Card 5

    (September 2003) reported that a

    small group o OECD countries

    Dimension 2 Health and saety

    Date: 1993-1995 (Finland, Hungary, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway), 1994-1996 (Poland, Sweden), 1995-1997 (Australia, Belgium,

    Germany), 1996-1998 (Spain, US), 1997-1999 (Canada, France, New Zealand, UK), 1999-2001 (Austria, Ireland, Italy, Portugal), 2000-2002

    (Switzerland, Greece). Non-OECD: Israel (2003), Russian Federation (2000-2002) Lithuania (1995-97), Estonia, Slovenia (1994-96), Latvia

    (1993-95), Malta, Croatia (1992-94).

    0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

    Israel

    Russian Federation

    Latvia

    Estonia

    Lithuania

    Slovenia

    Croatia

    Malta

    New Zealand

    Non-OECD Nations

    United States

    Portugal

    Czech Republic

    Poland

    Hungary

    Belgium

    Australia

    Austria

    Ireland

    Finland

    Canada

    Greece

    Germany

    Norway

    Japan

    France

    Switzerland

    Spain

    Iceland

    Italy

    Netherlands

    United Kingdom

    Sweden

    OECD Nations

    Figure 2.3 Deaths rm accidents and injuries per 100,000 under 19 ears

    (aerage atest three ears aaiabe)

    Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland and

    Norway have the lowest rates o

    child death rom maltreatment. Once

    again, the risk actors most closely and

    consistently associated with child

    abuse and neglect are poverty, stress,

    and parental drug and alcohol abuse.

    In total, approximately 3,500 children

    (under the age o 15) die every year in

    the OECD countries rom

    maltreatment, physical abuse, and

    neglect. Trac accidents, drownings,

    alls, res and poisoning carry this

    total to more than 20,000 child deaths

    each year.10 These may not be large

    gures in relation to the total

    populations o young people in theOECD countries. But as Report Card

    2 argued in 2001, such gures need to

    be read in the light o the

    unimaginable anguish and grie o the

    amilies concerned, and o the act

    that the number o deaths is but the

    tip o an iceberg o trauma and

    disability.

    1 I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    19/52

    Dimension 2 Health and saety

    Two o the sources drawn upon extensively in this Report Card are the OECD

    Programme or International Student Assessment (PISA) and the World Health

    Organizations survey oHealth Behaviour in School-age Children (HBSC) 2001.

    HBSC 2001

    For more than 20 years, the World Health Organization

    surveyHealth Behaviour in School-age Children (HBSC)has inormed and inuenced health policy and health

    promotion by collecting inormation on such topics as

    amily resources and structure, peer interaction, risk

    behaviours, subjective health, sexual health, physical

    activity, and eating and sel-care habits. The latest

    HBSC survey was conducted in 2001 and included 21

    OECD countries in its total o 35 nations (Australia,

    New Zealand, Japan and Iceland did not take part).

    In each participating country, HBSC uses cluster survey

    techniques to select 1,500 young people at each o

    three ages 11, 13, and 15 years. Consistent

    procedures are ollowed to ensure the comparability o

    survey methods and data processing techniques.

    Trained administrators are present in the classroom or

    the administration o all questionnaires.

    HBSC data have contributed to various dimensions o

    this overview, including childrens material well-being,

    childrens relationships, behaviours, and subjective

    well-being.

    *Results rom the 200 PISA were not available in time to be

    included in this overview.

    Sources:

    Adams, R. & Wu, M., (eds.) (2002)PISA 2000Technical Report.

    Paris, OECD.

    Currie, C., et al (eds.) (200) Young Peoples Health in Context.

    Health Behaviour in School-age Children Study (HBSC):

    International Report rom the 2001/2002 Study. WHO Regional

    Ofce or Europe.

    HBSC (2005)Health Behaviour in School-aged Children Website

    (http://www.hbsc.org/index.html), November 2005.

    OECD (200)Learning or Tomorrows World: First Results romPISA 2003. Paris, OECD.

    PISA and HBSC

    PISA

    Beginning in 2000, the PISA is conducted every three

    years with the objective o assessing young peoplesknowledge and lie-skills in economically developed

    countries.* The our main areas o assessment are:

    reading, mathematics and science literacy

    study and learning practices

    amily resources and structure (including pupils

    own perspectives o their school-lie and peers)

    the organization o schools and school

    environments.

    Year 2000 data were collected or 3 countries,

    including all o the countries eatured in this study. In

    its second wave (2003), PISA collected data or 1

    countries. PISA 2003 also included a new assessment

    o problem solving skills.

    Data are collected rom nationally representative

    samples o the school population at around the age o

    15 (the end o compulsory schooling in most

    countries). Schools are sampled on the basis o size

    with a random sample o 35 pupils or each school

    chosen. Total sample sizes are usually between ,000

    and 10,000 pupils per country .

    To ensure comparability, data collection systems

    employ standardized translation and assessment

    procedures and a collection window is set to ensure

    that data are collected at comparable times in the

    school year. Where response rates are low, PISA

    administrators work with schools and national project

    managers to organize ollow-up sessions. During each

    PISA round, international monitors review both the

    national centres and visit at least 25% o the selected

    schools in each country to ensure quality and

    consistency o data collection procedures.

    PISA data have contributed to various dimensions o

    this overview, including material well-being,

    educational well-being, subjective well-being, andchildrens relationships.

    I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7 1 7

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    20/52

    E D U C A T I o N A l w E l l - B E I N G

    Dimension 3

    80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

    Portugal

    Italy

    Austria

    France

    United Kingdom

    Greece

    Spain

    New Zealand

    Switzerland

    Hungary

    United States

    Iceland

    Norway

    Germany

    Czech Republic

    Denmark

    Ireland

    Australia

    Netherlands

    Sweden

    Finland

    Poland

    Canada

    Belgium

    CoMPoNENTS INDICAToRS

    schachieementat age 15

    aerage achieement in readingiterac

    aerage achieement in

    mathematica iterac

    aerage achieement in science

    iterac

    bend basics percentage aged 15-19remaining in educatin

    the transitin tempment

    percentage aged 15-19 nt in

    educatin, training r

    empment

    percentage 15 ear-ds

    expecting t nd -skied

    rk

    Assessing educational well-beingThe table on the right shows how childrens

    educational well-being has been assessed. The

    choice o individual indicators reects the availability

    o internationally comparable data.

    For each indicator, countries have been given a score

    showing how ar that country stands above or below

    the average or the countries under review. Where

    more than one indicator has been used, scores have

    been averaged. In the same way, the three

    component scores have been averaged to arrive at

    each countrys overall rating or childrens

    educational well-being (see box on page 5). Educatinawe-being

    Dimension 3 Educational wel l -being

    Figure 3.0 The educational well-being of children, an OECD overview

    The eague tabe be attempts t sh each cuntrs perrmance in chidrens educatina e-being in reatin t the aerage r

    the oECD cuntries under reie. Scres gien are aerages the scres r the three cmpnents seected t represent chidren's

    educatina e-being (see bx be).

    This erie tabe is scaed t sh each cuntrs distance abe r be the oECD aerage 100.

    1 8 I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    21/52

    Dimension 3 Educational wel l -being

    Childrens educational well-being

    A measure o overall child well-being

    must include a consideration o how

    well children are served by the

    education systems in which so large a

    proportion o their childhood is spent

    and on which so much o their uture

    well-being is likely to depend. Ideally

    such a measure would refect the

    extent to which each country is living

    up to its commitment to Article 29 othe Convention on the Rights o the

    Childwhich calls orthe development

    o the childs personality, talents and

    mental and physical abilities to their

    ullest potential.

    Figure 3.0 brings together the three

    dierent components chosen to

    represent educational well-being into

    an OECD overview. Belgium and

    Canada head the table. The United

    Kingdom, France and Austria join the

    our Southern European countries at

    the oot o the rankings. But perhaps

    the most remarkable result is recorded

    by Poland which takes third place in

    the table despite being, by some

    margin, the poorest country out o the

    24 countries listed (with a per capita

    GDP11 o less than hal that o the

    only two countries ranking higher in

    the table).

    Achievement

    The rst component chosen to

    represent educational well-being is

    young people's educational

    achievements in reading, maths and

    science. This is made possible by the

    OECDs Programme o International

    Student Assessment (PISA) which sets

    out to measure, every three years, theextent to which education systems in

    participating countries are preparing their

    students to become lielong learners and

    to play constructive roles as citizens in

    society. 12 To complete this survey

    approximately 250,000 students in 41

    countries are given a two-hour

    examination designed to measure their

    abilities in reading, maths and science.

    The examination is set by an

    international expert group, including

    both employers and educationalists, andis based on the ability to apply basic

    literacy, numeracy, and scientic skills

    to the management o everyday lie.

    Figure 3.1 combines the results into an

    overall league table o school

    achievement.

    Some salient eatures:

    Finland, Canada, Australia, and

    Japan head the table.

    Four southern European countries

    Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal

    occupy the bottom our places.

    Norway and Denmark, usually

    outstanding perormers in league

    tables o social indicators, are to be

    ound in 18th and 19th places

    respectively.

    The Czech Republic ranks

    comortably above the majority o

    OECD countries, including many

    o its larger and wealthier

    European neighbours.

    Date: 2003

    -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

    Greece

    Portugal

    Italy

    Spain

    United States

    Hungary

    Denmark

    Norway

    Austria

    Poland

    Germany

    Iceland

    France

    Czech Republic

    Ireland

    Sweden

    United Kingdom

    Switzerland

    Belgium

    New Zealand

    Netherlands

    Japan

    Australia

    Canada

    Finland

    Figure 3.1 Educatina achieement 15 ear-ds, an erie reading,

    mathematica and scientic iterac.

    I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7 1 9

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    22/52

    Ideally, an overview o educational

    well-being would also have included

    some measure o the extent to which

    dierent OECD countries prevent

    low-achieving pupils rom alling too

    ar behind the average level o

    achievement. This was the issue

    addressed in Report Card 4 (2002)

    which ound wide variations in

    educational disadvantage within the

    OECD countries. The same study also

    ound that high absolute standards o

    educational achievement are not

    incompatible with low levels o

    relative disadvantage i.e. the best

    education systems allow high-

    achieving pupils to ull their

    potential whilst not allowing others toall too ar behind.

    Beyond basic skills

    Those growing up in the OECD

    countries today ace a world in which

    managing the ordinary business o lie

    work and careers, amilies and homes,

    nance and banking, leisure and

    citizenship is becoming ever more

    complex. The corollary o this is that

    those with low skills and ew

    qualications ace a steepening incline

    o disadvantage. The basic literacy,

    maths and science skills measured in

    Figure 3.1 are the oundation or

    coping with these demands. But more

    advanced skills are increasingly

    necessary i young people are to cope

    well with the changing demands o

    labour markets. A measure o beyond

    basic skills is presented in Figure 3.2

    which shows the percentage o children

    who continue in education beyond the

    compulsory stages. Once again, the tophal o the table is captured by

    Northern European countries.

    Transition to employment

    How well young people manage the

    transition rom education to

    employment is the third component

    selected to represent educational

    well-being.

    Clearly the transition to paid work is

    dependent not only on skills and

    qualications acquired in school but

    also on the training and employment

    opportunities available thereater.

    Nonetheless, the transition to earning a

    living is one o the important outcomes

    o education and is a critical stage in

    the lie o almost every young person.

    Two complementary indicators have

    been chosen to represent that transition.

    The rst is the percentage o young

    people aged 15 to 19 in each countrywho are not in education, employment,

    or training (Figure 3.3a). The second is

    the percentage o young people in each

    country who, when asked what kind o

    job do you expect to have when you

    are about 30 years old?, replied by

    listing a job requiring low skills (Figure

    3.3b). Work requiring low skills is

    dened using an internationally

    standardized index and implies not

    requiring urther training or

    qualications.

    School leavers who are neither in

    training nor employment are clearly at

    greater risk o exclusion or

    marginalization. Figure 3.3a is thereore

    worrying or those countries at the

    oot o the table including France

    and Italy. High percentages o 15 year-

    olds expecting to be in low-skilledwork would also appear to be a cause

    or concern in labour markets where

    many low-skill jobs are under threat

    rom either outsourcing or

    technological innovation or both. In

    countries like France, Germany, and the

    United Kingdom, the proportion o

    young people not looking beyond low-

    skilled work is more than 30%. In the

    United States, it is less than 15%.

    Date: 2003. Non-OECD 2003, 2002 (Russian Federation).

    20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

    Russian Federation

    Israel

    New Zealand

    Non-OECD Nations

    Portugal

    United States

    United Kingdom

    Austria

    Italy

    Spain

    Australia

    Greece

    Iceland

    Switzerland

    Hungary

    Ireland

    Denmark

    Netherlands

    Norway

    Finland

    Sweden

    France

    Poland

    Germany

    Czech RepublicBelgium

    OECD Nations

    Figure 3.2 Percentage 15-19 ear-ds in u time r part time educatin

    Dimension 3 Educational wel l -being

    2 0 I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    23/52

    Date: 2003, 2002 (Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United States). Non-OECD: 2003,

    2002 (Israel).

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30

    Israel

    France

    Non-OECD Nations

    Italy

    Austria

    Finland

    United Kingdom

    Greece

    Portugal

    Switzerland

    Spain

    Belgium

    United States

    Hungary

    Australia

    Canada

    Czech Republic

    Ireland

    Germany

    Netherlands

    Iceland

    Sweden

    Poland

    Denmark

    OECD Nations

    Norway

    Figure 3.3a Percentage 15-19 ear-ds nt in educatin,

    training r empment

    Date: 2000

    0 10 20 30 40 50 60

    Israel

    Russian Federation

    Latvia

    Japan

    Non-OECD Nations

    France

    Switzerland

    Czech Republic

    United Kingdom

    Germany

    Netherlands

    Austria

    Iceland

    Hungary

    Norway

    Sweden

    Finland

    Spain

    Italy

    Australia

    New Zealand

    Ireland

    Canada

    Denmark

    Belgium

    Portugal

    Greece

    Poland

    United States

    OECD Nations

    Figure 3.3b Percentage pupis age 15 expecting t nd

    rk requiring skis

    Early childhood

    There is a glaring omission rom this

    attempt to build an overview picture

    o childrens educational well-being in

    the OECD countries.

    For several decades, educational

    research has consistently pointed to

    the act that the oundations or

    learning are constructed in the earliest

    months and years o lie and that the

    eort to give every child the best

    possible start needs to begin well

    beore the years o ormal education.

    This growing realization, combined

    with other changes such as the rapidly

    increasing participation o women in

    the workorce and the steep rise in

    the number o single-parent amilies,

    has made child care into one o the

    biggest issues acing both amilies andgovernments in the OECD countries

    today. By the same token, it must also

    be regarded as a major actor in

    childrens educational well-being.

    Unortunately, adequate and

    comparable data are not available to

    permit the quality and availability o

    child care in dierent countries to be

    included in this overview.

    International statistics are available

    showing the percentage o children

    aged 0 to 2 years who are in

    registered child care, but these data

    speak more to the availability o

    women or paid work and have

    nothing to say about the quality o the

    child care provided; nor do they

    address the current and considerable

    controversy about the benets o day

    care or children under the age o two.Ideally, data would have been included

    on day care or pre-school provision

    or 3-to-6 year-olds, and this

    represents an obvious area or uture

    improvements in this overview.

    On the question o how quality child

    care should be dened there is broad

    but vague agreement. The OECDs

    own review o child care services has

    described the essence o quality care

    as a stimulating close, warm and

    supportive interaction with children. A

    similar review in the United States has

    concluded that warm, sensitive and

    responsive interaction between caregiver

    and child is considered the cornerstone o

    quality a characteristic that is as

    dicult to dene and measure as it is

    to deliver.

    Dimension 3 Educational wel l -being

    I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7 2 1

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    24/52

    R E l A T I o N S H I P S

    Dimension 4

    75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

    United Kingdom

    United States

    Czech Republic

    Canada

    FinlandAustria

    Sweden

    Poland

    Germany

    France

    Greece

    Norway

    Denmark

    Spain

    Ireland

    Hungary

    Belgium

    SwitzerlandNetherlands

    Italy

    Portugal

    CoMPoNENTS INDICAToRS

    ami structure percentage chidren iing insinge-parent amiies

    percentage chidren iing in

    stepamiies

    amireatinships

    percentage chidren h

    reprt eating the main mea

    the da ith parents mre than

    nce a eek

    percentage chidren h

    reprt that parents spend time

    just taking t them

    peer reatinships percentage 11, 13 and 15ear-ds h reprt nding

    their peers kind and hepu

    Assessing young peoples relationshipsThe box on the right shows how the index o

    childrens relationships has been constructed. The

    indicators used reect the limited availability o

    internationally comparable data.

    For each indicator, countries have been given a score

    which reveals how ar that country stands above or

    below the average or the OECD countries under

    review. Where more than one indicator has been used,

    scores have been averaged. In the same way, the

    three component scores have been averaged to arrive

    at each countrys overall rating or this Relationships

    dimension o childrens well-being (see box on page 5). Rea

    tinships

    Dimension Relat ionships

    Figure 4.0 Young peoples family and peer relationships, an OECD overview

    The quait chidrens reatinships is as dicut t measure as it is critica t e-being. Nnetheess it as cnsidered t imprtant

    a actr t be mitted atgether and an attempt has therere been made t measure the quait ami and peer reatinships using

    data n ami structures, pus chidrens n ansers t sure questins. The tabe be shs each cuntrs apprximate standing

    in reatin t the aerage recrded r the oECD as a he.

    The tabe is scaed t sh each cuntrs distance abe r be the oECD aerage 100.

    2 2 I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    25/52

    Childrens relationships

    Relationships with amily and riends

    matter a great deal to children in the

    here and now, and are also important to

    long-term emotional and psychological

    development. Despite the obvious

    problems o denition and measurement,

    an attempt has thereore been made to

    capture something o this critical

    dimension o childrens well-being.

    From the limited data available, three

    components have been selected to

    represent this dimension amily

    structure, relationships with parents, and

    relationships with riends and peers.

    Figure 4.0 combines these into a

    tentative OECD overview o the

    relationships dimension o child well-

    being.

    Family structureThe use o data on the proportion o

    children living in single-parent amilies

    and stepamilies as an indicator o well-

    being may seem unair and insensitive.

    Plenty o children in two-parent amilies

    are damaged by their parents

    relationships; plenty o children in

    single-parent and stepamilies are

    growing up secure and happy. Nor can

    the terms single-parent amilies and

    stepamilies do justice to the many

    dierent kinds o amily unit that have

    become common in recent decades. But

    at the statistical level there is evidence to

    associate growing up in single-parent

    amilies and stepamilies with greater

    risk to well-being including a greater

    risk o dropping out o school, o

    leaving home early, o poorer health, o

    low skills, and o low pay. Furthermore

    such risks appear to persist even whenthe substantial eect o increased

    poverty levels in single-parent and

    stepamilies have been taken into

    account (although it might be noted

    that the research establishing these links

    has largely been conducted in the

    United States and the United Kingdom

    and it is not certain that the same

    patterns prevail across the OECD).

    It is in this context that Figures 4.1a

    and 4.1b present data rom 25 OECDcountries showing the proportion o

    children age 11, 13, and 15 in each

    country who are living either with a

    single-parent or in a stepamily.

    Both tables show rather dierent

    country groupings rom many o the

    Dimension Relat ionships

    other ranking tables in this report, with

    the Southern European countries

    dominating the top o the table. Overall,

    approximately 80% o children in the

    countries under review are living with

    both parents. But the range is

    considerable rom more than 90% in

    Greece and Italy to less than 70% in the

    United Kingdom and 60% in the

    United States.13

    Parental time

    In an attempt to get closer to the issue

    the quality o amily relationships

    Figures 4.2a and 4.2b oer a measure o

    how much time amilies devote to

    conversation and interaction with

    Date: 2001/02

    0 5 10 15 20 25

    Latvia

    Estonia

    Russian Federation

    Lithuania

    Israel

    Slovenia

    Croatia

    Malta

    United States

    Non-OECD Nations

    United Kingdom

    Sweden

    Denmark

    Norway

    Finland

    Canada

    Hungary

    Czech Republic

    Germany

    Switzerland

    Austria

    France

    Netherlands

    Ireland

    Poland

    Portugal

    Belgium

    Spain

    Greece

    OECD Nations

    Italy

    Figure 4.1a Percentage ung pepe iing in singe-parent amiies

    (age 11, 13 and 15)

    I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7 2 3

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    26/52

    Date: 2001/02

    0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

    Latvia

    Estonia

    Russian Federation

    Lithuania

    Israel

    Slovenia

    Croatia

    Malta

    United States

    Non-OECD Nations

    United Kingdom

    Denmark

    Sweden

    Norway

    Czech Republic

    Finland

    Canada

    France

    Germany

    Belgium

    Austria

    Hungary

    SwitzerlandNetherlands

    Portugal

    Ireland

    Spain

    Poland

    Italy

    Greece

    OECD Nations

    children. The data in these two tables

    draw on the previously mentioned

    Programme o International Student

    Assessment (PISA) which, in addition

    to testing or educational achievement,

    also asks a variety o questions about

    the home lives o the students who

    take part in the survey.

    Among those questions:

    In general, how oten do your parents

    eat the main meal with you around

    a table?

    In general, how oten do your parents

    spend time just talking to you?

    Figures 4.2a and 4.2b show what

    percentage o young people in each

    country answered these questions bychecking the box marked several

    times a week.

    Even in the lowest ranked countries,

    almost two-thirds o children still

    regularly eat the main meal o the day

    with their amilies, with France and

    Italy maintaining the tradition more

    tenaciously. But there are signicant

    dierences between the two tables. A

    much smaller number o children

    report talking regularly with their

    parents, with the proportion alling

    towards 50% in Germany, Iceland and

    Canada. The United Kingdom and the

    United States are to be ound in the

    top hal o the talking regularly table.

    Italy is the only OECD country to

    eature in the top level o both tables.

    Other data on this topic are availablerom the World Health Organizations

    study Health Behaviour in School-aged

    Children (HBSC). Among its ndings

    are that young people, and especially

    girls, nd it easier to talk to their

    mothers than to their athers and that

    diculty in communicating with

    parents rises signicantly between the

    ages o 11 and 15.

    Relationships with riendsRelationships outside the amily

    assume ever greater importance as

    Figure 4.1b Percentage ung pepe (age 11, 13 and 15) iing in stepamiies

    Date: 2000

    40 50 60 70 80 90 100

    Israel

    Latvia

    Russian Federation

    Finland

    Non-OECD Nations

    New Zealand

    United States

    United Kingdom

    Austria

    Greece

    Australia

    Canada

    Czech Republic

    Hungary

    Ireland

    Poland

    Germany

    Spain

    Sweden

    Denmark

    Japan

    Portugal

    Norway

    Belgium

    Switzerland

    Netherlands

    France

    Iceland

    Italy

    OECD Nations

    Figure 4.2a Percentage 15 ear-ds h eat the main mea the da ith

    their parents seera times per eek

    Dimension Relat ionships

    2 I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    27/52

    Date: 2000

    20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

    Israel

    Latvia

    Russian Federation

    Germany

    Non-OECD Nations

    Iceland

    Canada

    AustriaSwitzerland

    Poland

    Australia

    Sweden

    New Zealand

    Belgium

    Greece

    Spain

    Japan

    United Kingdom

    Ireland

    France

    Norway

    United States

    PortugalNetherlands

    Denmark

    Czech Republic

    Finland

    Italy

    Hungary

    OECD Nations

    Figure 4.2b Percentage 15 ear-ds hse parents spend time just taking t

    them seera times per eek

    children grow up. According to the

    World Health Organization Being liked

    and accepted by peers is crucial to young

    people's health and development, and

    those who are not socially integrated are

    ar more likely to exhibit diculties with

    their physical and emotional health. An

    attempt has thereore also been made to

    incorporate into this overview an

    indicator o childrens relationships with

    riends and contemporaries.

    Figure 4.3, drawing on the HBSC study,

    shows the results o surveying 11, 13

    and 15 year-olds in more than 30

    countries with the question do you nd

    your peers generally kind and helpul?.

    More than hal were able to answer 'yes'in every OECD country except the

    Czech Republic and the United

    Kingdom. Switzerland and Portugal top

    the table with scores o around 80%.

    These dierent sets o data attempt to

    represent a dimension o child well-

    being that is dicult to dene, measure,

    and compare across nations. In some

    individual OECD countries, however,

    more revealing inormation is becoming

    available. The United Kingdoms

    National Family and Parenting Institute,

    or example, has conducted surveys to

    estimate the number o children who

    could answer yes to questions such as:

    my parent/s are always there or me

    when I need them (76%)

    my parent/s make me eel loved and

    cared or (65%)

    I can talk to my parent/s about anyproblem which I may have (56%)

    my parent/s and I argue a lot (20%)

    my parent/s do not give me the

    attention I need (11%)

    my parent/s make me eel bad about

    mysel (7%)

    In the absence o such detailed data or

    other OECD countries, this attempt to

    include relationships in the overview

    o child well-being should be regarded

    as an initial step towards monitoring

    this dimension o child well-being.

    Dimension Relat ionships

    Date: 2001/02

    30 40 50 60 70 80 90

    Russian Federation

    Lithuania

    Latvia

    Estonia

    Israel

    Malta

    Croatia

    Slovenia

    United Kingdom

    Non-OECD Nations

    Czech Republic

    United States

    France

    Italy

    Spain

    Poland

    Greece

    Canada

    Hungary

    Ireland

    Belgium

    Finland

    Netherlands

    Denmark

    Norway

    Germany

    Sweden

    Austria

    Portugal

    Switzerland

    OECD Nations

    Figure 4.3 Percentage ung pepe age 11, 13 and 15 h nd their peers

    kind and hepu

    I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 7 2 5

  • 8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 7 - Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries

    28/52

    B E H A v I o U R S A N D R I S K S

    Dimension 5

    70 75 80 85 9590 100 110 115 120105

    United Kingdom

    United States

    Belgium

    Hungary

    Greece

    Austria

    France

    Canada

    Norway

    Portugal

    Italy

    Spain

    Switzerland

    Denmark

    Czech Republic

    Ireland

    Finland

    Germany

    Netherlands

    Poland

    Sweden

    CoMPoNENTS INDICAToRS

    heathbehaiurs

    percentage chidren h eat

    breakast

    percentage h eat ruit dai