Child poverty and wellbeing in the EU Seminar

Child poverty and wellbeing in the EU Seminar on child well-being Florence 29/01/2009 Isabelle Engsted-Maquet DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities

Structure of presentation I. II. Indicators in the context of the EU social inclusion strategy 2007 report on child poverty and well-being Part 1: Child poverty: Benchmarking based on crosscountry analysis Part 2 & 3: Enhancing the monitoring of child poverty and well-being at EU level III. Next Steps

I - OMC how does it work? • Political agreement on common objectives • Establishing common indicators • Translating the EU objectives into national/regional policies (National Reports on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion) • Common analysis and assessment of the National Reports : Joint Report + supporting document • PROGRESS to promote policy cooperation and transnational exchange of learning and good practice.

I – Development and use of indicators • In the OMC context, indicators are developed – Collectively, Empirically and on the basis of expertise (Indicator’s Sub. Group of Social Protection Committee) – Criteria for selecting indicators, Typology • They measure both – Performance and outcomes – Impact of policies that are supposed to influence social cohesion • How are they used? – using a common framework for diagnosis and setting priorities – comparing best practice – measuring progress and targeting • Where? – By MS in the National Strategy Reports – Joint Report (Supporting documents) – Commission web-site: http: //ec. europa. eu/employment_social/spsi/common_indicators_en. htm

I – The Social inclusion portfolio 1. At Risk of poverty rate (60% of median) + poverty thresholds 2. Persistent at risk of poverty rate (2 out of 3 years in poverty) 3. Relative median poverty risk gap: Distance between median income of the poor and the poverty threshold 4. Long term unemployment rate 5. Population living in jobless households 6. Early school leavers 7. Employment gap of migrants 8. Material deprivation (to be developed) 9. Housing (to be developed) 10. Self-declared unmet need for care 11. Child well-being

The SPC report on child poverty and child well-being 1. in-depth evaluative review of child poverty and social exclusion across EU countries; => diagnosis of main causes of poverty 2. review of existing monitoring arrangements in the Member States; 3. 15 recommendations for analysing and monitoring child poverty and social exclusion at EU and national level http: //ec. europa. eu/employment_social/spsi/docs/social_inclusion/20 08/child_poverty_en. pdf

Part 1: Evaluative review What we can do with the already agreed indicators • Child relative income poverty outcomes • 3 main factors: how they impact on child income poverty – Socio-demographic characteristics of household (Size and composition, age and educational attainment of parents) – Labour market situation of parents (Employment rates of parents, Children living in jobless households, In-work poverty) – Governement intervention (Tax-benefit system, Child care) • Other dimensions of children social exclusion – Material deprivation (incl. Housing) – Educational outcome (Early school leavers, PISA, SILC module on intergenerational transmission of disadvantage) – Focus on children with a migrant background

Diagnosis on child poverty In-work poverty Impact of social transfers + + ++ ++ CY +++ + DK +++ ++ FI +++ +++ NL + + SE + (++) ++ ++ SI ++ +++ ++ BE GROUP B Children in jobless households AT GROUP A Child poverty risk outcomes + -- +++ + CZ - -- + + DE ++ -- +++ EE -- -- + - FR ++ - ++ ++ IE - --- + + SK - --- + +

Diagnosis on child poverty In-work poverty Impact of social transfers HU --- - + MT - -- -- - UK -- -- +++ -- --- ES GROUP D Children in jobless households EL GROUP C Child poverty risk outcomes --- + --- IT --- ++ --- -- LT --- + -- -- LU -- +++ -- + LV --- -- PL --- -- PT -- + -- --

4 Country groupings according to main determinant of poverty • Group A (AT, CY, DK, FI, NL, SE, SI): countries performing well on all fronts achieve lowest poverty rates. They need to continue monitoring child poverty, since in some of them it has recently increased. • Group B (BE, CZ, DE, FR, EE, IE): countries with high numbers of children living in jobless households. Policies aimed at making work pay and at enhancing access to quality jobs for those parents furthest away from the labour market are needed.

4 Country groupings according to main determinant of poverty • Group C (HU, MT, SK, UK): countries with high levels of joblessness and in-work poverty among parents. Child poverty partly alleviated through relatively efficient transfers, or because of strong family structures. Policy mixes needed to enhance labour market access for parents in jobless households' and second earners and to provide adequate in-work income support. • Group D (EL, ES, IT, LV, LT, LU, PL, PT): countries with high levels of child poverty, very high levels of inwork poverty and low impact of social transfers. They need to adopt comprehensive strategies to better support families’ income and enhance labour market situation of parents, especially for second earners.

Part 2: CHILD WELL BEING Review of existing monitoring • Review of existing tools for measuring child poverty and child well-being; focus on tools used for policy analysis/monitoring at country level (analysis of questionnaires) – Sources – Indicators and the dimensions of well-being – In-depth review of governance and monitoring arrangements in 8 selected countries; identification of good practices – Other issues

Part 2: CHILD WELL BEING Data sources • Overall household surveys – Household budget survey, Living conditions and Labour force surveys; Health interview surveys • Administrative sources – Important statistical tool in the monitoring of child poverty and well-being in most countries • Special surveys on children. – Longitudinal: DK, DE, FR, IE, FI, UK – Specific topics: FR, IT, AT, SE, UK – Children as respondents: DK, SE, UK • Data sources on children in vulnerable situation – Children in foster care, in institutions, with special needs, etc • Micro-simulation tools • International surveys

Part 2: CHILD WELL BEING Indicators and the dimensions of well-being • • Economic security and material situation Housing Local environment Health Education Social relationships and family environment Exposure to risk and risk behaviour The situation of vulnerable children

Part 2: Indicators of child well-being Use in policy context • None of the countries cover all the dimensions of child well-being proposed in our mandate; • Almost all the countries have covered the dimensions of ‘income child poverty’ and ‘education’; • Few countries have covered the dimension of ‘local environment’ and ‘social relationships and family environment’; • Some countries have covered policy areas that were not foreseen in our mandate, such as ‘social services and infrastructures’, as well as ‘state expenses in social programmes supporting families with children’.

Part 2: Indicators of child well-being 10 in depth country reviews • How the monitoring system actually works • How it is integrated in the policy making • 8 countries selected: – DK, IE, IT, HU, PT, RO, FI, UK • What is the value added of the monitoring system in the policy making • Key features – Coordination across policy fields to address the multidimensional nature of child poverty and social exclusion – Complex awareness raising process (NGOs, researchers, international benchmaking, etc. )

Part 2: Indicators of child well-being 10 in depth country reviews • Knowledge building – Enhancing statistical capacity – Investing in long-term research programmes – Investing in analytical tools • Making the link between researchers, analysts and policy makers – Policy recommendations emerging from research findings – Reporting tools • Making the link between policy measures and outcomes – Hierarchy of indicators – Use of targets – Micro-simulation models and other analytical tools

Part 3: 15 Recommendations for better monitoring child poverty and well-being Rec. 1: Setting targets at national level for the reduction of child poverty based on a diagnosis of the causes of poverty in this country. Rec. 2: Impact assessment (micro-simulation models) Rec. 3 to 6: Monitoring child poverty and well-being within the OMC (NSR) and at national level, in relation to a common analytical framework, orientation for ISG work on child wellbeing Rec. 7 to 13: Statistical capacity building at EU and national level Rec. 14 and 15: Improving governance and monitoring arrangements at EU and national level (coordination, involving stakeholders, invest in research, invest in analytical tools)

III - Next Steps • Key policy messages endorsed by MS • Evaluation of the new national strategy reports using the diagnosis • Target setting: 2009 Commission staff working paper on child poverty • 2009 EU-SILC module on material deprivation includes • Indicator’s Subgroup work programme

Key policy messages endorsed by all Member States • Policies ensuring equal opportunities for all and improving educational outcomes for each child. • Fighting child poverty requires a combination of adequate income support, quality jobs for parents; and enabling services for children and their families. • The best performers combine universal support towards all children with measures targeted at the most disadvantaged • Efforts to tackle poverty will gain leverage from an evidencebased diagnosis of the main causes of poverty and exclusion in each Member State. • Quantified objectives can be instrumental in making a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty

Possible impact of the EU benchmarking exercise on child poverty • At EU level: • Agreed analytical framework, based on common EU indicators increases the legitimacy and transparency of the EU diagnosis • identifying the main causes of child poverty in each country helps improving policy priorities • At national level • benchmarking the performance of each country against that of countries sharing the same challenges • better appreciation of the true magnitude of those challenges and can signal emerging trends • Facilitates mutual learning

Eurostat/ISG work on material deprivation • Main obstacle to a material deprivation indicator: choice of items in EU-SILC • TF to propose amendments to EU-SILC (2011 -12) • 2009 SILC module: test 50 material deprivation items – Of which approximately 20 child specific material deprivation items • Selection of items based on – Eurobarometer consensus survey (Spring 07) – Experts views + views of those experiencing poverty – Analysis of incidence (current SILC + national data)

SILC 2009 module on Material deprivation • Can you tell me whether all the children in your household have or can do the following? - Yes - No, can’t afford - No, other reason – Some new (not second hand) clothes – – – – Two pairs of properly-fitting shoes (including a pair of all-weather shoes) Fresh fruits and vegetables once a day 3 meals a day of which at least one with meat, chicken, or fish (or vegetarian equivalent) Children books at home Outdoor leisure equipment (bicycle, roller skates…) Indoor games (educational baby toys, building blocks, board games, computer games, …)

SILC 2009 module on Material deprivation • Can you tell me whether all the children in your household have or can do the following? - Yes - No, can’t afford - No, other reason – (participate in) a regular leisure activity (swimming, playing an instrument, youth organisations, etc) – Celebrations on special occasions (birthdays, name days, religious events) – Invite friends round to play and eat from time to time – Participate in school trips and school events that cost money – Go on holiday at least 1 week per year – Regular dental check-ups

SILC 2009 module on Material deprivation • And, do all children in your household have? - Yes - Not applicable – A suitable place to study or do homework – An outdoor space in the neighbourhood where they can play safely • Was there any time during the past 12 months when 1 the children in your household really needed to consult a doctor but did not? - Yes, there was at least 1 occasion - Couldn’t afford - Too far to travel - No, there was no occasion - Waiting list too long - other reason • Idem “to consult a dentist” • Idem “to buy medicine or medical equipment”

2009 ISG work programme • a) reflect on how to complement the existing EU indicators with derived indicators and statistics that better reflect the situation of households with children; • b) take account of the child dimension when developing indicators of material deprivation and housing; • c) develop one or several child well-being indicators to cover the important dimensions of child well-being that are still missing or not satisfactorily covered in the EU framework (health, exposure to risk and risk behaviour, education, social participation and family environment, and local environment); • d) make recommendations on how to best monitor the living conditions of children in vulnerable situations.