Transcript Childcare services in OECD countries – The OECD Family

Selecting EU
indicators for child
well-being
Dominic Richardson
OECD Social Policy Division
Child Poverty Conference
Brussels 26/11/09
International frameworks of child
well-being
•
•
•
•
•
•
Data driven
Selects policy amenable indicators
Inform over advocacy
Maximises country coverage
Minimises time lags
Multidimensional, but each select
different dimensions
• The use of composites
Goal-focussed approach
• What are the indicators for?
– Which children?
– For what purpose?
• What are the constraints?
– International agreement
– Statistical capacity
– Collection methods
– Cultural concerns
How is the EU collection
unique?
• Regular monitoring of OMC targets
– Policy amenable
– EU standard for all children
• Limited set
– Catch-all indicators
• No composites
• Reduced set / broader set (good for the
why and how)
Problems with present
frameworks
•
•
•
•
Still too adolescent focussed
Not disaggregated by age, sex, ethnicity, etc.
Uses available data only
Missing info, e.g.
– Child protection and neglect/ Mental
health
• Prioritisation and proportionality
Selection of indicators within
dimensions
•
•
•
•
•
Child-centred
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Policy amenable
Country coverage and up-to-date data
Conceptually Complementary
– Rights vs. Development
– Equity and Efficiency
– Age coverage
Statistical coverage
Early (0-5 years)
Age
Sex
Migrant
Material well-being
Housing and
environment
Educational wellbeing
Health and safety
Risky behaviours
Quality of school
life
Age coverage
Mid (6 to 11 years)
Age
Sex
Migrant
Late (12 to 17 years)
Age
Sex
Migrant
Statistical coverage
Early (0-5 years)
Age
Sex
Migrant
Material well-being
Housing and
environment
Educational wellbeing
Health and safety
Risky behaviours
Quality of school
life
Age coverage
Mid (6 to 11 years)
Age
Sex
Migrant
Late (12 to 17 years)
Age
Sex
Migrant
Statistical coverage
Early (0-5 years)
Age
Sex
Migrant
Material well-being
Housing and
environment
Educational wellbeing
Health and safety
Risky behaviours
Quality of school
life
Age coverage
Mid (6 to 11 years)
Age
Sex
Migrant
Late (12 to 17 years)
Age
Sex
Migrant
Statistical coverage
Early (0-5 years)
Age
Sex
Migrant
Age coverage
Mid (6 to 11 years)
Age
Sex
Migrant
Late (12 to 17 years)
Age
Sex
Migrant
Material well-being
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
P
P
Housing and
environment
P
O
O
P
O
O
P
O
O
O
P
P
P
P
O
P
P
O
P
P
O
Educational wellbeing
Health and safety
P
P
O
P
P
O
Risky behaviours
Quality of school
life
P
P
O
Constraints to context and trend
analysis
Some concerns
• Data driven
• Surveys are not designed to cover:
– All children (by age, exclusions, school-based)
– All aspects of child well-being
• Bias will exist
• Access to the data (HBSC, ESPAD)
• Child poverty is not synonymous with child
well-being… well-being to well-becoming
• Threshold measures
Some methodological
suggestions (a wish list?)
• Theoretical / analytical frame not data
driven
• Annual, timely, long -term
• Validation testing / systematic bias
• Policy amenable but not malleable
• Avoid externalities / contradictions
• Life cycle /risk approach (front-end)
• Learn from child poverty (good and bad)
Some methodological
suggestions (a wish list?)
• Theoretical / analytical frame not data
driven
• Annual, timely, long -term
• Validation testing / systematic bias
• Policy amenable but not malleable
• Avoid externalities / contradictions
• Life cycle /risk approach (front-end)
• Learn from child poverty (good and bad)
More achievable
• Additional sources (EQLS, ESS, ICCS and
series data)
• Indicator classification (resource /
outcome distinction?)
• Begin the processes of:
– Review the quality of available “non-material”
data and sources
– Identify gaps
• Refined indicator checklist
More achievable
• Additional sources (EQLS, ESS, ICCS and
series data)
• Indicator classification (resource /
outcome distinction?)
• Begin the processes of:
– Review the quality of available “non-material”
data and sources
– Identify gaps
• Refined indicator checklist
Some indicator suggestions
• 2003: Teenage fertility, 2006: Child
poverty
• Across both frameworks
– Child mortality / Subjective life satisfaction /
Housing problems
•
•
•
•
Indicators to drop…
Indicators to keep…
New indicators?
Revisit selections