1. S URVEY ON CHILD WELL - BEING INDICATORS IN I TALY Valerio Belotti Coordinator Italian Childhood and Adolescence Documentation and Analysis Centre

2. Public Policies and Data G OOD P OLICIES...... G OOD D ATA ? ( IT S EASY !) G OOD D ATA..... G OOD P OLICIES ? ( IT S HARD !)... I N I TALY

3. Public Policies and Data G OOD P OLICIES............ G OOD D ATA ? G OOD P OLICIES......

4. TRADITIONAL PERSPECTIVE T HE NATIONAL CENTRE FROM 1997 TO TODAY : Find basic data concerning children, lost in the institutional statistics Organise all the basic data and indicators in the traditional academic and socio- demographic categories 170 facts and indicators on-line

5. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED? ARE THEY USEFUL FOR TARGETED QUESTIONS ON A SPECIFIC THEME, ON A SPECIFIC PUBLIC POLICY (HOW MANY CHILDREN HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THEIR OWN FAMILIES ?) ARE THEY DIFFICULT FOR NON-EXPERTS TO CONSULT? T HE CONTEXTS IN WHICH THE DATA ARE COLLECTED ARE NOT MEANINGFUL FOR THE LIVES OF THE CHILDREN THEY DO NOT RESPOND TO THE OPINION MAKERS (WHO WANT STATISTICS IN SYNTHESIS (ARE THE CHILDREN BETTER OFF/WORSE OFF THAN BEFORE?) THEY DO NOT HIGHLIGHT THE BASIC DATA WHICH ARE MISSING OR ARE NOT COLLECTED THEY DO NOT HELP TO COMMUNICATE - TO BUILD A PUBLIC EVENT IN WHICH TO HIGHLIGHT THE CHILDRENS DAILY SITUATION

6. NEW OBJECTIVES Identify domains of meaning in which to aggregate the data and the indicators BUILD SYNTHETIC MEASURES TO MEASURE THE CHANGE IN THE CHILDRENS SOCIAL CONDITION Communicate synthetic and legible data to the mass media Contribute to highlighting in the public sphere the theme of childrens well-being Accompany public policies

7. Cfr. Crc 1989: 3P Bradshaw et al. 2007; 2008 Unicef-Irc 2007

8. I NDICATORS AND DIMENSIONS OF MEANING Indentification and calculation of the indicators AVAILABLE TODAY to distribute in the different dimensions of meaning

9. RESTRAINTS IN THE CHOICE OF INDICATORS: REFERRED DIRECTLY TO CHILDREN CONSISTENT IN THEIR RELATION BETWEEN THE INDICATOR AND THE MEANING OF THE DIMENSION AVAILABILITY IN TIME BOTH SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE PROVIDED BY THE INSTITUTIONAL SOURCES (I STAT, M INISTRIES, R EGIONS, C ENTRE, EU, WHO)

10. WELL-BEING CONTEXT NATIONAL R EGIONAL (n° 20) NATIONAL R EGIONAL (n° 20) NATURE OF INDICATORS AND TERRITORIES

11. D OMAIN OF MEANING AND INDICATORS Dimensions N° sub- dimensions N° Indicators N° only context N° well- being N° only national N° regional Relations and ties55520352134 Material well-being29 -963 Subjective well-being218 - - Social well-being172561 Time21521387 Health850248842 School inclusion6568481343 Safety and danger64715322621 Social and educational services66129321051 Social structure522 - - 10 dimensions43340100240116224

15. SYNTHESIS OF OBJECTIVES A. Changes over time B. Performances of the different regional welfare services

16. Regional welfare performances: procedures The general map is reduced in size and in the indicators References to a two or three-year period due to a lack of annual data Summary indexes of indicators built from z-scores Summary indexes not based on a simple average but on a pondered average based on correlation coefficients between the various indicators

18. Relazione familiari: Applicazione dei pesi agli z-scores z-scores Relazioni familiari Regioni % di 3- 10enni che giocano con il padre nei giorni festivi % di 3-10enni che giocano con la madre nei giorni festivi % di 3-17enni che hanno genitori che non sono mai attenti ai programmi televisivi. videocassette/dvd visti dai figli % figli minori con affidamento congiunto e/o alternato (condiviso dal 2006) nelle separazioni % figli minori con affidamento congiunto e/o alternato (condiviso dal 2006) nei divorzi Figli affidati nelle separazioni per 1.000 minori residenti Figli affidati nei divorzi per 1.000 minori residenti % di assenso all'interruzione volontaria di gravidanza da parte dei genitori (2003) wkwk 0.790.711.760.990.560.580.572.04 media pesata media semplice Piemonte 0.790.841.150.520.30-1.170.370.4290.23 Valle d'Aosta 0.631.170.38-0.790.99-1.71-1.211.890.4920.17 Lombardia 0.930.811.421.031.11-0.27-0.370.200.6880.61 Trentino-Alto Adige 0.580.96-0.39-0.43-0.28-0.32-0.481.210.2350.11 Veneto 0.190.170.880.931.190.620.15-0.760.2870.42 Friuli-Venezia Giulia 1.511.310.150.430.45-0.77-0.280.1820.22 Liguria 0.340.051.111.721.01-1.96-2.37-0.350.167-0.06 Emilia-Romagna 0.820.74-1.210.971.53-0.07-0.481.770.5210.51 Toscana 0.280.23-0.351.001.19-0.57-0.370.240.1730.21 Umbria -0.60-0.73-0.890.83-0.220.280.36-0.57-0.334-0.19 Marche -0.45-0.161.380.890.970.18-0.270.840.6300.42 Lazio 0.890.56-1.39-0.60-0.07-1.07-0.48-1.82-0.824-0.50 Abruzzo 1.261.05-0.98-0.43-0.47-0.12-0.06-0.73-0.285-0.06 Molise -0.090.400.560.62-0.530.870.89-1.95-0.1810.10 Campania -1.17-1.26-1.48-1.61-1.241.121.200.38-0.575-0.51 Puglia -1.13-1.251.56-1.46-1.471.171.20-0.75-0.184-0.27 Basilicata -1.44-1.53-0.30-0.85-1.031.421.520.51-0.180-0.21 Calabria -1.88-1.77-0.26-0.41-1.401.521.20-0.27-0.421-0.41 Sicilia -1.54-1.49-0.94-1.33-1.010.520.99-0.23-0.675-0.63 Sardegna 0.11-0.10-0.39-1.05-1.010.330.570.30-0.145-0.16 Relazioni familiari: Z-scores e Pesi 2005-2006

19. Family relations: 2 classifications 2005-06 RankRegionsPondered averageRankRegionsSimple average 1Lombardy0.6881Lombardy0.608 2Marches0.6302Emilia-Romagna0.509 3Emilia-Romagna0.5213Veneto0.422 4Valle d'Aosta0.4924Marches0.421 5Piedmont0.4295Piedmont0.225 6Veneto0.2876Friuli-Venezia Giulia0.224 7Trentino-Alto Adige0.2357Tuscany0.207 8Friuli-Venezia Giulia0.1828Valle d'Aosta0.166 9Tuscany0.1739Trentino-Alto Adige0.106 10Liguria0.16710Molise0.097 11Sardinia-0.14511Liguria-0.056 12Basilicata-0.18012Abruzzi-0.060 13Molise-0.18113Sardinia-0.156 14Apulia-0.18414Umbria-0.195 15Abruzzi-0.28515Basilicata-0.213 16Umbria-0.33416Apulia-0.266 17Calabria-0.42117Calabria-0.409 18Campania-0.57518Latium-0.497 19Sicily-0.67519Campania-0.507 20Latium-0.82420Sicily-0.628

20. Final regional classifications 2005-2006 Relations and ties Material well- being Health School inclusion Safety and danger ConsumptionServices Average positions Region E 35113512 7.29 Region H 2661417337.29 Region D 1139914247.43 Region C 14165131067.86 Region K 8135178148.00 Region F 6104616798.29 Region I 7142811988.43 Region J 182102121328.43 Region A 10912319659.14 Region M 1517 85169.57 Region B 1412151964110.14 Region L 4720410111510.14 Region N 5113174 1810.71 Region R 13178103161311.43 Region G 1981712201712.00 Region P 9181479181713.14 Region Q 171611181191013.14 Region O 122013162152014.00 Region T 1615181115141114.29 Region S 2019 2018201919.29

21. Objective B. Changes over time : ….. We are still in the analysis phase …. Our intention is to establish, with a jury of experts, some (few) indicators for each of the dimensions of meaning and to propose annual variations ….

22. Problems and Opportunities We are still far from an ideal map, but we are beyond a simple starting point. Perhaps there is no other social condition in which, in Italy, there are so many regional indicators. Thanks to the impetus given by the Crc 89 Various indicators are available at a national level The continuous increase in surveys hinders comparison between different time periods The evident lack of some indicators serves to legitimate and promote specific statistical surveys Some indicators do not adequately represent certain dimensions of meaning (we need the courage to remove some of them) It is necessary to reinforce the monitoring/process evaluation of the policies in order to have more stringent and consistent indicators

23. Public Policies and Data... GOOD POLICIES ARE NEEDED TO PRODUCE GOOD DATA........ AS WELL AS SOCIAL RESEARCHERS OF COURSE, BUT THE QUESTION OF POLICIES IS ANOTHER MATTER!