1. 1 The use of social inclusion indicators at EU level Technical seminar on the Revision of Poverty Indicators and Measures Dublin - 20/09/2005 Isabelle Engsted-Maquet DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities

2. 2 Outline The policy context: OMC on social inclusion, Streamlining, Refocused Lisbon, OMC evaluation, the new Sustainable Development Strategy The current Laeken list and the role and use of indicators Areas in development –recent developments –the example of material deprivation

3. 3 POLICY CONTEXT

4. 4 Fixing common objectives/guidelines for all Member States; Translating the common objectives/guidelines into national policies through NAPs; Establishing indicators and benchmarks as a means of comparing best practice; Periodic monitoring, evaluation and peer review The Open Method of Coordination

5. 5 Streamlining May 2003: Commission communication on streamlining the OMCs on inclusion and pensions to be implemented by 2006 The stated aim is: –To strengthen the social dimension of the Lisbon strategy; –ensure a positive interaction with the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines and the European Employment Strategy; –explore more fully the synergies between the different strands of work on social protection. Spring 2006: a new set of integrated common objectives covering social inclusion, pensions and health and long-term care;

6. 6 Refocused Lisbon Refocus Lisbon objectives on Employment and Growth –No direct and detailed focus on social protection and social inclusion issues –SI and SP issues have a role to play in some of the new Integrated Guidelines Reporting in the new Lisbon –Integrated guidelines on Growth and Jobs (Council June 2) –National Reform Programs (15 October 2005) –Commission Annual Progress Report (Spring 2006) "Next steps in implementing the revised Lisbon strategy", –OMC remains the main EU-level policy development tool on modernising social protection and fighting poverty and social exclusion; –Reporting and assessment procedures will continue in parallel ; –Reinforce streamlining exercise; –Feeding in: the conclusions from this work which are relevant to certain of the Integrated Guidelines should feed in the Revised Lisbon Strategy. SPC July 05: Social Inclusion process should keep high visibility

7. 7 Re-launch of the Sustainable Development Strategy SDS: provides a longer-term framework (beyond 2010) with environmental, economic and social dimensions 2 social components: –poverty and social exclusion –Ageing of the population February 2005: Commission communication on Sustainable Development Indicators June 2005: Declaration of high level guiding principles on which to base the renewed strategy The new strategy will comprise "targets, indicators and effective monitoring procedure → Review indicators list

8. 8 OMC evaluation – the question on indicators Q: Have indicators fulfilled their role in monitoring the progress achieved towards the common objectives? Have targets proved to be both feasible and effective in driving forward more ambitious policy reform? Strong support for the Laeken portfolio: emphasizes the need to reinforce statistical infrastructure in the social field Need to strengthen statistical capacity Areas for development: the usual ones Make better use of existing national data and indicators NGOs call for the use of targets, both at EU and national levels and for indicators reflecting participation in the society

9. 9 Conclusions Need to reflect on indicators in the new context –how to reflect properly the social inclusion objectives in the streamlined list –potential overarching indicators –how to reflect Social Inclusion in the more concise lists of indicators (Structural Indicators, Sustainable Development Indicators) –Continue to develop the Laeken portfolio

10. 10 INDICATORS

11. 11 Indicators and the Open Method of Coordination Common indicators are needed to monitor progress in combating poverty and social exclusion in a comparable way Given the different models of welfare state across the EU, they must be performance indicators, leaving policy indicators at national level Common indicators do not imply common policies

12. 12 The Laeken indicators The 2001 Laeken European Council endorsed a set of 18 primary and secondary common indicators of social exclusion and poverty… … covering key dimensions of social exclusion: financial poverty; employment; health; education … that need to be considered as a consistent whole MS are encouraged to supplement the common indicators with third-level indicators defined at national level. Further work by the ISG led to some new indicators.

13. 13 The methodological principles for the selection of indicators: Indicators must have a clear and accepted normative interpretation; they should be statistically robust and comparable across countries; they should be responsive to policy interventions; … and transparent and accessible to users; the portfolio of indicators must be balanced across different dimensions.

14. 14 Questions about relevance and data quality of the indicators How relevant are the indicators in the EU-25? What is the role of third-level indicators? How reliable are the EU data base currently in use, and will it be improved with the new EU-SILC? How crucial are they for social monitoring in the NAPs/inclusion? Do national targets reflect the commonly agreed indicators?

15. 15 The income poverty risk measure in the enlarged Europe Relatively narrow (but increasingly unequal) income distribution in the new Member States gives “flattering” image of their situation compared to the old EU-15 … but there is a huge gap in the average level of living standards between new and old MS … stressing the importance of assessing poverty and social exclusion across all the indicators.

16. 16 At-risk-of-poverty rate, total population, 2003

17. 17 At-risk-of-poverty threshold, 2 adults + 2 children households, 2003

18. 18 Early-school leavers, 2003

19. 19 Population in jobless households, 2004

20. 20 The use of the common indicators in the NAPs Inclusion The indicators proved generally useful for analysing the situation of poverty and social exclusion in the MS in a comparative perspective … but some MS preferred to use national indicators in the respect of their national monitoring traditions … the indicators were rarely used for policy monitoring or planning purposes → lack of a clear link between the common indicators and policies

21. 21 The use of tertiary (national) indicators in the NAPs Some MS used different definitions and/or alternative data sources for calculating the common indicators Some used alternative poverty measures (absolute, non-monetary, self-perceived…) e.g; consistent poverty in Ireland Highlighting the sub-national (regional, urban/rural) dimension of poverty and social exclusion Policy-related indicators Health and housing: important areas where national indicators are welcome

22. 22 The use of targets Why targets are important: –a significant political statement of purpose –a goal against which to measure progress –promoting awareness of social inclusion policies Types of targets –Policy performance –Policy effort The link between targets and indicators: based on common or national indicators 2 examples of target setting –Ireland: consistent poverty –UK: child poverty (relative low income)

23. 23 DEVELOPMENTS

24. 24 Developments (1) Consolidating the Laeken list Filling the gaps in the agreed indicators: Current gaps reflect a combination of data un-availability and lack of clear conceptual underpinning –measures of material deprivation –Housing conditions + homelessness –Specific populations: ethnic minorities, vulnerable groups –Health and Social Inclusion –Regional dimension of poverty and exclusion –Child poverty Importance of adequate statistical capacity and the impact of the ECHP-SILC transition

25. 25 Developments (2) New indicators In-Work poverty Literacy: Low reading performance –"Share of 15-year old pupils who are at level 1 or below of the PISA combined reading literacy scale" –PISA: 3 yearly OECD survey based on internationally standardised assessment of reading, mathematics and scientific skills of 15-year old pupils –ISG commitment to develop adult literacy measure Healthy life years (also adopted as a Structural Indicator) –Based on the ECHP question on self-assessed health status, to be improved with EU-SILC

26. 26 Developments (3) Areas of development The situation of inclusion of migrants and ethnic minorities (guidelines adopted in june 05) –Country of birth vs. Nationality –Integration on the labour market vs. inclusion in society –Sample size –LFS the most probable source Material deprivation: –ISG endorsed the policy use of material deprivation statistics aggregated by dimension in Commission reports –Encourage Eurostat to develop indicators in the area –Specific focus on housing deprivation and economic strain

27. 27 Developments (4) Areas of development (Continued) Homelessness –ESTAT/INSEE report was presented, –DG EMPL launched a study on methodological developments needed for the measure of homelessness and housing deprivation at EU level Health and social inclusion –Inequalities in health status: –Access to health care for all Housing conditions –In the context of material deprivation –Expected output of 2007 EU-SILC module on housing

28. 28 Material deprivation The choice of items Criteria: the item should –Reflect the lack of an ordinary living pattern common to a majority of the population –Allow international comparisons –Allow comparison over time Constraint: EU-SILC availability Difficulty: each item should bear sense in all countries across EU – the issue of weighting * The choice of items presented in the next slide reflects the current state of ESTAT work and has not been adopted as such by the ISG – the ISG approved however that this analysis be presented in Commission documents to illustrate material deprivation

29. 29 Material deprivation The structure of dimensions Economic strain –1 week annual holiday away from home –arrears (mortgage, rent, utility bills, etc) –afford meat (or equivalent) at least every 2 days –afford to keep house adequately warm –(Capacity to face unexpected expenses) Enforced lack of durables –Colour TV –Telephone –Personal car –(Washing machine) Housing –Leaking roof, damp walls/floors, foundations, or rot in windows or floor –Accomodation too dark –Bath or shower in dwelling –Indoor flushing toilet for sole household use Environmental dimension not included

30. 30 Material deprivation Presentation Simple tables showing the deprivation % for each item –too detailed Summarized information by dimension: presenting the proportion of people that are deprived in 1, 2, 3 or more items in each dimension –ISG agreed to this presentation, to be included in Commission documents –Composite indices vs. % of people deprived No aggregation across dimensions: lack of transparency and homogeneity

31. 31 Material deprivation The issue of weighting + pending issues Should some items be given more importance because they potentially reflect greater social exclusion –within a country –or in some countries more than in others "Importance" of an item reflected by possession rate in the Country Information missing on the normative value of items for each Country (EU-SILC module could explore that) Not enough items in the standard EU-SILC

32. 32 Material deprivation Illustrative values

33. 33 Material deprivation Illustrative values