Child well-being in the European Union: trends and policy markers Expert meeting Budapest, 28 April 2011 Agata D’Addato Policy Officer

 Eurochild’s advocacy work on child well-being indicators  Overall assessment of Tarki’s report  The well-being framework (three pillars) vs. set of indicators  Where to go from here? Outline

 Since 2006 Eurochild has advocated for a set of child well-being indicators to be integrated into the reporting and follow-up at EU level of member state action on child poverty and well-being – not to rely solely on household income.  In 2009 we produced a policy briefing calling for: more child-centred indicators and subjective measures of well-being; evidence-based targets; annual publicised scoreboard on child poverty and well-being; regular monitoring and reporting on child well-being.  One of the main demands of our 2010 ‘end child poverty’ campaign was that the EU develop a scorecard on child poverty & well-being showing how member states are performing against agreed benchmarks that reflect a broad range of dimensions of child well-being, informed by the UNCRC.  We have asked for a set of indicators to be part of the upcoming EC Recommendation on child poverty and well-being. Eurochild’s advocacy work on child well-being indicators

 The report TARKI is preparing on behalf of the HU Pres with a suggested ‘child well- being portfolio’ including a set of ‘policy marker’ report cards for the EU-27 is very welcome.  However, what we would like to avoid here is that the EU average is taken as the model everyone should aspire. Instead we should be looking at the best performer.  TARKI’s work is to be welcomed in showing an increasingly broad understanding of child well-being and its multi-dimensionality.  Still a lack of a holistic child-centred vision. No reference to the UNCRC which stands as a universally accepted normative framework for achieving children’s rights and ultimately children’s well-being.  Clear synergies between what we recommended in the background paper. Nonetheless, some key short-comings to match our well-being framework.  Disappointing that the scope of this report was limited to the education, health and social risk behaviour dimensions of non-material well-being.  Beyond the already specified dimensions of child well-being, an attempt should be made to capture the most vulnerable. Overall assessment of TARKI’s report

Towards a EC Recommendation on child poverty & well-being Strong commitment with the current EU Trio Presidency We have asked for a set of child well-being indicators to be part of the upcoming EC Recommendation on child poverty and well- being in order to support the policy objectives. Design a system of indicators that will support the development of policies guided by knowledge & evidence. Eurochild co-organized the European Conference WHO CARES 1 st -2 nd September 2010 Would like to see a scorecard more tightly related to the well-being framework.

The well-being framework vs. set of indicators (1)  One very important aspect when discussing child poverty is ability to afford out of school activities and hobbies (neglected here)  Reconciling work and family life (Disappointing that data on reconciliation measures/ leave arrangements are not included – could look at OECD Family Database) 1. Income and benefits ✔ ACCESS TO RESOURCES 2. Reconciling work and family life - Labour market attachment of parents & impact of cash transfers - But depending on the service system and state subsidies in the country, the share of children in families receiving income support from the public sector should be one of the indicators - Other dimensions of material deprivation included. However these items, based on EU-SILC data, have been developed for adults and are not child- focused. UNICEF’s Report Card 7 refers to two sets of indicators: family affluence and educational possessions. In 2009 a new wave of child related questions was asked in the EU-SILC - One very important aspect when discussing child poverty is ability to afford out of school activities and hobbies (neglected here) - Data on reconciliation measures / leave arrangements exist. Disappointing that they are not included. Could look at OECD family database

The well-being framework vs. set of indicators (2)  One very important aspect when discussing child poverty is ability to afford out of school activities and hobbies (neglected here)  Reconciling work and family life (Disappointing that data on reconciliation measures/ leave arrangements are not included – could look at OECD Family Database) 1. Childcare services ✔ ACCESS TO SERVICES - Current approach still focuses on child care as an enabling service for parents to work – not on the quality of care provided to the children. We should find better ways to monitor member states policies on early years than simply quantitative data on the number of childcare places. Could look at outcome indicators as in the EDI - Would be interesting to explore surveys providing information on children’s attitude to schools – e.g. European Quality of Life Survey 2. Education ✔ 3. Health care & risk behaviour ✔ -Indicator on life satisfaction very welcome! - Over focus on negative indicators 4. Housing ✔ and environment - Nothing on quality of the environment in which children are living – this could be access to safe water & sanitation, clean out-door air… see Children’s Environment & Health Action Plan for Europe 5. Child protection and social services - Disappointing that there’s nothing on that. Could look at UNICEF TransMONEE database and its child protection indicators

The well-being framework vs. set of indicators (3)  One very important aspect when discussing child poverty is ability to afford out of school activities and hobbies (neglected here)  Reconciling work and family life (Disappointing that data on reconciliation measures/ leave arrangements are not included – could look at OECD Family Database) 1. Children’s right to be heard ACTIVE PARTICIPATION & INCLUSION OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE 2. Participation in social, recreational, cultural, sporting and civic activities - Whilst we recognize it is difficult to monitor, surveys do exist and this should be an area of further exploration - Disappointing that there’s nothing on participation. The indicators developed in the field of youth could provide some useful inspiration

Where to go from here?  Continue working & reporting on child well-being indicator portfolio.  Continue trying to fill in gaps in data. Make use of existing information but in some cases look at other sources to cover areas of relevance not covered by existing data sources (e.g. participation, culture and creativity).  Complement the collection and analysis of indicators with regular in-depth thematic research, including consultations with key stakeholders and target groups; the themes of such research could be determined by the issues identified by the indicators, in order to provide a strong link between the two elements of evidence; in particular, the in-depth thematic research allows the scope of the evidence-base generated by the indicators to be extended, particularly in those policy areas that are difficult to fully quantify using indicators.  Provide more specificity on different stages in the life cycle.  Link indicators more tightly to the broader policy framework & support tailored responses to policy challenges.  Urge the next Trio Presidency (PL/DK/CY) to take the necessary steps to ensure a clear follow up on child poverty and well-being. Looking forward…

Eurochild 1-2, Avenue des Arts 1210 Brussels Website: Eurochild