children living with poverty and · pdf filer esea rc h wednesday 22 november 2006 croke park...

Res

eaR

Ch

Wednesday 22 noVemBer 2006croke Park stadium, duBlin 3

children liVing With PoVerty and disadVantage: NEW KNoWlEdgE, NEW PErsPEcTivEs

conFerence Programme9.00 am Registration

9.30 am Introduction and welcome: Ms Helen Johnston, Director, Combat Poverty Agency

9.40 am Opening address Mr Brian Lenihan TD, Minister for Children

session 1 The unequal burden of childhood poverty10.00 am Chair: Ms Sylda Langford, Director General, Office of the Minister for Children

Movements into and out of child poverty and the intergenerational effects of child poverty Dr Richard Layte, Mr Bertrand Maître, Professor Brian Nolan and Professor Christopher T. Whelan, Economic and Social Research Institute

ending child poverty – what needs to happen? Dr Jonathan Healy and Ms Vanessa Coffey, Combat Poverty Agency

Plenary Discussion

11.15 am Tea/Coffee

session 2 Children’s experience of poverty and disadvantage 11.30 am Chair: Ms Orlaigh Quinn, Principal, Office for Social Inclusion

a child’s perspective on child poverty Dr Tess Ridge, Department of Social & Policy Sciences and Research Associate, Centre for the Analysis of Social Policy, University of Bath

Children living in an area designated as disadvantaged: Opportunities and risk Ms Margaret Rogers, Children’s Research Centre, Trinity College Dublin

Plenary Discussion

12.45 pm Lunch

session 3 Thematic seminars2.00 pm 1) health, lifestyle & well-being of children in poverty

Chair: Mr Harry Slowey, Chairman, Barnardos – TBC Ms Jean Kilroe, School of Public Health & Population Science, University College Dublin Professor Tom O’Dowd, Chair of General Practice, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Trinity College Dublin

2) Young people living with disadvantage: Their leisure opportunities and use of public space Chair: Ms Jillian van Turnhout, Chief Executive, Children’s Rights Alliance Ms Tina Byrne, Ms Liz Kerrins, and Dr Jean Whyte, Children’s Research Centre, Trinity College Dublin Dr Tess Ridge, Department of Social & Policy Sciences and Research Associate, Centre for the Analysis of Social Policy, University of Bath

3.15 pm Tea/Coffee

session 4 Child poverty: a challenge for rich countries3.30 pm Chair: Ms Emily Logan, Ombudsman for Children

Comparative european findings on child poverty Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, Head of Department of Social Policy & Social Work and Associate Director, Social Policy Research Unit, University of York

Plenary Discussion

4.45 pm Conclusion & Close of Conference: Professor Sheila Greene, Director, Children’s Research Centre, Trinity College Dublin

Children Living With Poverty & Disadvantage: Conference Proceedings (22 November 2006)

Combat Poverty Agency & Childrens Research Centre

Children Living with Poverty and Disadvantage – New Knowledge,

New Perspectives

22nd November 2006Croke Park

A Dynamic Perspective on A Dynamic Perspective on ChildChild Poverty in IrelandPoverty in Ireland

Richard Layte, Bertrand Maitre, Richard Layte, Bertrand Maitre, Brian Nolan and Christopher T. WhelanBrian Nolan and Christopher T. Whelan

The Economic and Social Research The Economic and Social Research InstituteInstitute



Why Study Dynamics?Why Study Dynamics?

Being in poverty for a short period has a Being in poverty for a short period has a very different impact to prolonged very different impact to prolonged exposureexposureLooking at experience over a number of Looking at experience over a number of years tells us much more than snapyears tells us much more than snap--shotshot

Persistence Versus Spells Persistence Versus Spells

One focus is on One focus is on ““spellsspells”” in poverty and in poverty and how they begin and endhow they begin and endComplementary focus Complementary focus isis onon overall overall number of years below threshold, and number of years below threshold, and whether one or more periods belowwhether one or more periods below



Data Data

From ECHP/Living in Ireland Survey From ECHP/Living in Ireland Survey 19941994--20012001Followed initial random sample for Followed initial random sample for interview each subsequent year interview each subsequent year Focus is mainly on Focus is mainly on ““balanced panelbalanced panel””present in survey throughoutpresent in survey throughout

YearsYears Below 60 % Median IncomeBelow 60 % Median Income

0

20

40

60

Child Adult no child 65+

0 1,2 3,4,5 6,7,8



Persistence ProfilePersistence Profile (60 % Median)(60 % Median)

0

20

40

60

Child Adult no child 65+

Non-poor Transient Recurrent Persistent

Persistence for Child and HRP LF StatusPersistence for Child and HRP LF Status

0

20

40

60

Employed Unemployed Inactive




Children by Household LFSChildren by Household LFS

0

20

40

both working man working woman workingneither working single man working single woman workingsingle man not single woman not

Persistence for Child and Couple LFSPersistence for Child and Couple LFS

0

20

40

60

2 employed man employed womanemployed

neitheremployed




Persistence for Child and LP LFSPersistence for Child and LP LFS

0

20

40

60

single manworking

single womanworking

single man not single womannot


Persistence for Child and S WelfarePersistence for Child and S Welfare

0

20

40

60

80

< 25% 25-50% 50-75% 75% +




Statistical Analysis of PersistenceStatistical Analysis of Persistence

Estimate model predicting persistence Estimate model predicting persistence category person is incategory person is inResults show child faces higher riskResults show child faces higher riskLower education of HRP strongly predicts Lower education of HRP strongly predicts more persistencemore persistenceAlso unemployed/inactive, number in Also unemployed/inactive, number in household in work, illhousehold in work, ill--healthhealthAlso having 3+ children, teenagersAlso having 3+ children, teenagers

Persistent Versus Consistent PovertyPersistent Versus Consistent Poverty

73% of children spent no time in 73% of children spent no time in ““consistentconsistent”” povertypovertyBut 15% had 3 or more yearsBut 15% had 3 or more yearsChildren now more exposed than olderChildren now more exposed than olderMost of consistently poor children in 1994 Most of consistently poor children in 1994 then had persistent low incomethen had persistent low incomePersistent income poor had 3 years in Persistent income poor had 3 years in consistent poverty on averageconsistent poverty on average



Poverty and SocioPoverty and Socio--Economic OriginsEconomic Origins

Resurgence of interest in inheritance of inequalityResurgence of interest in inheritance of inequality

Childhood socioChildhood socio--economic circumstances may economic circumstances may predispose some people to later poverty predispose some people to later poverty

Direct and indirect effectsDirect and indirect effects

Pathways to povertyPathways to poverty

ParentParent’’s Educations Education

ParentParent’’s Social Classs Social Class

Childhood Economic CircumstancesChildhood Economic Circumstances

EducationEducation

Social ClassSocial Class

Labour Force StatusLabour Force Status



21

5

32

10

46

14

66

21

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

60% Median Consistent PovertyPrimary Education Origins +Great Difficulty in Making Ends Meet+No Qualifications +Unemployed in Past year or Inactive

Cumulative Risk of Experiencing Income Cumulative Risk of Experiencing Income PovertyPoverty

74 74

2226

15 1812

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

60% Median Consistent Poverty

Primary Education Origins +Great Difficulty in Making Ends Meet+No Qualifications +Unemployed in Past Year or Inactive

Cumulative Disadvantaged Groups as a Cumulative Disadvantaged Groups as a Percentage of those Experiencing PovertyPercentage of those Experiencing Poverty



Implications for PolicyImplications for Policy

1 in 4 children spent significant time 1 in 4 children spent significant time below income threshold 1994below income threshold 1994--20012001Parental education, work critical Parental education, work critical 2 parents working insulates, neither 2 parents working insulates, neither working means very high riskworking means very high riskLone parent in work not at heightened risk Lone parent in work not at heightened risk of persistent low incomeof persistent low income

Implications for PolicyImplications for Policy

3+ children heightens risk 3+ children heightens risk –– reflect in income reflect in income supportsupportExcess risk for child per se not esp. high in Excess risk for child per se not esp. high in Ireland Ireland -- so strategy has to look well beyond child so strategy has to look well beyond child income supportincome supportIntergenerational transmission is deepIntergenerational transmission is deep--rootedrootedBut policy can address key barriers to But policy can address key barriers to progression, as well as scale of inequalities progression, as well as scale of inequalities



STRATEGIC APPROACH TO TACKLE CHILD POVERTY

Jonathan Healy & Vanessa CoffeyCombat Poverty Agency

22nd November 2006

CHILD POVERTY IS DIFFERENT

Policy response to child poverty requires more than just income and servicesExtent: Much is knownDuration: Long-term poor have worst outcomesCyclical: Poor children, poor adultsSo, policy needs to meet multi-faceted challengeHitherto, policy has been derived / residualised



TARGETS & INDICATORS

Need specific child poverty targets on:- Extent - Duration- Inter-generational

• Need specific child deprivation indicators:- A hobby or leisure activity- Going on a school trip at least once a term- Celebrations on special occasions (e.g. birthdays)- Play group/nursery/toddler group at least once a week for children of pre-

school age

POLICY CONTEXT

Strategies for Social Protection & Social Inclusion (2006-8)“Co-ordinated, integrated and targeted policies and services designated to lift households with children out of poverty”“Range of services and supports specifically targeted at vulnerable children to bridge gaps in their development compared to children generally”

National Children’s Strategy “Services for children should be delivered in a co-ordinated, coherent and effective manner through integrated needs analysis, policy planning and service delivery”“Children will be provided with financial supports necessary to eliminate child poverty”



POLICY CONTEXTNational Action Plan against Poverty“Reduce (consistent) child poverty to 2% or less by 2007”

NDP 2007-13To contain a social inclusion pillar with financial resources

Towards 2016- ‘Lifecycle approach’ focuses on children- Commitment to reform of 2nd-tier child income support - Re-focus FIS on larger families with children- Increase medical card coverage- Increase ECCE places by 100,000

Programme for GovernmentChild poverty a “core element of our work”

INTERNATIONAL POLICY CONTEXT

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990)Most widely ratified human rights treaty in history Most complete statement of children's rightsProvides internationally agreed framework of minimum standards necessary for children’s wellbeing

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child – 2006 Report:“The Committee remains concerned that a number of children in particularly vulnerable situations are living in households where the income remains significantly lower than the national median income”



AT-RISK-OF-POVERTY RATE, 0-15 YRS (2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

DK

SI FI CY

SE FR CZ

AT BE LT HU

LU NL

LV EU25

EU15

DE

EE EL MT

IE UK

PL PT ES IT SK

STRATEGIC APPROACH

Focus on- Child income support- Welfare-to-work measures- Early childhood education

• Á la NESC Developmental Welfare State



CHILD INCOME SUPPORT (2002)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

UK A LUX USA IRL ALIA CAN B NOR D F FIN DK NZ ISR NL JAP S I P ES EL

€PPP

NET CHILD SUPPORT (AFTER SOCIAL SERVICES, 2002)

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

A FIN ALIA NOR UK DK S LUX F D IRL USA B ISR CAN NL I NZ P JAP ES EL

€PPP



CIS: RECOMMENDED DIRECTION

CIS can only go so far – need to address adult rates

Adequacy target for child income support:– 33-35% of adult rate

Balance universal and targeted measures– CDAs now 30% of total CIS or 10% of adult rate

Improve life chances for children– Link income support to social outcomes – Delivery of payments

CIS: SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONSChild Benefit– Continue current direction

Early Childcare Supplement – Link to pre-school attendance (Commission on Family)

CDA– Combine with FIS and increase payment for older children

FIS– Increase thresholds

• Clothing/Footwear– More frequent payments



COST & IMPACT OF RECOMMENDED APPROACH

Cost of Combat Poverty 2007 PBS recommendations for child income support = €546m (23% of total cost)

Child poverty reduction effect = 27% at 50% level (9% at 60% level)

WORKLESS HOUSEHOLDSEmployment as a way out of poverty

Impact on poverty: employment status/ number of adults employed per household

Lifelong learning: parental education

Lone parent households spend more time in poverty

Welfare dependent households spend more time in poverty



% of Children (0-17) Living in Jobless Households

911

02468

1012141618

Austria

Belgium

Czech

Rep

ublic

Denmark

Finland

France

German

y

Greece

Irelan

dIta

ly

Luxembourg

Netherla

nds

Poland

Portugal

Spain

United K

ingdom

EU (15 co

untries

)

WELFARE-TO-WORKEffective education & employment supports (assess co-ordination & accessibility of supports)

Affordable & accessible childcare

Transitional income support structures

Lone parent: OPFP

Flexible working environments – work life balance



EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATIONFocus 3-4 Year Olds

Break the poverty cycle

Key policy developments

Targets

Current initiatives (national & local)

Ireland low levels of investment in early education compared to other OECD countries



Enrolment Rates: Children Aged 4 & Under as a % of the Population Aged 3-4 (OECD 2004)

25

7466

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Cze

ch R

ep

Den

mar

k

Finl

and

Fran

ce

Hun

gary

Icel

and

Irela

nd Italy

Japa

n

Luxe

mbo

urg

Net

herla

nds

New

Zea

land

Nor

way

Spai

n

Swed

en

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

OEC

D a

vera

ge

EU19

ave

rage

%

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATIONPre school access (universal 3 to 4 year olds/ targeted communities)

Affordable & flexible access

Quality services/standards

Enhance parents capacity

Improve the socio-economic environment

Learn from international experience



RECOMMENDATIONS

Policy mix requires re-emphasis of child support package

Child income support to be enhanced through:- Extension of Early Childcare Supplement- Reform of 2nd-tier income support

• Focus resources for early education - Ensure universal access- Enhance parents capacity- Improve socio-economic environments- Learn from international experience

• Ease the transition from welfare to work through education and employment measures, affordable and accessible childcare, and income support

Childhood Poverty From a Child’s PerspectiveTess Ridge

Children Living with Poverty and Disadvantage: New Knowledge, New Perspectives

Wednesday, 22nd November 2006Croke Park, Dublin 3

Dr Tess Ridge

Department of Social and Policy Sciences, University of Bath,

Bath, BA2 7AY. Tel: 01225 385838.

E-mail: [email protected]



Children identify three main areas where poverty is affecting their lives:

• Economic and material concerns• Social costs• School life and school inclusion

Children’s economic and material concerns • Worries about adequacy of family income for their

needs• Little or no access to personal spending money• Lack of material goods and childhood possessions–

including toys, games and appropriate clothing



Children’s concerns about the social impact of poverty

• Affects friendships and social networks• Reduces participation• Vulnerable to bullying and isolation • Fearful about difference, stigma and exclusion

Children’s concerns about school life• School is a vital social environment for children• Children feel under social and material pressure at

school• They experience

– Economic barriers– Stigmatising institutional processes

• They identify exclusion within school



Findings from ESRC ‘Staying in Work’• Ongoing study of the lives and experiences of low-

income working lone-mothers and their children• First wave of interviews with children – explored

children’s accounts of their lives before and after their mothers entered low-wage work from social assistance

• Focus today on children’s experiences of poverty

Children’s reflections of life prior to their mother’s entering the labour market

• Similar profile to children in previous Income Support study

• Key elements of childhood social exclusion identified by children– Economic, material and social concerns– Disadvantages at school – Fears about stigma and exclusion



Following their mother’s move into labour market

• Where mothers had moved into relatively stable employment children generally felt more secure financially

• Economic benefits – Increases in spending, material goods, treats

• Social benefits– Increased social activity – from low base– Opportunities for wider social networks

Children whose mothers unable to secure stable employment and/or left labour market

• Renewed fears about social exclusion and difference • Financially insecure• Uncertain about value of employment• The impact of repeated moves in and out of the

labour market on children’s well-being is still little known or understood



Children’s experiences of maternal employment mediated by key factors

• Age, income and security, family time and family practices, childcare, and perceptions of maternal well-being

• Not discrete elements overlap and intersect with each other

• Reveals complexity of children’s lives and experiences

• Highlights positive and negative dimensions of change

How children negotiated and managed change in their lives

• Previous experience of poverty key factor• Strong incentives to sustain families in their ‘project

of work’• Children engaged in a complex range of caring and

coping strategies • Strategies often concealed and unacknowledged• May have far reaching implications for children’s

lives and well-being



Three main strategies • Assuming extra responsibilities

– Housework– Self and sibling care– Emotional support

• Moderating and policing needs– Hiding illness

• Accepting and tolerating adverse situations– Childcare– Changes in family time

Hearing what children say• Poverty is experienced by children in childhood

amongst their peers• Poverty damages and disrupts childhood• Children identify economic disadvantage and fears

about social costs and exclusion within school • Previous experiences of poverty are significant - the

fear of a return to poverty may affect children’s behaviour



Further information..ESRC Qualitative Longitudinal Project Staying in Work: Work and welfare for

Lone mothers and their children over time

http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Minisite/stayinginwork/

Children Living with Poverty and Children Living with Poverty and Disadvantage Disadvantage –– New Knowledge, New New Knowledge, New

PerspectivesPerspectives

Children Living in an Area Children Living in an Area Designated as Designated as ““DisadvantagedDisadvantaged”” ––

Opportunities and RisksOpportunities and RisksMargaret RogersMargaret Rogers

Supported by Supported by The Office of The Minister for Children The Office of The Minister for Children

and The Irish Youth Foundationand The Irish Youth Foundation



Children Living in an area designated Children Living in an area designated as as ““disadvantageddisadvantaged””

Opportunities and RisksOpportunities and Risks

Study OverviewStudy Overview

Children on Location Children on Location -- What Children What Children Can Tell Us About their Can Tell Us About their

Neighbourhood.Neighbourhood.

A Qualitative Participative Action Research Study A Qualitative Participative Action Research Study looking at the daily life experience of a group of looking at the daily life experience of a group of

children in their neighbourhoodchildren in their neighbourhood



Research QuestionResearch Question

How do children perceive, use and value their How do children perceive, use and value their neighbourhood spaces?neighbourhood spaces?

Specific Research Focus for this Specific Research Focus for this presentationpresentation

What opportunities does the neighbourhood and What opportunities does the neighbourhood and environment afford children and how do children both environment afford children and how do children both avail of and create opportunity themselves?avail of and create opportunity themselves?

What risk factors do children occasionally or routinely What risk factors do children occasionally or routinely encounter in the course of their play and social encounter in the course of their play and social interaction in the environment?interaction in the environment?

What are the childrenWhat are the children’’s views of what would make their s views of what would make their neighbourhood a better place for children?neighbourhood a better place for children?



Study Methods & ActivitiesStudy Methods & Activities

Participative Participative Varied media Varied media –– Oral, Oral, visual, writtenvisual, writtenIndividual, small and Individual, small and large group formatslarge group formatsWeekly contact over 13 Weekly contact over 13 month periodmonth period

Visual Oral WrittenVisual Oral Written



Study Group ProfileStudy Group ProfileCore Group: Core Group:

32 Primary School 32 Primary School ChildrenChildrenAged 9 Aged 9 –– 12 years 12 years -- 17 17 boys boys –– 15 Girls 15 Girls

Larger group:Larger group:School based survey School based survey 189 respondents aged 5 189 respondents aged 5 ––13 years13 years

Why this age group?Why this age group?Late middle childhood Late middle childhood –– A time A time

of:of:High levels of competency High levels of competency in physical skillsin physical skillsRapidly developing social Rapidly developing social skillsskillsMoving autonomously out Moving autonomously out into the community into the community Becoming active and Becoming active and competent in the larger competent in the larger worldworld



Play as a function of childhoodPlay as a function of childhood

What should a neighbourhood provide What should a neighbourhood provide to children?to children?

““Ideally a neighbourhood should provide a Ideally a neighbourhood should provide a secure and welcoming transition to the secure and welcoming transition to the larger world larger world –– a place where children can a place where children can play safely, run errands, walk to school, play safely, run errands, walk to school, socialise with friends and observe and socialise with friends and observe and learn from those around them.learn from those around them.””

Cities for Children Cities for Children -- Bartlett et al 1999Bartlett et al 1999



Neighbourhood ProfileNeighbourhood Profile

Urban fringe Local Authority Urban fringe Local Authority HousingHousingRAPID area designationRAPID area designationCommunity Development Community Development ProgrammeProgramme1,200 homes1,200 homes5,500 residents5,500 residents

What do you like about your area?What do you like about your area?

““Mostly the thing I like Mostly the thing I like the best is that I have the best is that I have friendsfriends and play and play soccersoccerin the in the fieldfield and I have and I have about 49 about 49 PS2 gamesPS2 games””(Boy, aged 9)(Boy, aged 9)

SoccerSoccer



What do you like about your area?What do you like about your area?

““I have loads of I have loads of friendsfriendsthere and therethere and there’’s a s a shopshoponly down the road from only down the road from me and you can go me and you can go down down the hillthe hill…… and and therethere’’s s a green a green there there and you can play and you can play loads loads of gamesof games””(Girl, aged 11)(Girl, aged 11) The HillThe Hill

What the neighbourhood providesWhat the neighbourhood provides

FriendsFriends

Open Green SpaceOpen Green Space

Free playFree play

Playground and sports Playground and sports facilitiesfacilities

Extended familyExtended family



Green SpaceGreen SpaceBenefits in cognitive, Benefits in cognitive, social and physical social and physical domainsdomains

Creative playCreative play

ConcentrationConcentration

Stress reductionStress reduction

““The green beside The green beside my house, I love itmy house, I love it””

Preferred play sitesPreferred play sites

InformalInformalUnstructuredUnstructuredFrequented by other Frequented by other childrenchildrenClose to home and Close to home and adultsadultsFlexible allowing Flexible allowing creative and varied creative and varied activitiesactivities



Favourite Place drawingsFavourite Place drawings

Pets and AnimalsPets and Animals



Structured opportunitiesStructured opportunities

The Community The Community -- playground, sports playground, sports fieldsfieldscommunity facilities and programmescommunity facilities and programmesAfterAfter--school clubs, teams, classes etcschool clubs, teams, classes etc

Structured OpportunitiesStructured Opportunities



The SchoolThe School

A wide range of extra curricular activities:A wide range of extra curricular activities:Sports Sports –– soccer, gaelic, basketball, soccer, gaelic, basketball, Music Music –– instruments, choir instruments, choir Art Projects and Art therapy, Art Projects and Art therapy, Projects such as Projects such as ‘‘green schoolgreen school’’, , ‘‘fair tradefair trade’’

Awareness through ArtAwareness through Art



Child Created OpportunitiesChild Created Opportunities

““We play dancing at the We play dancing at the rocksrocks”” (girl 10)(girl 10)

““I went to the I went to the ‘‘all weatherall weather’’and got a class game of and got a class game of soccersoccer”” (Boy 10)(Boy 10)

ActivitiesActivities



Risk Anxiety & ChildhoodRisk Anxiety & Childhood

Children and childhood Children and childhood -- riskriskThinking in terms of risk has become Thinking in terms of risk has become normalisednormalisedNostalgic preoccupation with an imagined Nostalgic preoccupation with an imagined pastpastRapid social change gives rise to anxietyRapid social change gives rise to anxiety‘‘GoodGood’’ parents prioritise protection over parents prioritise protection over independenceindependence

Dangerous childrenDangerous children

Paradigm shifts to control and containmentParadigm shifts to control and containmentPerception as Perception as ‘‘not normalnot normal’’ or indeed not or indeed not childrenchildrenAge of criminal responsibility Age of criminal responsibility Welfare or wellWelfare or well--being is overlookedbeing is overlookedMedia sensationalism and Media sensationalism and ‘‘brandingbranding’’



Neighbourhood Care and NeglectNeighbourhood Care and Neglect

Fear and CrimeFear and Crime

Urban violence is increasingly a feature of Urban violence is increasingly a feature of disadvantaged neighbourhoodsdisadvantaged neighbourhoodsAmbivalent relationship with policeAmbivalent relationship with policeOrganised crime gangsOrganised crime gangsSubstance abuseSubstance abuseStolen / burnt out carsStolen / burnt out carsPetty and Serious crimePetty and Serious crime



ChildrenChildren’’s Concernss Concerns

Refuse dumped and set Refuse dumped and set fire tofire to

Houses boarded up and Houses boarded up and attracting rubbish and attracting rubbish and vandalismvandalism

ChildrenChildren’’s Concernss Concerns

Stolen cars late at Stolen cars late at nightnight

BullyingBullying

““When robbed cars come around When robbed cars come around and wake up everybody and they and wake up everybody and they might knock people downmight knock people down””

(Boy, aged 10)(Boy, aged 10)

““When people hit me or when When people hit me or when ever people slag me. It hurts a ever people slag me. It hurts a lot.lot.””(Girl, aged 9)(Girl, aged 9)



The ChildrenThe Children’’s concernss concerns““I wish there was no such thing as a gunI wish there was no such thing as a gun””(Girl aged 7)(Girl aged 7)

““When they (When they (GardaiGardai) pull you for nothing) pull you for nothing””(Boy aged 10)(Boy aged 10)

““II’’d like to live here, if there was no trouble or d like to live here, if there was no trouble or cars racing or anythingcars racing or anything””

(Girl aged 11)(Girl aged 11)

Stress & AnxietyStress & AnxietyChildren are exposed to Children are exposed to knowledge of fear, violence, knowledge of fear, violence, harmharm

Children experience impact Children experience impact directlydirectly

Parents seek to protect Parents seek to protect children by limiting their children by limiting their movements or access to movements or access to people or placespeople or places

““Be nice to others. Do not Be nice to others. Do not rob cars. Do not shoot rob cars. Do not shoot people and kill people. people and kill people. Please stopPlease stop””

(Boy, aged 9)(Boy, aged 9)””



ChildrenChildren’’s Suggestionss Suggestions

““Clean up the greens, be Clean up the greens, be better friends, build a better friends, build a swimming pool. No trouble swimming pool. No trouble or fighting, clean the or fighting, clean the gardens, keep the horses gardens, keep the horses safe.safe.””

(Girl aged 7)(Girl aged 7)

““ Make a big soccer field and Make a big soccer field and wewe’’ll all be happy. So ll all be happy. So people do not fight on the people do not fight on the road and donroad and don’’t break t break peoplespeoples’’ windows and we windows and we can be happy for ever and can be happy for ever and ever. Thank youever. Thank you””

(Boy, aged 10)(Boy, aged 10)

What would make it a better place for What would make it a better place for children?children?

2320

2

147

63

51

2615

619

33

86

3

.Pool

Soccer

Sports

Park/Play

Horses

Security

Cinema/Bowling

Lib.Comp.

Shops +

GirlsBoys



Some solutions from other areasSome solutions from other areas

Creation and maintenance of shared public Creation and maintenance of shared public spacespaceCulCul de sacs and vegetation de sacs and vegetation –– social bondssocial bondsCommunity ownership & belongingCommunity ownership & belongingInterInter--generational spacesgenerational spacesShared decision making with adults and Shared decision making with adults and specifically childrenspecifically children

ConclusionsConclusions““DisadvantageDisadvantage”” as a status is complex as a status is complex and can be problematicand can be problematicSome children in the study are wellSome children in the study are well--resourced, resourced, but not all and some are very vulnerablebut not all and some are very vulnerableMany risks faced by children arise from adult Many risks faced by children arise from adult behaviour and institutional neglectbehaviour and institutional neglectSolutions can be found and children and Solutions can be found and children and communities need to be included in that communities need to be included in that processprocess



Comparative European Findings on Child Poverty and Well-being

Jonathan Bradshaw

Children’s Research Centre and Combat Poverty Agency Conference ‘Children Living in Poverty and Disadvantage: New Knowledge, New Perspectives Groups’.

Croke Park Stadium, Dublin 3.22 November 2006

Outline

BackgroundChild Poverty in the European UnionComparison of child well-being in the EUConclusion



Background: We can compare inputs

OECD comparisons of welfare state effort –social expenditure on families with children

Out of date 2001Not all the effort on children covered – excludes education and health expenditure, parental leave, occupational support (Japan)Not net after tax expenditure

Family spending in cash, services and tax measures, in percentage of GDP, in 2001: OECD

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Den

mar

k

Swed

en

Fran

ce

Nor

way

Finl

and

Aus

tria

Aus

tralia

Ger

man

y

Belg

ium

Icel

and

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

New

Zea

land

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Slov

ak R

epub

lic

Irel

and

Net

herla

nds

Uni

ted

Stat

es

Japa

n

Italy

Cana

da

Spai

n

Mex

ico

Kor

ea

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Cash Services Fiscal Average total (2.1%)




OECD comparisons of welfare state effort –social expenditure on families with childrenChild tax/benefit packages

“Average” child benefit package in Euros purchasing power parities .Jan 2004

050

100150200250300350400450500

Austria UK

Norway

Austra

lia

Denmark

Belgium

German

y

Sweden

Irelan

d

Finlan

d

France USA

Netherl

ands

Icelan

d

Canad

aJa

pan

New Zea

land

Eur

o pp

ps p

er m

onth



“average” child benefit package as % average earnings Jan 2004

0

5

10

15

20

25

Austria

Norway

Austra

lia

Irelan

d

Sweden UK

Denmark

Finlan

d

Franc

e

German

y

Belgium

Icelan

dUSA

Netherl

ands

Canad

aJa

pan

New Zea

land

% a

vera

ge e

arni

ng

Outcomes: international comparisons of outcomes

International comparisons by UNICEF Innocenti Report CardsAlso LIS and OECD – mainly income povertyBut the child is absent from EU – lack of “competence”Lisbon summit introduces social inclusion – child could come in

But Laeken indicators of social inclusion include only two indicators

% children living in workless families

Relative child poverty rates



% children living in workless households 2004

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Cyprus

Luxe

mbourg

Slovenia

Portug

al

Greece

Austria

Finlan

d Ita

ly

Denmark

Spain

Lithu

ania

Netherl

ands

Latvi

a

Malta

Czech

Rep

ublic

Estonia

France

German

y

Irelan

d

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Belgium

Hunga

ry

United

Kingdo

m

% of children living in households with equivalent (modified OECD) income less than 60 per cent of the median

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Slo

veni

a

Den

mar

k

Finl

and

Sw

eden

Cyp

rus

Luxe

mbo

urg

Hun

gary

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Fran

ce

Net

herla

nds

Latv

ia

Spa

in

Est

onia

Ger

man

y

Lith

uani

a

Irela

nd

Gre

ece

Pol

and

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Italy

Por

tuga

l

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

European Union



Child poverty rates 1995-200460% of the national equivalised median income.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

UK

Portu

gal

Irelan

dSpa

inIta

ly

German

y

Greec

e

Belgium

Luxe

mbour

g

Fran

ce

Austri

a

Denmar

k

Finlan

d (19

97)

Sweden

(199

7)

Chi

ld p

over

ty ra

te

Euro-mean

Source: Eurostat

% change in child poverty rates 1995-200460% of the national equivalised median income.

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

UK Ireland

France

Portugal

Austria

EU15Spain

Belgium

ItalyGermany

Greece

Luxembourg

Denmark

Sweden% c

hang

e in

chi

ld p

over

ty ra

t



Child poverty rate by child benefit package 2001

Average child benefit package £ per month ppp

3002001000-100

Chi

ld p

over

ty ra

te a

t 60%

thre

shol

d40

30

20

10

0

uk

lux

gerswe

finaus

porspa

gre

ita

ire

fra

bel

net

den

Child poverty before and after transfers 2003

05

101520253035404550

Sloven

ia

Norway

Denmark

Finlan

d

Sweden

Cyprus

Luxe

mbourg

Hunga

ry

Czech

Rep

ublic

Austria

Belgium

France

Netherl

ands

Latvi

aSpa

in

Estonia

German

y

Lithu

ania

Irelan

d

Greece

Poland

United

King

dom

Italy

Portug

al

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Turkey

Child poverty rate before transfers Child poverty rate after transfers



Child poverty rate by % reduction achieved by transfers

Child Poverty Rate After Transfers

403020100

Perc

entage

Red

uctio

n in C

hild P

over

ty R

ate du

e 80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

UK

SE

ES

SI

SK

PT

PL

NO

NL

LU

LTLV

IT

IE

HUGR

DE

FR

FI

EE

DK

CZ

CY

BE

AT

What is wrong with income poverty?

Income Is not easy to measureIs not a good measure of command over resources

Relative thresholds very different in different countries



60% of median poverty threshold 2001, 2002*, 2003** Euros

02000400060008000

10000120001400016000

Latv

ia*

Esto

nia*

Lith

uani

a*

Pola

nd*

Slov

akia

*

Hun

gary

*

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Portu

gal

Gre

ece

Slov

enia

*

Spai

n*

Italy

Finl

and*

Irela

nd

Cyp

rus*

*

Fran

ce*

Swed

en*

Ger

man

y (in

clud

ing

ex-G

DR

Uni

ted

King

dom

*

Belg

ium

Aust

ria

Den

mar

k

Net

herla

nds*

Luxe

mbo

urg

(Gra

nd-D

uché

)

What is wrong with this indicator?

Income not easy to measure

Not a good measure of command over resources

Relative threshold very different in different countries

60 per cent of median arbitrary

Modified OECD equivalence scale has no basis in science

Poverty rates hide poverty gaps and poverty persistence



Child poverty rates by dimension. Own analysis of ECHP 2001

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Denmark

Finlan

d

Belgium

Austria

Sweden

German

y

Netherl

ands

France

Greece All

Luxe

mbourg

Irelan

d UKIta

lySpa

in

Portug

al

Income poor Subjective poor Deprived

Outline




Background: international developments

Luxembourg Presidency: Atkinson recommends “child mainstreaming” and development of child well-being indicatorsEUROSTAT and Social Protection Committee cautious and reluctantSuggestion that one extra indicator on educational attainment might be addedSo

We develop of an index of child well-being based on existing comparative data sources (forthcoming Jan 2007 Journal of Social Indicators)and UNICEF Innocenti Report Card 7 on child poverty and well-being in rich countries forthcoming Jan 2007

Conceptualisation of child well-being

Multi-dimensional approachBased on children’s rights as outlined in the UN CRCDrawing on national and multi-national experiences in indicator development Including very good work in Ireland



Data Sources I: Surveys

WHO Health Behaviour of School Aged Children (HBSC) 36 countries at 2001

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 32 countries at 2000, 41 at 2003

European Social Survey (ESS) 22 countries at 2002

Citizenship and Education Survey (CIVED) 28 countries at 1999 and EUYOUPART (2005) excludes Ireland

European School Survey Project on Alcohol and other Drugs (ESPAD) 26 countries at 2003

European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS) 28 countries at 2003

Data Sources II: Series

WHO mortality data base 1993-1999, all countries except DK & CYWorld Bank World Development Indicators 2003, all countriesOECD (2004) Education at a Glance, 2002 dataEurostat (2003) Population and Social ConditionsEurostat (2004) Labour Force SurveyWorld Bank (2002) Health, Nutrition and Population Data



Structure

51 variables organised into23 domains making 8 clusters

Material situationHousingHealthSubjective well-beingEducationChildren’s relationshipsCivic ParticipationRisk and safety

Overall child well-being

85 90 95 100 105 110 115

Cyprus Netherlands Sw eden Denmark

Finland Spain

Slovenia Belgium

Germany Luxembourg

Ireland Austria France Malta Italy

Greece Poland Portugal

Czech Republic Hungary

United Kingdom Slovak Republic

Latvia Estonia Lithuania

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

25



Child well-being by child poverty

At risk of poverty rate (60% of median equivalised income afte

403020100

Chi

ld w

ell-b

eing

ove

rall b

y do

mai

n

120

110

100

90

80

UK

SE

ESSI

SK

PTPL

NL

LU

LT

LV

ITIEHU GR

DEFR

FI

EE

DK

CZ

CY

BEAT

R=-0.55

Material situation

Relative child income povertyChild poverty rateChild poverty gaps

Child deprivation Lacking car, own bedroom, holidays last year, a computer Lacking a desk, quiet for study, a computer, calculator, dictionary, text booksLess than ten books in the home

Parental worklessness



Material situation

75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125

Cyprus Sw eden

Finland Slovenia

Luxembourg Denmark

Austria Spain

Czech Republic Netherlands

France Germany

Portugal Hungary

Italy Latvia

Greece Belgium Ireland

United Kingdom Estonia Lithuania Poland Malta

Slovak Republic

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

25

Overall well-being and material well-being

Material situation cluster score

1201101009080

Chi

ld w

ell-b

eing

ove

rall by

dom

ain

120

110

100

90

80

UK

SE

ES SI

SK

PTPL

NL

MTLU

LT

LV

ITIEHUGR

DEFR

FI

EE

DK

CZ

CY

BEAT

R=0.73



Child health

75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125

Sw eden Netherlands Denmark

Czech Republic Cyprus Poland Finland Lithuania Portugal

Germany Luxembourg

Estonia Spain

France Slovenia

Italy Slovak Republic

Latvia Ireland

Belgium Austria

Hungary United Kingdom

Malta Greece

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

25

Education

80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

Belgium Sw eden Denmark

Finland Poland

Netherlands Ireland Latvia

Germany Czech Republic Slovak Republic


France Spain

Greece Austria Portugal

Italy Luxembourg

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920



Child well-being and educational attainment

Attainment

3210-1-2

Chi

ld w

ell-b

eing

ove

rall b

y do

mai

n

108

106

104

102

100

98

96

94

92

UK

SE

ES

SK

PT PL

NL

LU

LV

ITIE

HUGR

DE

FR

FI

DK

CZ

BE

AT

R = 0.39 (ns)

Housing

80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

United Kingdom Denmark Sw eden

Luxembourg Belgium Austria

Netherlands Germany

Ireland Finland Malta

Slovenia Spain

Cyprus France

Czech Republic Greece


Poland Hungary Portugal Estonia Latvia

Lithuania

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

25



Children’s relationships

75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

Malta Portugal Slovenia

Italy Netherlands

Belgium Hungary

Ireland Spain

Denmark Greece

Germany Poland France

Sw eden Austria Finland Latvia

Luxembourg Lithuania Estonia

Czech Republic United Kingdom

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

23

Subjective well-being

70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

Netherlands Austria Spain

Greece Ireland

Sw eden Germany Slovenia

Denmark Hungary

Italy Finland France

Czech Republic Belgium Portugal Malta

United Kingdom Poland

Luxembourg Latvia

Slovak Republic Estonia Lithuania

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324



Risk and safety

75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

Spain Cyprus

Sw eden Malta

Netherlands Italy

Finland Greece

Luxembourg France Poland

Germany Slovak Republic

Hungary Denmark Belgium Portugal Slovenia Austria Ireland



12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

25

Civic participation

80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Cyprus

Greece

Hungary

Denmark

Belgium

Poland

Portugal

United Kingdom

Slovak Republic

Germany

Italy

Latvia

Slovenia

Sw eden

Estonia

Lithuania

Czech Republic

Finland

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718



Overall child well-being and % of young people saying they lived in a lone parent family

Percentage of young people living in single parent family st

2220181614121086

dom

ain

one

hund

red

over

all

130

120

110

100

90

80

USAUK

Swi

Swe

Spa

PorPol

Nor

Net

ItaIre

HunGre

Ger

Fra

Fin Den

CzeCan

Bel

Ost

251625222024820.0Lithuania

2315242121231219.9Estonia

24128231618211817.5Latvia

199111325221716.6Slovak Republic

1813222023182316.0United Kingdom

1617102192214414.1Czech Republic

114241172413.5Malta

227181713216913.0Portugal

1514101114131413.0France

206511231319612.9Poland

2131214147102212.9Hungary

4209519201112.6Luxembourg

6171971622112.6Austria

1811196154111612.5Italy

172168171142512.5Greece

972019851912.4Ireland

55116186152010.8Belgium

1213184381510.4Slovenia

810912121271010.0Germany

1018473171279.8Finland

13151893138.9Spain

24315610936.5Denmark

31423215615.8Sweden

765105125.1Netherlands

1412154.6Cyprus

HOUSING

CIVIC PARTICIPATIO

NEDUCATIONRISK AND

SAFETYMATERIALCHILDRENS

RELATION-SHIPSSUBJECTIVE WELL-BEINGHEALTH

AVERAGE RANKCountry



Child well-being and teenage fertility rate

Teenage pregnancy (adolescent fertility rate), adolescent ferti

403020100

Child w

ell-b

eing

ove

rall by

dom

ain

110

100

90

80

UK

SE

ESSI

SK

PTPL

NL

LT

LV

ITIE

HUGRDE

FR

FI

EE

DK

CZ

BEAT

R = 0.88***

What explains these variations?

Very difficultProbably depends on domain – need for more detailed workNational wealth matters



Overall child well-being (EU) and GDP per capita

GDP per capita ppp 2003

3000020000100000

Child w

ell-b

eing

ove

rall b

y do

main

120

110

100

90

80

UK

SE

ESSI

SK

PTPL

NL

MT

LT

LV

IT IEHU GR

DEFR

FI

EE

DK

CZ

CY

BEAT

R = 0.61

WHY?

Very difficultProbably depends on domain – need for more detailed workNational wealth mattersPolicy effort matters



Child well-being EU and expenditure on social protection benefits as % GDP 2003

SOCEXP

40302010

Chi

ld w

ell-b

eing

ove

rall

by d

omai

n

110

105

100

95

90

85

UK

SE

ES SI

SK

PTPL

NL

MTLU

LT

LV

ITIE

HUGR

DEFR

FI

EE

DK

CZ

BEAT

R = 0.45

WHY?

Very difficultProbably depends on domain – need for more detailed workNational wealth mattersPolicy effort mattersDirection of that effort matters



Child well-being EU by expenditure per capita ppp on family benefits and services

Expenditure on families - PPS per capita EURO 2003

120010008006004002000

Chi

ld w

ell-b

eing

ove

rall b

y clus

ter

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

UK

SE

ES SI

SK

PTPL

NL

MT

LT

LV

ITIE

HUGR

DEFR

FI

EE

DK

CZ

CY

BE

AT

Conclusions for IRELANDGood on monitoring and governanceIn the middle third - overall?Should be higher given Ireland’s wealthGood on subjective well-being, education and relationshipsBad on health, material well-being and risk and safetyCould be lag effects – data out of datePolicy mattersThere is much to do!


Children Living With Poverty & Disadvantage: Conference Papers (22 November 2006)

Coláiste na nEolaíochtaí Beatha

UCD

Scoil na Sláinte Poiblí agus

Eolaíocht an Daonra UCD.

UCD College of Life Sciences

UCD School of Public Health &

Population Science.

‘Health, Lifestyle & Well-Being

of Children in Poverty’

[email protected]

22nd November

Introduction

• Increasing evidence that childhood disadvantage compromises health in adult life.

• Impact of poverty & associated disadvangate on children’lives as children is under-researched.

• Further our knowledge on the value of social resources available to children living in poor circumstances.

• Young people’s experiences have much to contribute to policy agendas.



The Well-Being of Children

• Children’s welfare has improved over the past 10 years, although not for all children and not in all aspects

• Despite being better off– surviving more births– large numbers of children still live in workless

households– children’s use of public space is ever more restricted– more children are being excluded from school– rise in the rate of child obesity– rise in the number of families in temporary

accommodation

Childhood disadvantages & health inequalities

• Children from less advantaged backgrounds– Disadvantage takes its toll from before birth through the

poor nutritional status of the mother. – Continue to grow more slowly after birth and are

shorter, on average.– Longitudinal studies also show that poor childhood

circumstances increase the risk of smoking and obesity in adulthood.

– Face stresses & challenges that children from more affluent backgrounds can avoid (financial worries, family change).

– Death rates among adults born into manual households are double non-manual.

– Elevated risk of early death from ‘big killers’ like coronary heart disease, stroke & respiratory disease.



Childhood Poverty in Context Attree P, 2004

• Poverty disproportionately affects children, even in wealthy countries (Bradshaw, 2003)

• Poverty is not the sole facet of disadvantage (Darton et al. 2003)

• Negative effects on physical and emotional health and well-being (Bradshaw, 2002)

• Understated and under-researched

• Few studies have explored children’s understanding of their experiences (Roberts 2000; Percy 2003)– Child Poverty Action Group (Ridge, 2002)– Trust for the Study of Adolescence (Roker, 1998)

Childhood Resources in a Poverty Context

• Factors that mitigate the impact of disadvantage on their well-being:– Family relationships– Friendships– Neighbourhoods

• Family Relationships & the importance on emotional development– Practical aspects of parental care as central to their

lives, to fulfill their everyday needs– Close & confiding relationships with parents as sources

of reassurance & emotional security– Children from ethnic minorities, family was of central

importance




• Friendships– Central to young people’s accounts of living in poverty.– Influence of friends & peer groups rose as the influence

of family diminishes.– Problem of bullying, often associated with a ‘poor

appearance’ was a recurrent aspect of children’s accounts.

– Problem of keeping up appearance being seen in the ‘right’ kind of brand-name clothes.

“ even with Nike trainers, as well, it’s like oh they’re the old model, this is the new model, you must have this…”


• Neighbourhood safety– Unsafe in local parks & on the streets, threatened by

gangs hanging around shops at night & drunks in the streets.

– ‘joy riders’ or ‘junkies’ (Daly & Leonard 2002)– Fears for personal safety for girls.– Ethnic minorities also described racial harassment, such

as verbal abuse & attacks.

• Neighbourhood social resources– Lacking access to organised leisure activities,

‘police aways moan that we’re on the streets, so they build places like the new club and stuff, but we have to pay to get into that.’



Disadvantaged but Different

• Less deprived areas (typical or most deprived) have relatively lower levels of child health and development problems– Low birth weight– Children receiving disability benefits– Emergency hospitalisations– Children attending special schools

– Better academic achievement– Less truancy or school exclusion– Less on child protection register– Less ‘looked-after’ children

Parenting Support in the context of Poverty

• ‘Good’ parenting undermined by stresses associated with poverty.

• Naturally occurring support systems do provide both material & emotional help to parents– Not universally available– May carry negative associations for poor families.

• Low-income lone mothers enjoy smaller support networks, more reliant on mutual support.

• Most socially isolated women are least willing to seek professional help.




• Formal support provided by statutory services acting alone, or in partnership with the voluntary sector.

• Difficulties in dealing with health professionals:– Little practical understanding of the problems of managing in

poverty. – Not understanding or sympathetic.– Made to feel like ‘bad parents’. – Hindered from accessing services by lack of knowledge about

what support available.

• Value interventions– Practical help with parenting such as health visiting.– Preference for professionals who were non-judgemental.– Took concerns as parents seriously.– Treated with respect. – Support that was personal and informal in nature.


• Family & Friends

• Mothers & famale friends were pivotal to social support networks.– Familiy supplied material help in cash or kind, helped with child

care.– Provide emotional support ‘company & conversation’.– Material factors, such as lack of transport, reduced their ability to

access social support.– If recipients are unable to reciprocate in kind, their self-esteem

may be threatened – feel ‘bad’, ‘obligated’ or ‘owned’.




• Gap between policy aims, & the perceptions & motivations of those intended to benefit.

• Formal support services have the potential to fill gaps in informal support systems, but only if sensitive to their needs.

• Parents’ perspectives are essential to informing service design, development & evaluation.

• A Framework can assist in moving toward a more integrated family & community approach

Austin MJ, 2005

Promising Practices & Programs

• Challenges facing low-income families are multidimensional

• Financial supportive programs are used to increase economic self-sufficiency– Employment programs, good jobs, work incentives,

promote banking, car & home ownership

• Integrated family strengthening practices represent innovative strategies– Nurse home visitation, parenting education, early

childhood educational programs

• Integrated community strengthening practices– Improve features of the area, collaboration among service

providers, use of community development initiatives & community organising strategies



Forward Planning

• Recognition that there is a need for a co-ordinated & integrated approach to promoting the health & welfare of children & to supporting their families.

• Requirement for consistency and collaboration in the development of policy & the delivery of services and practices.

• Growing political & public spotlight on child related issues.

• Increasing demands on the system in the area of child welfare & protection with strong evidence for prevention by investment in the early years.

• Growing complexity in the area of child health & welfare, with the need to manage this complexity effectively.

Story about a Rabbi who set out to change the world…

• He found out that he wasn’t making much progress, so he tried to change his country. This was also too difficult, so he tried to change his neighborhood. When he didn’t have success there, he tried to change his family. Even that was easier said than done, so he tried to change himself. Then an interesting thing happened. When he had changed himself, his family changed. And when his family changed, his neighborhood changed. When his neighborhood changed, his country changed. And when his country changed, the world changed.

• So now you know where to start.



Resources

• http://multinational-indicators.chapinhall.org/

• Attree 2004 Growing up in disadvantage: a systematic review of the qualitative evidence child: Care, Health and Development Vol30 Pg 679

• Attree 2005 Parenting support in the context of poverty: a meta-synthesis of the qualitative evidence. Helath & Social Care in the Community Vol 13 Pg 330

• Barnes et al 2005 Disadvantaged but different: variation among deprived communitites in relation to child and family well-being. Journal of child Pscyhology and Psychiatry Vol 46 Issue 9

• The Well-Being of Children in the UK (2nd Ed), Bradshaw J & Mayhew E (eds), London, Save the Children, 2005

Resources

• Graham & Power 2004 Childhood disadvantages & health inequalities: a framework for policy based on lifecourseresearch

• IPHI 2001 Inequalities in Mortality Report

• IPHI 2003 Inequalities in Perceived Health

• Ireland and Northern Ireland Population Health Observatory (INIsPHO)

• National Anti-Poverty Strategy



Children’s health & wellbeing

ChildrenChildren’’s health & s health & wellbeingwellbeingTom OTom O’’DowdDowd

G P Mary Mercer HC, G P Mary Mercer HC, JobstownJobstownProfessor of General PracticeProfessor of General Practice

Trinity College DublinTrinity College Dublin



Poverty & Medicine• Has strong associations with :

– ‘destitution’ (Mercer’s), – ‘incurable objects’ (Donnybrook), – ‘White Plague (Peamount), – Workhouses (St James’) – Poor law (Dispensary doctors)– Finance through gambling (Hospital Sweepstakes)– Maternal mortality

Diseases associated with poverty

• TB - always present• Typhoid - hardly ever• Measles - successful immunisation• Pneumonia - occurs• Scurvy & rickets - both rare• Infestations - impetigo, lice, scabies, worms



Illness in deprived families• Tipping points from coping to not

– Often a combination– Mental illness– Addiction – Intellectual disability– Onset of disabling illness – Early single parenthood – Language difficulties– Behaviour problems from childhood to adolescence

(People living in Tallaght 2002)

Source: Barry J, Sinclair H,Kelly A, O’Loughlin R, Handy D, O’Dowd T. Inequalities in health in Ireland - hard facts.

Dublin: Department of Community Health & General Practice Trinity College, 2001.



Policy• State benefits are an important income stream

– E3,654 per child on health, education & soc welfare in Tallaght West

– Newman 2005

• Basic needs of children addressed+/-– Education– Health– Safety



What helps 1• Creche access• Breakfast clubs• After school activities• Accessible translation services• Parents ask for

– Better housing– Safe play spaces– Community policing

– A Place for Children Tallaght West 2005

What would help? 2• In communities

– Shopkeepers stock fresher food– More banks & post offices– Sport clubs & play areas– Voter registration



What would help ? 3• Quicker translation of evidence based

health– Smoking– Diet– Alcohol– Illicit drugs– Long term benzos & antidepressants

Families at the deep end: drain the pool or help to swim?



Young people living with disadvantage: their leisure opportunities and use of

public space

Tina Byrne, Jean Whyte and Liz KerrinsChildren’s Research Centre,

Trinity College

Children living with Poverty and Disadvantage: New Knowledge, New Perspectives.

Children’s Research Centre and Combat Poverty Agency, Croke Park, Dublin. 22 November 2006

Introduction

•• Free time and leisure activities provide important Free time and leisure activities provide important contexts for youth developmentcontexts for youth development

•• Opportunities to acquire specific social, physical and Opportunities to acquire specific social, physical and intellectual skillsintellectual skills

•• Broad range of behaviours and activities Broad range of behaviours and activities Structured and organised Structured and organised unstructured and informalunstructured and informal



Benefits

•• Positive benefits for society Positive benefits for society --–– reducing and controlling antireducing and controlling anti--social activitiessocial activities–– extracurricular activities linked to decreasing rates extracurricular activities linked to decreasing rates

of early school dropout (Mahoney & Cairns, 1997)of early school dropout (Mahoney & Cairns, 1997)ButBut

•• Middle class youth more likely to be involved in Middle class youth more likely to be involved in structured activities than working class counterparts structured activities than working class counterparts (Hendry et al., 1997; Ridge 2002)(Hendry et al., 1997; Ridge 2002)

•• Youth from lowYouth from low--income backgrounds income backgrounds -- disadvantaged re disadvantaged re free time and leisure activitiesfree time and leisure activities

Research in Ireland• De Roiste and Dineen (2005)

• Lack of regional and area specific studies

• ‘add-ons’ to studies examining other relevant social issues



Recent research by the Children’s Research Centre

1. Free time and leisure needs of young people living in disadvantaged communities (Byrne, Nixon, Mayock & Whyte, 2006) (Part-funded by the Combat Poverty Agency)

2. A study of how local authorities are dealing with children’s issues in relation to the built environment in social housing, including public space (Kerrins, Greene and Fahey in progress) (Part-funded by the Combat Poverty Agency)

Free time and leisure needs of young people living in disadvantaged communities

Aims of the study:

• Describe the physical and social environments

• Explore how young people spend free time

• Identify factors that facilitate/inhibit choices re free time

• Provide policy-oriented recommendations



Ethical considerations

Informed consent from participants

• Parental consent

• Confidentiality and anonymity

• Overdisclosure

Participants• Young people aged 12 - 18 (N = 80)

• Areas designated as disadvantaged under the RAPID programme– Inner-city Dublin– Suburban housing estate– Neighbourhood in a large town– A small rural community

• Access through ‘gatekeepers’ --Schools-Youthclubs-Garda Youth Diversion programmes



Methods

• Individual in-depth interviews (N = 37)

• Focus group discussion (involving N = 43 in small groups)

• Questionnaire re demographics

• Individual interviews with 6 service providers

Research Findings

• AREA PROFILE – SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS

• FREE TIME AND LEISURE ACTIVITIES

• FREE TIME AND LEISURE NEEDS: THE VIEWS OF THE YOUNG PEOPLE

• POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS



Unstructured Leisure Activities

• Preferred activity ‘hanging around’ on the street with friends

‘hanging around with me friends…we just go over to the playground really and that’s it (ym, inner city, age 13)

‘we just go over across the road and there’s a green ESB box and we just sit on it and talk (yw, large town, age 15)

• High visibility of young people ‘hanging around’ brought young people to attention of neighbours and Gardai

‘ At night time there’s a lot of teenagers hanging around and you’re literally outside their houses [neighbours] and they’ll come out and roar at ya to move away…but there’s nowhere else to go’ (yw, suburbs, age 15)

‘ Like I’d be out with me friends and we nearly got arrested a few times like. It’s very hard ‘cause you can’t even mess in this town …I find that anyway. I must have that look or something’ (ym, large town, age 16)



• Moving on not always an option• Unsafe ‘dodgy’ areas in their areas• Problems caused by ‘outsiders’

‘ You wouldn’t go down some of the lanes like cause there’d be fella’s down there drinking all day…they run after us and we just run away’ (yw, small town, age 13)

‘ People come here from other areas and start things like… they fight with people. They [outsiders] go around robbing cars, mopeds and mugging people and all. I wouldn’t mind, but they don’t even live here’ (ym, suburbs, age 15)

• Alcohol consumption and illicit drug use featured strongly in many older teenagers description of how they spent their free time

‘ the best thing is when we’re all in the field and get drunk and just stand around. It’s the same thing every weekend ‘cause there’s nothing else to do’ (yw, inner-city, age 15)

‘Just hanging around with me friends , like we’d just be hanging around having a few cans and just talking and smoking…like I smoke a bit of hash, get stoned and have a laugh’ (ym, suburbs, age 15)



• Young people articulated need to be included in decisions re: leisure facilities

• Viewed themselves as experts and believe lack of adequate provision is because adults assume what young people want

‘if you spend so much money on setting something up wouldn’t you expect it would be something young people want? Look if you’re not going to be asked your opinion it’s just like you’re being ignored’ (yw, small town, age 14)

‘There’s no point in putting something in if young people aren’t interested ‘cause it’ll just go to waste. You have to talk to kids to see what they want’ (yw, suburbs, age 18)

Recommendations• Consultation with and participation by young people should be

a priority for local authorities and local development groups when planning or designing any service or leisure facility for local youth

• The resulting provision would then be based on an established need within the community rather than speculative notions of what young people want or need

• Local authorities should consider developing safe ‘youth areas’ within the local community where young people can spend their free time



Hanging Around’: Disadvantaged Young People and Public Space

• What is public space?o Anyone has the right to come and go, e.g. streets,

pavements, squares, parks

o General international trend of young people as ‘illegitimate users’ (Malone, 2001)

• What is the value of public space for young people?

o Venue for ‘hanging around’ in free-time

o No direct financial cost to such participation. Often the only option for young people in poorer areas (Matthews, 2000; Morrow, 2001, cited in Byrne et al, 2006)

What is happening to public space?

o General erosion through development – privatisation of public space

o Deliberate erosion to minimise opportunities for anti-social behaviour and ‘hanging around’; fear of ‘problem youth’

o UNCRC Concluding Observations 2006 – concern that little political & financial importance given to creation of recreational facilities in Ireland and that housing demands hampering the development of play grounds and public space for children and young people



Value of hanging around to and for young people

• Hanging around outside preferred free-time activity for young people in CRC/CPA study. Also in de Róisteand Dineen (2005) where over 90% of adolescents of all ages enjoy hanging around outside with their friends – not just disadvantaged young people

• Peer socialisation – a normal source of association

• Developing independence & autonomy – increase in mobility range, less adult-led activity

• Away from adults eyes but visible to friends and acquaintances

‘Hanging around’ outside: venues and activities

• Where?o CRC/CPA study - public areas such as fields, streets,

pavements outside houses, parks

• Age groupo Mid–adolescence (Hendry, 1993, in Byrne et al, 2006).

But will also still partake in more structured leisure and will hang out indoors

• Activitieso meet friends and talk, some drink and drug use(Byrne et al, 2006)



So what’s the problem?: Three Perspectives

• For Young Peopleo Visibility = being moved on, being hassled within their communities,

Gardaí attention; not just young people in disadvantaged areas (Byrne et al, 2006; Devlin, 2006)

o Young people themselves feeling unsafe

• For residents/neighbourhoodo In local authority estates, ‘normal’ behaviour in conflict with adults,

e.g., noise of teenagers in open spaces and street corners; often exacerbated by characteristics of housing estates (O’ Higgins, 1999)

• For Statutory Players• Local authorities – ASB powers, under pressure to ‘do something’,

responding to adult residents wanting to curb ‘hanging around’• Gardaí – crime prevention, young people ‘at risk’, ASB

‘Hanging around’ in public spaces: deny, inhibit or embrace?

• National Responseo Office of the Minister for Children consultation with young people

for Recreation Policy identified unstructured and casual recreation as biggest need, including hanging out. Response to this framed more in terms of specific facilities than use of public space

• Local Irish Responseso Local policy innovation for younger children and families, particularly

due to National Play Policyo For young people - Youth Cafes (Galway and Sth. Dublin); Designing

out or infilling public space to minimise nuisance and anti-social behaviour (often at request of residents due to past problems)

o What can we learn from other countries, e.g., UK’s Teen Shelters?



Questions

• How we do legitimise ‘hanging around’ outside for young people experiencing disadvantage, and their use of public space to do so?

• How do we create safe spaces for them to do so?

• How to bring the community together, including young people, in creating mutual understanding and the development of initiatives?

Children Living with Poverty and Disadvantage – New

Knowledge, New Perspectives




Comparative European Findings on Child Poverty and Well-being

Jonathan Bradshaw

Children’s Research Centre and Combat Poverty Agency Conference ‘Children Living in Poverty and Disadvantage: New Knowledge, New Perspectives Groups’.

Croke Park Stadium, Dublin 3.22 November 2006

Outline





OECD comparisons of welfare state effort –social expenditure on families with children

Out of date 2001Not all the effort on children covered – excludes education and health expenditure, parental leave, occupational support (Japan)Not net after tax expenditure

Family spending in cash, services and tax measures, in percentage of GDP, in 2001: OECD

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Den

mar

k

Swed

en

Fran

ce

Nor

way

Finl

and

Aus

tria

Aus

tralia

Ger

man

y

Belg

ium

Icel

and

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

New

Zea

land

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

Slov

ak R

epub

lic

Irel

and

Net

herla

nds

Uni

ted

Stat

es

Japa

n

Italy

Cana

da

Spai

n

Mex

ico

Kor

ea

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Cash Services Fiscal Average total (2.1%)




OECD comparisons of welfare state effort –social expenditure on families with childrenChild tax/benefit packages

“Average” child benefit package in Euros purchasing power parities. Jan 2004

050

100150200250300350400450500

Austria UK

Norway

Austra

lia

Denmark

Belgium

German

y

Sweden

Irelan

d

Finlan

d

France USA

Netherl

ands

Icelan

d

Canad

aJa

pan

New Zea

land

Eur

o pp

ps p

er m

onth



“average” child benefit package as % average earnings. Jan 2004

0

5

10

15

20

25

Austria

Norway

Austra

lia

Irelan

d

Sweden UK

Denmark

Finlan

d

Franc

e

German

y

Belgium

Icelan

dUSA

Netherl

ands

Canad

aJa

pan

New Zea

land

% a

vera

ge e

arni

ng

Outcomes: international comparisons of outcomes

International comparisons by UNICEF Innocenti Report CardsAlso LIS and OECD – mainly income povertyBut the child is absent from EU – lack of “competence”Lisbon summit introduces social inclusion – child could come in

But Laeken indicators of social inclusion include only two indicators

% children living in workless families

Relative child poverty rates



% children living in workless households 2004

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Cyprus

Luxe

mbourg

Slovenia

Portug

al

Greece

Austria

Finlan

d Ita

ly

Denmark

Spain

Lithu

ania

Netherl

ands

Latvi

a

Malta

Czech

Rep

ublic

Estonia

France

German

y

Irelan

d

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Belgium

Hunga

ry

United

Kingdo

m

% of children living in households with equivalent (modified OECD) income less than 60 per cent of the median 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Slo

veni

a

Den

mar

k

Finl

and

Sw

eden

Cyp

rus

Luxe

mbo

urg

Hun

gary

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Fran

ce

Net

herla

nds

Latv

ia

Spa

in

Est

onia

Ger

man

y

Lith

uani

a

Irela

nd

Gre

ece

Pol

and

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Italy

Por

tuga

l

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

European Union



Child poverty rates 1995-200460% of the national equivalised median income.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

UK

Portu

gal

Irelan

dSpa

inIta

ly

German

y

Greec

e

Belgium

Luxe

mbour

g

Fran

ce

Austri

a

Denmar

k

Finlan

d (19

97)

Sweden

(199

7)

Chi

ld p

over

ty ra

te

Euro-mean

Source: Eurostat

% change in child poverty rates 1995-200460% of the national equivalised median income.

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

UK Ireland

France

Portugal

Austria

EU15Spain

Belgium

ItalyGermany

Greece

Luxembourg

Denmark

Sweden% c

hang

e in

chi

ld p

over

ty ra

t



Child poverty rate by child benefit package 2001

Average child benefit package £ per month ppp

3002001000-100

Chi

ld p

over

ty ra

te a

t 60%

thre

shol

d40

30

20

10

0

uk

lux

gerswe

finaus

porspa

gre

ita

ire

fra

bel

net

den

Child poverty before and after transfers 2003

05

101520253035404550

Sloven

ia

Norway

Denmark

Finlan

d

Sweden

Cyprus

Luxe

mbourg

Hunga

ry

Czech

Rep

ublic

Austria

Belgium

France

Netherl

ands

Latvi

aSpa

in

Estonia

German

y

Lithu

ania

Irelan

d

Greece

Poland

United

King

dom

Italy

Portug

al

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Turkey

Child poverty rate before transfers Child poverty rate after transfers



Child poverty rate by % reduction achieved by transfers

Child Poverty Rate After Transfers

403020100

Perc

entage

Red

uctio

n in C

hild P

over

ty R

ate du

e 80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

UK

SE

ES

SI

SK

PT

PL

NO

NL

LU

LTLV

IT

IE

HUGR

DE

FR

FI

EE

DK

CZ

CY

BE

AT

What is wrong with income poverty?

Income Is not easy to measureIs not a good measure of command over resources –ignores dissaving and borrowing

Relative thresholds very different in different countries



60% of median poverty threshold 2001, 2002*, 2003** Euros

02000400060008000

10000120001400016000

Latv

ia*

Esto

nia*

Lith

uani

a*

Pola

nd*

Slov

akia

*

Hun

gary

*

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Portu

gal

Gre

ece

Slov

enia

*

Spai

n*

Italy

Finl

and*

Irela

nd

Cyp

rus*

*

Fran

ce*

Swed

en*

Ger

man

y (in

clud

ing

ex-G

DR

Uni

ted

King

dom

*

Belg

ium

Aust

ria

Den

mar

k

Net

herla

nds*

Luxe

mbo

urg

(Gra

nd-D

uché

)

What is wrong with this indicator?

Income not easy to measure

Not a good measure of command over resources

Relative threshold very different in different countries

60 per cent of median arbitrary

Modified OECD equivalence scale has no basis in science

Poverty rates hide poverty gaps and poverty persistence



Child poverty rates by dimension. Own analysis of ECHP 2001

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Denmark

Finlan

d

Belgium

Austria

Sweden

German

y

Netherl

ands

France

Greece All

Luxe

mbourg

Irelan

d UKIta

lySpa

in

Portug

al

Income poor Subjective poor Deprived

Outline




Background: international developments

Luxembourg Presidency: Atkinson recommends “child mainstreaming” and development of child well-being indicatorsEUROSTAT and Social Protection Committee cautious and reluctantSuggestion that one extra indicator on educational attainment might be addedSo

We develop of an index of child well-being based on existing comparative data sources (forthcoming Jan 2007 Journal of Social Indicators)and UNICEF Innocenti Report Card 7 on child poverty and well-being in rich countries forthcoming Jan 2007

Conceptualisation of child well-being

Multi-dimensional approachBased on children’s rights as outlined in the UN CRCDrawing on national and multi-national experiences in indicator development Including very good work in Ireland



Data Sources I: Surveys

WHO Health Behaviour of School Aged Children (HBSC) 36 countries at 2001

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 32 countries at 2000, 41 at 2003

European Social Survey (ESS) 22 countries at 2002

Citizenship and Education Survey (CIVED) 28 countries at 1999 and EUYOUPART (2005) excludes Ireland

European School Survey Project on Alcohol and other Drugs (ESPAD) 26 countries at 2003

European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS) 28 countries at 2003

Data Sources II: Series

WHO mortality data base 1993-1999, all countries except DK & CYWorld Bank World Development Indicators 2003, all countriesOECD (2004) Education at a Glance, 2002 dataEurostat (2003) Population and Social ConditionsEurostat (2004) Labour Force SurveyWorld Bank (2002) Health, Nutrition and Population Data



Structure

51 variables organised into23 domains making 8 clusters

Material situationHousingHealthSubjective well-beingEducationChildren’s relationshipsCivic ParticipationRisk and safety

Overall child well-being

85 90 95 100 105 110 115

Cyprus Netherlands Sw eden Denmark

Finland Spain

Slovenia Belgium

Germany Luxembourg

Ireland Austria France Malta Italy

Greece Poland Portugal

Czech Republic Hungary

United Kingdom Slovak Republic


12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

25



Child well-being by child poverty

At risk of poverty rate (60% of median equivalised income afte

403020100

Chi

ld w

ell-b

eing

ove

rall b

y do

mai

n

120

110

100

90

80

UK

SE

ESSI

SK

PTPL

NL

LU

LT

LV

ITIEHU GR

DEFR

FI

EE

DK

CZ

CY

BEAT

R=-0.55

Material situation

Relative child income povertyChild poverty rateChild poverty gaps

Child deprivation Lacking car, own bedroom, holidays last year, a computer Lacking a desk, quiet for study, a computer, calculator, dictionary, text booksLess than ten books in the home

Parental worklessness



Material situation

75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125

Cyprus Sw eden

Finland Slovenia

Luxembourg Denmark

Austria Spain

Czech Republic Netherlands

France Germany

Portugal Hungary

Italy Latvia

Greece Belgium Ireland

United Kingdom Estonia Lithuania Poland Malta

Slovak Republic

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

25

Overall well-being and material well-being

Material situation cluster score

1201101009080

Chi

ld w

ell-b

eing

ove

rall by

dom

ain

120

110

100

90

80

UK

SE

ES SI

SK

PTPL

NL

MTLU

LT

LV

ITIEHUGR

DEFR

FI

EE

DK

CZ

CY

BEAT

R=0.73



Child health

75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125

Sw eden Netherlands Denmark

Czech Republic Cyprus Poland Finland Lithuania Portugal

Germany Luxembourg

Estonia Spain

France Slovenia


Latvia Ireland

Belgium Austria


Malta Greece

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

25

Education

80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

Belgium Sw eden Denmark

Finland Poland

Netherlands Ireland Latvia

Germany Czech Republic Slovak Republic


France Spain

Greece Austria Portugal

Italy Luxembourg

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920



Child well-being and educational attainment

Attainment

3210-1-2

Chi

ld w

ell-b

eing

ove

rall b

y do

mai

n

108

106

104

102

100

98

96

94

92

UK

SE

ES

SK

PT PL

NL

LU

LV

ITIE

HUGR

DE

FR

FI

DK

CZ

BE

AT

R = 0.39 (ns)

Housing

80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

United Kingdom Denmark Sw eden

Luxembourg Belgium Austria

Netherlands Germany

Ireland Finland Malta

Slovenia Spain

Cyprus France

Czech Republic Greece


Poland Hungary Portugal Estonia Latvia

Lithuania

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

25



Children’s relationships

75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

Malta Portugal Slovenia

Italy Netherlands

Belgium Hungary

Ireland Spain

Denmark Greece

Germany Poland France

Sw eden Austria Finland Latvia

Luxembourg Lithuania Estonia


12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

23

Subjective well-being

70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

Netherlands Austria Spain

Greece Ireland

Sw eden Germany Slovenia

Denmark Hungary

Italy Finland France

Czech Republic Belgium Portugal Malta

United Kingdom Poland

Luxembourg Latvia

Slovak Republic Estonia Lithuania

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324



Risk and safety

75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

Spain Cyprus

Sw eden Malta

Netherlands Italy

Finland Greece

Luxembourg France Poland

Germany Slovak Republic

Hungary Denmark Belgium Portugal Slovenia Austria Ireland



12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

25

Civic participation

80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Cyprus

Greece

Hungary

Denmark

Belgium

Poland

Portugal

United Kingdom

Slovak Republic

Germany

Italy

Latvia

Slovenia

Sw eden

Estonia

Lithuania

Czech Republic

Finland

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718



Overall child well-being and % of young people saying they lived in a lone parent family

Percentage of young people living in single parent family st

2220181614121086

dom

ain

one

hund

red

over

all

130

120

110

100

90

80

USAUK

Swi

Swe

Spa

PorPol

Nor

Net

ItaIre

HunGre

Ger

Fra

Fin Den

CzeCan

Bel

Ost

251625222024820.0Lithuania

2315242121231219.9Estonia

24128231618211817.5Latvia

199111325221716.6Slovak Republic

1813222023182316.0United Kingdom

1617102192214414.1Czech Republic

114241172413.5Malta

227181713216913.0Portugal

1514101114131413.0France

206511231319612.9Poland

2131214147102212.9Hungary

4209519201112.6Luxembourg

6171971622112.6Austria

1811196154111612.5Italy

172168171142512.5Greece

972019851912.4Ireland

55116186152010.8Belgium

1213184381510.4Slovenia

810912121271010.0Germany

1018473171279.8Finland

13151893138.9Spain

24315610936.5Denmark

31423215615.8Sweden

765105125.1Netherlands

1412154.6Cyprus

HOUSING

CIVIC PARTICIPATIO

NEDUCATIONRISK AND

SAFETYMATERIALCHILDRENS

RELATION-SHIPSSUBJECTIVE WELL-BEINGHEALTH

AVERAGE RANKCountry



Child well-being and teenage fertility rate

Teenage pregnancy (adolescent fertility rate), adolescent ferti

403020100

Child w

ell-b

eing

ove

rall by

dom

ain

110

100

90

80

UK

SE

ESSI

SK

PTPL

NL

LT

LV

ITIE

HUGRDE

FR

FI

EE

DK

CZ

BEAT

R = 0.88***

What explains these variations?

Very difficultProbably depends on domain – need for more detailed workNational wealth matters



Overall child well-being (EU) and GDP per capita

GDP per capita ppp 2003

3000020000100000

Child w

ell-b

eing

ove

rall b

y do

main

120

110

100

90

80

UK

SE

ESSI

SK

PTPL

NL

MT

LT

LV

IT IEHU GR

DEFR

FI

EE

DK

CZ

CY

BEAT

R = 0.61

WHY?

Very difficultProbably depends on domain – need for more detailed workNational wealth mattersPolicy effort matters



Child well-being EU and expenditure on social protection benefits as % GDP 2003

SOCEXP

40302010

Chi

ld w

ell-b

eing

ove

rall

by d

omai

n

110

105

100

95

90

85

UK

SE

ES SI

SK

PTPL

NL

MTLU

LT

LV

ITIE

HUGR

DEFR

FI

EE

DK

CZ

BEAT

R = 0.45

WHY?

Very difficultProbably depends on domain – need for more detailed workNational wealth mattersPolicy effort mattersDirection of that effort matters



Child well-being EU by expenditure per capita ppp on family benefits and services

Expenditure on families - PPS per capita EURO 2003

120010008006004002000

Chi

ld w

ell-b

eing

ove

rall b

y clus

ter

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

UK

SE

ES SI

SK

PTPL

NL

MT

LT

LV

ITIE

HUGR

DEFR

FI

EE

DK

CZ

CY

BE

AT

Conclusions for IRELANDGood on monitoring and governanceIn the middle third - overall?Should be higher given Ireland’s wealthGood on subjective well-being, education and relationshipsBad on health, material well-being and risk and safetyCould be lag effects – data out of datePolicy mattersThere is much to do!



Children Living with Poverty and Disadvantage – New

Knowledge, New Perspectives


children living with poverty and · pdf filer esea rc h wednesday 22 november 2006 croke park...

Documents