UNICEFOffice of ResearchInnocenti Report Card 11Child well-beingin rich countriesA comparative overview
Innocenti Report Card 11 was written by Peter Adamson.The UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti would like to acknowledget...
UNICEFOffice of ResearchInnocenti Report Card 11Child well-beingin rich countriesA comparative overviewPART ONE presents a...
2                                                                                                    I n n o c e n t i    ...
I n n o c e n t i   R e p o r t   C a r d   1 1                                                                           ...
4                                                                            I n n o c e n t i   R e p o r t   C a r d   1...
I n n o c e n t i   R e p o r t   C a r d   1 1                                                                         5 ...
6                                                                                         I n n o c e n t i   R e p o r t ...
I n n o c e n t i   R e p o r t   C a r d   1 1                                                                           ...
8                                                                                   I n n o c e n t i   R e p o r t   C a ...
I n n o c e n t i        R e p o r t   C a r d    1 1                                                                     ...
1 0                                                                           I n n o c e n t i   R e p o r t   C a r d   ...
I n n o c e n t i      R e p o r t     C a r d     1 1                                                                    ...
1 2                                                                            I n n o c e n t i   R e p o r t   C a r d  ...
I n n o c e n t i   R e p o r t   C a r d   1 1                                                                         1 ...
1 4                                                                                    I n n o c e n t i   R e p o r t   C...
I n n o c e n t i   R e p o r t   C a r d   1 1                                                                          1...
1 6                                                                                   I n n o c e n t i   R e p o r t   C ...
I n n o c e n t i   R e p o r t   C a r d   1 1                                                                           ...
1 8                                                                                                    I n n o c e n t i  ...
I n n o c e n t i      R e p o r t       C a r d   1 1                                                                    ...
2 0                                                                                    I n n o c e n t i   R e p o r t   C...
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review

1,538 views
1,383 views

Published on

Part 1 of the Report Card presents a league table of child well-being in 29 of the world's advanced economies. Part 2 looks at what children say about their own well-being (including a league table of children’s life satisfaction). Part 3 examines changes in child well-being in advanced economies over the first decade of the 2000s, looking at each country’s progress in educational achievement, teenage birth rates, childhood obesity levels, the prevalence of bullying, and the use of tobacco, alcohol and drugs.

Published in: Education, Health & Medicine
1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Great article. Thanks for the info, very helpful. BTW, if anyone needs to fill out a “2011 NY UCS-111, [08/11]”, I found a blank form here: "www.nycourts.gov" and also here "UCS.111 fillable"
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,538
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
61
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Report Card 11 - Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Review

  1. 1. UNICEFOffice of ResearchInnocenti Report Card 11Child well-beingin rich countriesA comparative overview
  2. 2. Innocenti Report Card 11 was written by Peter Adamson.The UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti would like to acknowledgethe generous support for Innocenti Report Card 11 provided by theAndorran and Swiss National Committees for UNICEF, and theGovernment of Norway.Any part of this Innocenti Report Card may be freely reproduced usingthe following reference:UNICEF Office of Research (2013). ‘Child Well-being in Rich Countries:A comparative overview’, Innocenti Report Card 11, UNICEF Office ofResearch, Florence.The Report Card series is designed to monitor and compare theperformance of economically advanced countries in securing therights of their children.In 1988 the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) established aresearch centre to support its advocacy for children worldwide and toidentify and research current and future areas of UNICEF’s work. Theprime objectives of the Office of Research are to improve internationalunderstanding of issues relating to children’s rights, to help facilitatefull implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Childsupporting advocacy worldwide. The Office aims to set out acomprehensive framework for research and knowledge within theorganization in support of its global programmes and policies. Throughstrengthening research partnerships with leading academic institutionsand development networks in both the North and South, the Officeseeks to leverage additional resources and influence in support ofefforts towards policy reform in favour of children.Publications produced by the Office are contributions to a global debateon children and child rights issues and include a wide range ofopinions. For that reason, some publications may not necessarily reflectUNICEF policies or approaches on some topics. The views expressedare those of the authors and/or editors and are published in order tostimulate further dialogue on child rights.Cover photo © luxorphoto/Shutterstock©United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), April 2013ISBN: 978-88-6522-016-0ISSN: 1605-7317UNICEF Office of Research – InnocentiPiazza SS. Annunziata, 1250122 Florence, ItalyTel: +39 055 2033 0Fax: +39 055 2033 220florence@unicef.orgwww.unicef-irc.org
  3. 3. UNICEFOffice of ResearchInnocenti Report Card 11Child well-beingin rich countriesA comparative overviewPART ONE presents a league table of child well-beingin 29 of the world’s advanced economies.PART TWO looks at what children say about theirown well-being (including a league table ofchildren’s life satisfaction).PART THREE examines changes in child well-beingin advanced economies over the first decade of the2000s, looking at each country’s progress ineducational achievement, teenage birth rates,childhood obesity levels, the prevalence of bullying,and the use of tobacco, alcohol and drugs.
  4. 4. 2 I n n o c e n t i R e p o r t C a r d 1 1PART 1A league table of child well-beingThe table below ranks 29 developed countries according to the overall well-being of their children. Each country’s overall rank isbased on its average ranking for the five dimensions of child well-being considered in this review.A light blue background indicates a place in the top third of the table, mid blue denotes the middle third, and dark blue the bottom third. Overall well-being Dimension 1 Dimension 2 Dimension 3 Dimension 4 Dimension 5 Average rank Material Health and Education Behaviours Housing and (all 5 dimensions) well-being safety and risks environment (rank) (rank) (rank) (rank) (rank) 1 Netherlands 2.4 1 5 1 1 4 2 Norway 4.6 3 7 6 4 3 3 Iceland 5 4 1 10 3 7 4 Finland 5.4 2 3 4 12 6 5 Sweden 6.2 5 2 11 5 8 6 Germany 9 11 12 3 6 13 7 Luxembourg 9.2 6 4 22 9 5 8 Switzerland 9.6 9 11 16 11 1 9 Belgium 11.2 13 13 2 14 14 10 Ireland 11.6 17 15 17 7 2 11 Denmark 11.8 12 23 7 2 15 12 Slovenia 12 8 6 5 21 20 13 France 12.8 10 10 15 13 16 14 Czech Republic 15.2 16 8 12 22 18 15 Portugal 15.6 21 14 18 8 17 16 United Kingdom 15.8 14 16 24 15 10 17 Canada 16.6 15 27 14 16 11 18 Austria 17 7 26 23 17 12 19 Spain 17.6 24 9 26 20 9 20 Hungary 18.4 18 20 8 24 22 21 Poland 18.8 22 18 9 19 26 22 Italy 19.2 23 17 25 10 21 23 Estonia 20.8 19 22 13 26 24 23 Slovakia 20.8 25 21 21 18 19 25 Greece 23.4 20 19 28 25 25 26 United States 24.8 26 25 27 23 23 27 Lithuania 25.2 27 24 19 29 27 28 Latvia 26.4 28 28 20 28 28 29 Romania 28.6 29 29 29 27 29Lack of data on a number of indicators means that the following countries, although OECD and/or EU members, could not be included in the league tableof child well-being: Australia, Bulgaria, Chile, Cyprus, Israel, Japan, Malta, Mexico, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, and Turkey.
  5. 5. I n n o c e n t i R e p o r t C a r d 1 1 3IntroductionThe league table opposite presents » The bottom four places in the Change over a decadethe latest available overview of child table are occupied by three of Although changes in methods andwell-being in 29 of the world’s most the poorest countries in the structure make it difficult to makeadvanced economies. survey, Latvia, Lithuania and comparisons between the first two Romania, and by one of the issues of the UNICEF overview ofFive dimensions of children’s lives richest, the United States. child well-being (see Part 3) it ishave been considered: materialwell-being, health and safety, » Overall, there does not appear nonetheless clear that there haveeducation, behaviours and risks, and to be a strong relationship been some significant changes overhousing and environment. In total, between per capita GDP and the first decade of the 2000s.26 internationally comparable overall child well-being. The » Overall, the story of the firstindicators have been included in the Czech Republic is ranked higher decade of the 2000s is one ofoverview (see Box 1). than Austria, Slovenia higher widespread improvement in than Canada, and Portugal most, but not all, indicators ofThe table updates and refines the higher than the United States. children’s well-being. The ‘lowfirst UNICEF overview of child well-being published in 2007 (Report » There are signs that the family affluence’ rate, the infantCard 7) .i Changes in child well-being countries of Central and Eastern mortality rate, and the percentageover the first decade of the 2000s Europe are beginning to close of young people who smokeare examined in Part 3. the gap with the more cigarettes, for example, have established industrial economies fallen in every single country forKey findings (see Part 3). which data are available.» The Netherlands retains its position as the clear leader and is the only country ranked among Data sources and background papers the top five countries in all dimensions of child well-being.» The Netherlands is also the clear leader when well-being is The data sources used for this report are set out in the three background evaluated by children themselves papers detailed below and available at http://www.unicef-irc.org – with 95% of its children rating their own lives above the mid- Martorano, B., L. Natali, C. de Neubourg and J. Bradshaw (2013). ‘Child Well- being in Advanced Economies in the Late 2000s’, Working Paper 2013-01. point of the Life Satisfaction Scale UNICEF Office of Research, Florence. (see Part 2). http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/iwp_2013_1.pdf» Four Nordic countries – Finland, Martorano, B., L. Natali, C. de Neubourg and J. Bradshaw (2013). ‘Child Well- Iceland, Norway and Sweden – sit being in Economically Rich Countries: Changes in the first decade of the 21st just below the Netherlands at the century’, Working Paper 2013-02. UNICEF Office of Research, Florence. top of the child well-being table. http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/iwp_2013_2.pdf» Four southern European countries Bradshaw, J., B. Martorano, L. Natali and C. de Neubourg (2013). ‘Children’s – Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain Subjective Well-being in Rich Countries’, Working Paper 2013-03. UNICEF Office of Research, Florence. – are placed in the bottom half of http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/iwp_2013_3.pdf the table.
  6. 6. 4 I n n o c e n t i R e p o r t C a r d 1 1» Spain has slipped down the The case for national commitment school achievement, or rankings – from 5th out of 21 to child well-being is therefore immunization rates, or the countries in the early years of compelling both in principle and in prevalence of risk behaviours, the decade to 19th out of 29 practice. And to fulfil that for example, are not likely to be countries in 2009/2010. commitment, measuring progress significantly changed in the short in protecting and promoting the term by the recessions of the last» The United Kingdom has risen well-being of children is essential to three years. up the rankings from bottom policy-making, to advocacy, to the place (21st out of 21 countries) For the time being, it must be cost-effective allocation of limited in 2000/2001 to a mid-table accepted that data-lag is part of resources, and to the processes of position today. the entry price for international transparency and accountability. comparisons of child well-being.Part 3 of this report examines And although national-level International comparabilitychanges over the first decade of monitoring of children’s lives is thethe 2000s in more detail. The measurement of child well- more important task, UNICEF being, however, is a relatively newMeasuring progress for children believes that international area of study and the overview comparison can also play a part.The league table of child well-being presented here remains a work in It is international comparison thatis designed to measure and progress. Chief among its can show what is achievable in thecompare progress for children limitations is the fact that real world, highlight strengths andacross the developed world. Its internationally comparable data on weaknesses in individual countries,purpose is to record the standards children’s lives are not sufficiently and demonstrate that child well-achieved by the most advanced timely. Between the collection of being is policy-susceptible. And itnations and to contribute to debate data in a wide variety of different is international comparison thatin all countries about how such settings and their publication in can say to politicians, press andstandards might be achieved. quality-controlled, internationally public everywhere – ‘This is howAs a moral imperative, the need to comparable form the time-lag is your performance in protectingpromote the well-being of children typically two to three years. This children compares with the recordis widely accepted. As a pragmatic means that most of the statistics on of other nations at a similar levelimperative, it is equally deserving child well-being used in this report, of development.’of priority; failure to protect and though based on the latest available data, apply to the period 2009– Finally, any single overview of apromote the well-being of children 2010. Such a delay would be complex and multidimensionalis associated with increased risk frustrating at the best of times. But issue carries a risk of hiding moreacross a wide range of later-life the last three years have been far than it reveals. The following pagesoutcomes. Those outcomes range from the best of times. Beginning therefore set out to make thisfrom impaired cognitive in late 2008, economic downturn overview of child well-being asdevelopment to lower levels of in many developed nations has transparent as possible byschool achievement, from reduced seen rising unemployment and falls examining each of its dimensionsskills and expectations to lower in government expenditures which in turn.productivity and earnings, fromhigher rates of unemployment to cannot but affect the lives of manyincreased dependence on welfare, millions of children. Data fromfrom the prevalence of antisocial 2009 and 2010 capture only thebehaviour to involvement in crime, beginning of this turbulence.from the greater likelihood of drug Nonetheless, for the most part,and alcohol abuse to higher levels of the data used in this overview trackteenage births, and from increased long-term trends and reflect thehealth care costs to a higher results of long-term investments inincidence of mental illness.ii, iii children’s lives. Average levels of
  7. 7. I n n o c e n t i R e p o r t C a r d 1 1 5 Box 1 How child well-being is measured The table below shows how the overview of child well-being has been constructed and sets out the full list of indicators used. The score for each dimension has been calculated by averaging the scores for each component. Similarly, component scores are arrived at by averaging the scores for each indicator. Dimensions Components Indicators Figure no. Relative child poverty rate 1.1a Dimension 1 Monetary deprivation Relative child poverty gap 1.1b Material well-being Child deprivation rate 1.2a Figure 1.0 Material deprivation Low family affluence rate 1.2b Infant mortality rate 2.1a Dimension 2 Health at birth Low birthweight rate 2.1b Health and safety Preventive health services Overall immunization rate 2.2 Figure 2.0 Childhood mortality Child death rate, age 1 to 19 2.3 Participation rate: early childhood 3.1a education Participation rate: further education, Dimension 3 Participation 3.1b age 15–19 Education NEET rate (% age 15–19 not in Figure 3.0 3.1c education, employment or training) Average PISA scores in reading, Achievement 3.2 maths and science Being overweight 4.1a Eating breakfast 4.1b Health behaviours Eating fruit 4.1c Taking exercise 4.1d Dimension 4 Teenage fertility rate 4.2a Behaviours and risks Smoking 4.2b Figure 4.0 Risk behaviours Alcohol 4.2c Cannabis 4.2d Fighting 4.3a Exposure to violence Being bullied 4.3b Rooms per person 5.1a Dimension 5 Housing Multiple housing problems 5.1b Housing and environment Homicide rate 5.2a Figure 5.0 Environmental safety Air pollution 5.2b
  8. 8. 6 I n n o c e n t i R e p o r t C a r d 1 1Dimension 1 Material well-being Figure 1.0 An overview of Netherlands children’s material well-being Finland The league table of children’s material Norway well-being shows each country’s Iceland performance in relation to the average Sweden for the 29 developed countries under review. The table is scaled to show Luxembourg each country’s distance above or Austria below that average. Slovenia Switzerland The length of each bar shows each France country’s distance above or below the average for the group as a whole. The Germany unit of measurement is the ‘standard Denmark deviation’ – a measure of the spread Belgium of scores in relation to the average. United Kingdom Canada Czech Republic Ireland Hungary Estonia Greece Portugal Poland Italy Spain Slovakia United States Lithuania Latvia Romania -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Assessing material well-being COMPONENTS IND IC ATOR S Relative child poverty rate (% of children living in households with equivalent incomes below Monetary 50% of national median) deprivation Child poverty gap (distance between national poverty line and median incomes of households below poverty line) Index of child deprivation (% of children lacking Material specific items) deprivation Family affluence scale (% of children reporting low family affluence)
  9. 9. I n n o c e n t i R e p o r t C a r d 1 1 7Children’s material well-beingThe table opposite (Figure 1.0) Figure 1.1a Relative child poverty ratespresents an overview of children’s % of children aged 0–17 living in households with equivalent incomesmaterial well-being in developed below 50% of national mediancountries. Overall, it suggests that Finlandmaterial well-being is highest in Netherlandsthe Netherlands and in the four DenmarkNordic countries and lowest in IcelandLatvia, Lithuania, Romania and the NorwayUnited States. SloveniaTwo components of material well- Sweden Austriabeing have been considered in Irelandarriving at this overview – relative Switzerlandincome poverty and material Germanydeprivation. The strengths and Franceweaknesses of both measures were Czech Republicdiscussed in detail in the previous United Kingdomreport in this series (Report Card 10)iv Hungarywhich argued that both measures are Belgiumnecessary to achieve a rounded view Luxembourgof children’s material well-being. Estonia SlovakiaRelative poverty: Polandchild poverty rates CanadaTwo separate indicators have Portugalbeen used to measure monetary Greecedeprivation. They are the relative Italychild poverty rate (Figure 1.1a) and Lithuania Spainthe ‘child poverty gap’ (Figure 1.1b). LatviaThe relative child poverty rate shows United Statesthe proportion of each nation’s Romania CyprusCountries with grey bars have not been Maltaincluded in the ranking tables, or in the Australiaoverall league table of child well-being, New Zealandas they have data for fewer than 75% of Japanthe total number of indicators used. Bulgaria 0 5 10 15 20 25children living in households wheredisposable income is less than 50% Findingsof the national median (after taking » Finland is the only country with a relative child poverty rate of lesstaxes and benefits into account than 5% and heads the league table by a clear margin of more thanand adjusting for family size and two percentage points.composition). This is the definitionof child poverty used by the » The countries in the top half of the league table all have relative child poverty rates of less than 10%.majority of the world’s developedeconomies. Broadly speaking, it » Four southern European countries – Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain –shows the proportion of children have child poverty rates higher than 15% (along with Latvia, Lithuania,who are to some significant extent Romania and the United States).
  10. 10. 8 I n n o c e n t i R e p o r t C a r d 1 1Figure 1.1b Child poverty gaps excluded from the advantages andGap between the poverty line and the median income of those opportunities which most childrenbelow the poverty line – as % of the poverty line in that particular society would consider normal. Luxembourg Hungary Relative poverty: Netherlands the poverty gap Austria The relative child poverty rates in Finland Figure 1.1a show what percentage France Norway of children live below each nation’s Sweden relative poverty line. But they reveal Germany nothing about how far below that Slovenia line those children are being Iceland allowed to fall. To gauge the depth Switzerland of relative child poverty, it is also Canada necessary to look at the ‘childUnited Kingdom poverty gap’ – the distance between Czech Republic the poverty line and the median Belgium incomes of those below the line. Poland Greece Figure 1.1b shows this ‘child Portugal poverty gap’ for each country. Latvia Denmark Considering ‘rate’ and ‘gap’ together Estonia shows six countries in the bottom Slovakia third of both tables. They are Italy, Romania Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Spain Italy and the United States. By contrast, Ireland there are also six countries that Lithuania feature in the top third of both United States tables – Austria, Finland, Spain Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia Cyprus and Sweden. Malta What this means for the children Australia of Spain or the United States, for New Zealand Japan example, is that 20% or more fall Bulgaria below the relative poverty line and that, on average, they fall almost 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 40% below that line. In theFindings Netherlands or Austria, on the other hand, 6% to 8% of children fall» Hungary and Luxembourg have the smallest child poverty gaps. below the relative poverty line and,» Denmark is an exception among Nordic countries in having a high child on average, they fall approximately poverty gap (almost 30%). Only a small proportion of Danish children 16% below. (6.3%) fall below the country’s relative poverty line; but those who do, Taken together, these two child fall further below than in most other countries. poverty indicators – the rate and the» Several countries have allowed the child poverty gap to widen to more gap – make up the relative income than 30%. They are Bulgaria, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Romania, component of children’s material Slovakia, Spain and the United States. well-being.
  11. 11. I n n o c e n t i R e p o r t C a r d 1 1 9Material deprivation: example, does not mean that Again, two indicators have beenthe Child Deprivation Index children’s actual living standards are used. The first is the UNICEF ChildRelative income measures, however, lower in Canada (only that a greater Deprivation Rate (introduced inhave little to say about the actual proportion of Canadian children live Report Card 10) v which shows whatliving conditions of children in in households where disposable percentage of children in eachdifferent countries. The fact that a income is 50% of the median). In nation lack two or more of thehigher percentage of children live in order to arrive at a more complete following 14 items:relative income poverty in Canada picture of child poverty, a measure 1. Three meals a daythan in the Czech Republic, for of actual material deprivation has 2. At least one meal a day therefore also been included. with meat, chicken or fishFigure 1.2a Child deprivation rates (or vegetarian equivalent)% of children lacking two or more specific items – see text 3. Fresh fruit and vegetables Iceland every day Sweden 4. Books suitable for the child’s Norway age and knowledge level (not Finland including schoolbooks) Denmark Netherlands 5. Outdoor leisure equipment Luxembourg (bicycle, roller-skates, etc.) Ireland 6. Regular leisure activitiesUnited Kingdom (swimming, playing an Spain instrument, participating in Slovenia youth organizations, etc.) Austria Czech Republic 7. Indoor games (at least one per Germany child, including educational baby Belgium toys, building blocks, board France games, computer games, etc.) Estonia 8. Money to participate in school Italy trips and events Greece Slovakia 9. A quiet place with enough room Lithuania and light to do homework Poland 10. An Internet connection Portugal Latvia 11. Some new clothes (i.e. not all Hungary second-hand) Romania 12. Two pairs of properly fitting shoes Cyprus Malta 13. The opportunity, from time Bulgaria to time, to invite friends home to play and eat 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 14. The opportunity to celebrateFindings special occasions such as» The five Nordic countries and the Netherlands claim the top six places. birthdays, name days, religious events, etc.» Luxembourg and Ireland are the only other countries with child deprivation rates below 5% (although the United Kingdom comes close at 5.5%). Figure 1.2a presents the child deprivation rate for 26 countries» France and Italy have child deprivation rates higher than 10%. (no comparable data are available» Four countries have child deprivation rates of more than 25% – Hungary, for Canada, Switzerland or the Latvia, Portugal and Romania. United States).
  12. 12. 1 0 I n n o c e n t i R e p o r t C a r d 1 1Figure 1.2b Percentage of children reporting low family affluence The results are computed into the Family Affluence Scale used in Iceland Figure 1.2b to show the percentage Norway of children in each country living in Netherlands ‘low affluence’ families. Denmark Switzerland As might be expected, the child Sweden deprivation rate and the low family Luxembourg affluence rate produce broadly Finland similar league table rankings. They Slovenia are, however, different in that one France focuses on the child and the other Belgium on the family. Taken together, they Canada provide a more secure overview of Germany Spain children’s material deprivation. Austria Ireland Real and relativeUnited Kingdom The differences between the two United States components of children’s material Portugal well-being – relative poverty and Italy material deprivation – are often Greece misunderstood. It is not the case Estonia that one is a relative measure and Czech Republic the other absolute. Both are relative Poland measures. Deprivation rates may Lithuania Latvia appear to measure absolute poverty Hungary because they are based on a Slovakia specific list of possessions rather Romania than the median income of each 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 nation. But those possessions are chosen to represent what mostFindings people consider normal for a child» The Netherlands and the Nordic countries, along with Luxembourg growing up in any wealthy country and Switzerland, have the smallest percentage of children reporting in the early 21st century. They are low family affluence. therefore relative to both time and place. The true difference between» Low family affluence rates are highest in eight Central and Eastern the two approaches is that one European countries – the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, measures poverty in relation to an Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. income norm that varies from country to country (the national median income) whereas the otherMaterial deprivation: » Does your family own a car, van measures poverty by a commonlow family affluence or truck? standard for all of the countriesThe second indicator used to » During the past 12 months, how under review.measure material deprivation is many times did you travel awaybased on written questionnaires on holiday with your family?completed by representativesamples of children aged 11, » How many computers does your13, and 15 in each country.vi family own?The relevant part of the » Do you have your own bedroomquestionnaire asks: for yourself?
  13. 13. I n n o c e n t i R e p o r t C a r d 1 1 1 1Dimension 2 Health and safety Figure 2.0 An overview of child Iceland health and safety Sweden The league table of children’s health Finland and safety shows each country’s Luxembourg performance in relation to the average Netherlands for the 29 developed countries under Slovenia review. The table is scaled to show Norway each country’s distance above or Czech Republic below that average. Spain The length of each bar shows each France country’s distance above or below Switzerland the average for the group as a whole. Germany The unit of measurement is the Belgium ‘standard deviation’ – a measure of Portugal the spread of scores in relation to Ireland the average. United Kingdom Italy Poland Greece Findings Hungary » Nordic countries again Slovakia head the table, with Iceland, Estonia Sweden and Finland claiming Denmark the top three places. Lithuania » Austria, Canada and Denmark United States are to be found towards the Austria foot of the league table along Canada with the United States. (In all Latvia of these cases the low ranking Romania is partly attributable to low -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 immunization rates.) Assessing health and safety COMPONENT S IND IC ATOR S Infant mortality rate (deaths under 12 months old per 1,000 live births) Health at birth Low birthweight rate (% babies born below 2,500 grammes National immunization rate (average coverage Preventive health for measles, polio and DPT3 for children age services 12 to 23 months) Child and youth Overall child and youth mortality rate mortality (deaths per 100,000 aged 1 to 19)
  14. 14. 1 2 I n n o c e n t i R e p o r t C a r d 1 1Health and safetyThe health dimension of children’s Figure 2.1a Infant mortality rateswell-being is based on three Deaths under 12 months old per 1,000 live birthscomponents for whichinternationally comparable data are Iceland Sloveniaavailable. The components are: Swedena) health at birth – as measured Luxembourg by the infant mortality rate and Finland the percentage of babies born Norway with low birthweight (below Portugal 2,500 grammes). Estonia Italyb) the availability of children’s Denmark preventive health services – Czech Republic as measured by national Germany immunization levels for measles, Ireland polio and DPT3. Austriac) child health and safety – as France measured by the death rate of Netherlands children and young people Belgium (aged 1 to 19) from all causes. Spain GreeceThe chart on the previous page Switzerland(Figure 2.0) combines these three United Kingdomcomponents into a league table of Canadachild health for the 29 developed Lithuaniacountries under review. Poland HungaryHealth at birth: United Statesinfant mortality Slovakia LatviaIn all developed countries, infant Romaniamortality rates (IMRs) have beenreduced to fewer than 10 infant Japandeaths per thousand live births. CyprusThe relatively small differences Australiabetween countries therefore reflect New Zealandnot variations in the fundamentals Maltaof public health such as safe water Bulgariaand sanitation but variations in the 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14commitment and the capacity todeliver whatever services are Findingsnecessary to protect every mother- » Three Nordic countries – Finland, Iceland and Sweden – plusto-be, every birth, and every infant Luxembourg and Slovenia – head the table with infant mortality ratesin the earliest days and weeks of of fewer than 2.5 deaths per 1,000 births.life. The IMRs set out in Figure 2.1a » 26 of the 35 countries have reduced infant mortality to 5 or fewermay therefore be read as a measure per 1,000 births.of commitment to maternal andchild health for all – including the » The only countries with infant mortality rates higher than 6 permothers and children of the poorest 1,000 births are Latvia, Romania, Slovakia and the United States.and most marginalized families. » Three of the richest nations in the developed world – Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States – are placed in the bottom third of the infant mortality league table.
  15. 15. I n n o c e n t i R e p o r t C a r d 1 1 1 3It is possible that the low ranking Figure 2.1b Low birthweightof the United States in the league % babies born below 2,500 grammestable of infant mortality is notjustified: there is an as yet Icelandunresolved debate about whether Swedeninfant mortality rates in the United FinlandStates might include the deaths of Estoniaextremely premature and/or low Irelandbirthweight babies who are kept Norwayalive for a time by advanced neo- Netherlandsnatal care but who, in other Sloveniacountries, might not be classified Polandas ‘live births’. CanadaHealth at birth: Denmarklow birthweight LuxembourgThe second indicator used to Switzerlandmeasure health at the beginning Franceof life is the proportion of babies Belgiumwho are born with low birthweights Germany(below 2,500 grammes). ItalyAccording to the United States United KingdomCenters for Disease Control and AustriaPrevention, “The birthweight of an Slovakiainfant is the single most important Czech Republicdeterminant of its chances of Spainsurvival and healthy growth.” vii United StatesIt is also a guide to the general Portugalhealth, and health behaviours, ofpregnant women and mothers, both Hungaryof which are important to every Greeceother dimension of child well-being.Low birthweight is also known to New Zealandbe associated with increased risk Australiaacross a range of health problems Japanin childhood and on into adult life. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12Figure 2.1b shows the percentageof babies born with low birthweight Findingsin each of the 29 countries for » Five European countries – Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Ireland and Sweden –which data are available. have succeeded in reducing the incidence of low birthweight below 5%. » Only in Greece, Hungary, Portugal and the United States does the low birthweight rate exceed 8%.
  16. 16. 1 4 I n n o c e n t i R e p o r t C a r d 1 1Figure 2.2 Immunization rates Preventive health services:Average coverage for measles, polio and DPT3 for children aged 12 to 23 months immunization Hungary The second component chosen Greece to evaluate child health is the Slovakia availability and effectiveness of Finland each country’s preventive childCzech Republic health services. This has been Luxembourg measured by each country’s Poland immunization rate (average Sweden vaccination coverage for measles, Belgium polio and DPT3). Portugal Netherlands Routine immunization rates in the Spain developed nations are generally Romania maintained at high levels, averaging France close to 95%. As with infant Slovenia mortality rates, the relativelyUnited Kingdom Lithuania small differences between countries Iceland can therefore be said to mirror Germany commitment to the ideal of Estonia reaching out to every single child, Italy including the most marginalized, Switzerland with an essential preventive health United States service to which all children have Norway a right. Ireland Latvia Figure 2.2 presents an immunization Denmark league table for 29 countries. Canada Austria It might be suspected that low immunization rates in countries Japan such as Austria, Canada and Bulgaria Denmark have been affected by Cyprus rumours, based on discredited Australia research, linking the triple MMR New Zealand vaccine (measles, mumps and Malta rubella) with autism. This would 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 not really be an ‘excuse’ for low coverage rates, as running a first-Findings class immunization programme» Greece and Hungary head the table with 99% immunization coverage. means making sure that the public is well informed and that false» Three of the richest countries in the OECD – Austria, Canada and information is not allowed to put Denmark – are the only countries in which the immunization rate falls children at risk. But in fact the MMR below 90%. scare would not appear to be the major cause of low immunization rates in Austria, Canada and Denmark – all of which have low rates even when measles vaccination is excluded from the calculations (in Canada, the measles
  17. 17. I n n o c e n t i R e p o r t C a r d 1 1 1 5immunization rate is higher than Figure 2.3 Child and youth mortality ratesfor DPT3 or polio). Deaths per 100,000 aged 1 to 19Child health: Icelandthe 1 to 19 death rate LuxembourgThe third component used to build Switzerlandan overall picture of child health is Netherlandsthe death rate among children and Swedenyoung people between the ages Spainof 1 and 19. GermanyDeaths in this age group are rare Norwayin advanced economies and the Sloveniacauses go beyond disease and Italythe efficacy of health services United Kingdomto include deaths from suicide, Finlandmurder, traffic injuries, drownings, Denmarkfalls and fires. Differences between Francecountries in the death rate for Portugalchildren and young people in this Irelandage group may therefore be said Austriato reflect overall levels of health Czech Republicand safety throughout childhood Belgiumand adolescence. GreeceFigure 2.3 presents the 1- to Hungary19-year-old death rate for each Polandcountry. In absolute numbers, Slovakiathe differences between countries Estoniaare clearly small. But it is worth Lithuanianoting that if all European countries Latviahad the same child death rate as RomaniaIceland or Luxembourg then over8,000 child deaths a year could Cyprusbe prevented – each one Maltarepresenting unimaginable anguish Bulgariafor the family concerned. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Taken together, the threecomponents set out above provide Findingsan approximate guide to the health » Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Switzerlanddimension of children’s well-being. head the table with child death rates below 15 per 100,000.Ideally, such an overview would alsohave included some indicator of » Central and Eastern European countries occupy the bottom third of thechildren’s mental and emotional table – along with Belgium and Greece.health, and of the prevalence ofchild abuse and neglect. But suchissues are difficult to define andmeasure even within an individualcountry; internationally, nocomparable data are available.
  18. 18. 1 6 I n n o c e n t i R e p o r t C a r d 1 1Dimension 3 Educational well-being Figure 3.0 An overview of Netherlands childrens educational well- Belgium being Germany The league table of children’s Finland educational well-being shows each Slovenia country’s performance in relation to Norway the average for the 29 developed Denmark countries under review. The table Hungary is scaled to show each country’s Poland distance above or below that average. Iceland The length of each bar shows each Sweden country’s distance above or below the Czech Republic average for the group as a whole. The Estonia unit of measurement is the ‘standard Canada deviation’ – a measure of the spread of scores in relation to the average. France Switzerland Ireland Portugal Lithuania Findings Latvia » Educational well-being is Slovakia seen to be highest in Belgium, Luxembourg Finland, Germany and the Austria Netherlands – each of which United Kingdom achieves an overall score Italy significantly above average Spain for the 29 countries. United States » Greece, Romania, Spain and Greece the United States show the Romania lowest levels of educational -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 well-being. Assessing educational well-being COMPONENTS IND IC ATOR S Preschool participation rate (% of those aged between 4 years and the start of compulsory education who are enrolled in preschool) Participation Further education participation rate (% of those aged 15 to 19 enrolled in further education) NEET rate (% aged 15 to 19 not in education, employment or training) Average score in PISA tests of reading, maths Achievement and science literacy
  19. 19. I n n o c e n t i R e p o r t C a r d 1 1 1 7Educational well-beingIn gauging educational well-being, Figure 3.1a Preschool enrolment ratestwo main components have been % of children aged between 4 years and the start of compulsory education who areconsidered – participation rates and enrolled in preschoolachievement levels. Taken together Francethey provide an approximate Netherlandsguide to both quantity and quality Spainof education. Figure 3.0 (opposite) Belgiumcombines the two into a single Denmarkoverview of children’s educational Italywell-being for 29 developed countries. NorwayParticipation: United Kingdomearly childhood education Germany IcelandThe first component – participation – Swedenhas been assessed by three Luxembourgindicators: Hungarya) participation in early childhood Austria education Slovenia Estoniab) participation in further education Portugalc) the proportion of young people, Czech Republic aged 15 to 19, who are not Latvia participating in education, Ireland training or employment. Romania SwitzerlandIn recent times it has been widely Lithuaniaacknowledged that the foundations Slovakiaof educational success are laid down Polandbefore formal education begins.viii United StatesIn response to this and other Greecepressures, all governments in Finlanddeveloped countries have investedto a greater or lesser degree in free Japanor subsidized preschool education. MaltaThe quality and quantity of that early Cyprusyears education is difficult to measure Bulgariaon an internationally comparable 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100basis – a difficulty highlighted inReport Card 7 (2007) which noted Findingsthat the lack of any indicator of » Early childhood education is virtually universal in Belgium, France,participation in early childhood the Netherlands and Spain.education is a “glaring omission”from the attempt to build an overall » Preschool enrolment rates exceed 90% in half of the 32 countries listed.picture of children’s well-being.ix » In only eight countries do participation rates in early childhood educationThe present report begins to make fall below 80% – Bulgaria, Finland (but see Box 2), Greece, Lithuania,good that omission by including the Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland and the United States.preschool participation rate for 32developed countries (Figure 3.1a).
  20. 20. 1 8 I n n o c e n t i R e p o r t C a r d 1 1Figure 3.1b Participation in further education Findings% of children aged 15 to 19 in education » Five countries enrol 90% or more of their young people in further Belgium education – Belgium, Ireland, Poland Ireland Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia. Lithuania » Seven of the wealthiest OECD Slovenia countries fall into the bottom Hungary third of the further education Netherlands league table – Austria, Canada,Czech Republic Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, Latvia the United Kingdom and the Germany United States. Sweden Finland » The further education enrolment Norway rate exceeds 80% in all of the Slovakia more populous developed Iceland countries except the United Switzerland Kingdom. The United Kingdom Estonia is the only developed country Portugal in which the further education France Denmark participation rate falls below Greece 75%; this may be the result Italy of an emphasis on academic Spain qualifications combined with a Canada diverse system of vocational United States qualifications which have not Austria yet succeeded in achieving Romania either ‘parity of esteem’ or Luxembourg an established value inUnited Kingdom employment markets. New Zealand Australia Bulgaria Cyprus Malta 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95Note: It is possible that some countries with very small populations, for example Luxembourg andMalta, may show low rates of participation in further education because a proportion of the relevantage group are continuing their studies outside their own countries.The age at which compulsory Further education colleges. Participation in furthereducation begins varies between education reflects ‘educational well- At the other end of the educational4 and 7. The preschool participation being’ in as much as it indicates ladder is the further educationrate is here defined as the successful passage through thepercentage of children between participation rate (Figure 3.1b) years of compulsory schooling. It isthe age of 4 and the beginning of which shows the percentage of also, of course, associated with acompulsory education who are young people aged 15 to 19 who wider range of opportunities at theenrolled in preschools. are enrolled in schools and beginning of adult life.
  21. 21. I n n o c e n t i R e p o r t C a r d 1 1 1 9Figure 3.1c NEET rate Findings% of children aged 15 to 19 not in education, employment or training » At the top of the table, Denmark, Norway and Slovenia have NEET Norway rates below 3%. Slovenia Denmark » At the foot of the table, Ireland, Luxembourg Italy and Spain have NEET ratesCzech Republic of more than 10%. Netherlands Poland Germany Lithuania Slovakia Finland Research in different countries Sweden has also shown associations Hungary between NEET status and mental Belgium health problems, drug abuse, Austria involvement in crime, and long-term France unemployment and welfare Portugal dependence.x Switzerland Greece Figure 3.1c records the NEET rate Estonia for 33 advanced economies. Latvia Canada To make international comparisons United States fair, the data must refer to a similarUnited Kingdom period of time. Unfortunately, the Romania latest available common year for Ireland NEET rates is 2009–2010. Figure Italy 3.1c may therefore not reflect the Spain current situation. It does however reflect the major impact of the Cyprus current economic downturn on Australia youth unemployment rates (which Malta reached a peak of 18.3% in New Zealand November 2009 and were slightly Bulgaria below that level in 2012). In total, 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 more than 23 million young people in OECD countries now fall into the NEET category and more than half of this total are reported to haveNEET rate and employment opportunities as given up looking for work.xiThe third indicator of educational well as by the effectiveness ofwell-being looks at participation education systems in preparing Commenting on the impact of young people for the transition to economic crisis on the transitionfrom a different perspective – the work. Equally obviously, a high from school to work, the OECDpercentage of young people (aged NEET rate represents a threat to the noted in 2011 that “High general15 to 19) who are not participating present and future well-being of unemployment rates make thisin either education, employment or young adults, a disincentive to transition substantially more difficult,training (the so-called ‘NEET’ rate). those still in the education system, as those with more work experienceIn all countries, NEET rates are and a waste of educational are favoured over new entrants intoaffected by economic conditions investment and human resources. the labour force.” xii
  22. 22. 2 0 I n n o c e n t i R e p o r t C a r d 1 1Figure 3.2 Educational achievement by age 15 FindingsAverage score in PISA tests of reading, maths and science literacy » Finland is a remarkable outlier – registering a score almost 20 Finland points clear of the second placed Canada country (see Box 2). Netherlands Switzerland » Canada and the Netherlands take Estonia second and third places. Germany Belgium » Three of Europe’s wealthiest Poland countries, Austria, Luxembourg Iceland and Sweden, find themselves in Norway the bottom half of the educationalUnited Kingdom achievement table, as do all four Denmark countries of southern Europe. Slovenia » Romania is also an outlier, Ireland registering a score more than France 40 points below the next lowest United States country in the table. Hungary Sweden » Australia, Japan and New ZealandCzech Republic would all have been placed in the Portugal top five places had it been possible Slovakia to include them in the main league Austria table (see note page 7). Latvia Italy Spain Luxembourg (PISA) which measures pupils’ Lithuania abilities in three basic competences Greece – reading, maths and science. Romania Repeated every three years, the tests are administered to Japan representative samples of 15-year- New Zealand olds and are intended to measure Australia knowledge and skills in relation to Bulgaria the demands of managing lives 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 and careers in the modern world. In total, 34 member countries of the OECD, plus non-memberEducational achievement factors such as the development partner countries, participate in of social understanding and value this evaluation of educationalThe second component of formation (including education for achievement.educational well-being is the quality citizenship) as well as the Figure 3.2 presents an overview ofof the education received. opportunity to develop the diverse the results of the latest PISA surveyThis key element of child well-being abilities and potentials of young for the countries under review. Inis of course difficult to define and people. But this lies in the future. each case, the scores shown are anmeasure on an internationally At present, the only practical average of results in reading, mathscomparable basis. Ideally, the measure of quality in education is and science. All scores have beenconcept of ‘quality’ in education provided by the OECD’s Programme re-presented on a common scalewould embrace a broad range of of International Student Assessment based on an unweighted average

×