Measuring Child Poverty - Unicef-irc

4I n n o c e n t iAs may be seen at a glance, the twoleague tables project two very differentpictures of child poverty in the world’srich nations. What these differentpictures mean – the relationshipbetween them and the controversiessurrounding them – is the subject ofthis Report Card.Slipping down the agendaIn the wake of statistics following thepost-2008 economic crises, the childpoverty rate has rarely surfaced.“In a downturn,” says Sharon Goldfeld,National Director of the AustralianEarly Development Index, “the firstthing that happens is that children drop offthe policy agenda.” Yet it is arguable thatthe child poverty rate is one of themost important of all indicators of asociety’s health and well-being. For thehere and now, it is a measure of whatis happening to some of society’s mostvulnerable members. For the years tocome, it is a pointer to the well-beingand cohesion of society as a whole.Previous reports in this series havepresented the evidence for the closeassociation between child povertyand a long list of individual and socialrisks – from impaired cognitivedevelopment to increased behaviouraldifficulties, from poorer physical healthto underachievement in school, fromlowered skills and aspirations to higherrisks of welfare dependency, from theR e p o r tC a r dgreater likelihood of teenagepregnancy to the increased probabilityof drug and alcohol abuse. That thereare many exceptions – many childrenwho grow up in economically poorfamilies who do not fall into any ofthese categories – does not alter thefact that poverty in childhood isclosely and consistently associated withmeasurable disadvantage both forindividuals and for the societies inwhich they live.iA commitment to protecting childrenfrom poverty is therefore more thana slogan or a routine inclusion in apolitical manifesto; it is the hallmarkof a civilized society.Box 1 Children and recessionThere are almost no internationally comparable data onwhat is happening to child poverty as a result of theeconomic downturn of the last three years.It is nonetheless evident that front-line services forfamilies are everywhere under strain as austeritymeasures increase the numbers in need while depletingthe services available. It is also clear that the worst isyet to come. Many families, even those on low incomes,have some form of ‘cushion’ – whether in the form ofsavings, assets, or help from other family members – bywhich to maintain spending during difficult times. Thereis therefore almost always a time lag between the onsetof an economic crisis and the full extent of its impact.CommitmentIn Ireland, a leader in both the theory and practice ofmonitoring child poverty, some data are available toestimate the effects on children and families of asevere contraction in the national economy. Between2009 and 2010, for example, Ireland’s own childdeprivation index showed a rise of almost 7 percentagepoints, from 23.5% to 30.2%.1 Over the same period,falling median incomes meant that relative child povertyrose by less than one percentage point – again showingthe value of using the two different measuresdiscussed in this report.1 0The possible impact of the economic downturn onefforts to reduce child poverty rates has also recentlybeen estimated for the United Kingdom, where theChild Poverty Act of 2010 has set legally binding targetsfor reducing child poverty. By 2020, the relative childpoverty rate is to be halved to no more than 10%.(‘Absolute income poverty‘ – defined as living onan income below 60% of the median income forthe benchmark year 2010 and updated only for inflation– is to be cut from 20% to 5%.)But as the Act came into force, the economic crisiswas already beginning to threaten social protectionprogrammes. Child benefits, for example, have beenfrozen for three years – meaning that in real termsthey will fall in value. Child tax credits and otherprogrammes designed to protect the poorest childrenhave been cut back.What difference are such changes likely to maketo the UK’s long-term efforts to bring down childpoverty rates?ReversalAccording to an October 2011 report from the Institutefor Fiscal Studies (IFS),2 the likeliest prospect is that theprogress of recent years will be thrown into reverse.Although currently thought to be stable, the childpoverty rate is predicted to begin rising again in 2013.

5In practice, making good on thiscommitment is impossible withoutclose monitoring of what is happeningto children’s lives. It is monitoring thatmakes possible evidence-based policy,political accountability, informedadvocacy and the cost-effective use oflimited public resources. Theavailability of timely data is thereforein itself an indicator of whether thecommitment to protecting children isbeing taken seriously or not.reveal a crisis of monitoring. In bothcases the data they present, althoughthe latest available, are mostly drawnfrom surveys conducted in 2009. Theyare therefore at least two to three yearsold.* This would be bad enough at thebest of times. But these are not the bestof times. And it is a significant failing,on behalf of many governments ofOECD countries, that the available dataon children’s lives do not yet reflect theimpact of the economic downturn(see Box 1: Children and recession).The two league tables, Figures 1a and1b, therefore reveal more than thepercentages of children living indifferent kinds of poverty. They alsoUnderlying weak monitoring is thelack of any robust public or politicalconsensus on how child povertyshould be defined and 1620142012102002Since these forecasts were made, the commitment toincrease child credits by more than the rate of inflation in2012 and 2013 has been abandoned. According to IFScalculations, this decision alone is likely to mean thatanother 100,000 children will fall below the relativepoverty line.282000Such forecasts, says the IFS, are “always highlyuncertain.” In particular, they cannot accurately predictthe impact of, and responses to, the tax and benefitchanges currently in the pipeline. They are nonethelessthe best available independent estimate of “what mighthappen to poverty under current government policies.”Many of the questions and confusionsabout the measurement of childpoverty are encompassed by the twoleague tables with which this reportbegins. It may therefore be helpful tosummarize the principal differencesbetween them.Relative child poverty rate,United Kingdom, 1998–20201998Looking further ahead, levels of ‘relative’ and ‘absolute’child poverty are expected to reach 24% and 23%respectively by 2020/21 – compared to the target figuresof 10% and 5%. This would mean a return to the relativechild poverty levels of two decades ago.“The discourse on poverty is very confusing,”says Jonathan Bradshaw, Professor ofSocial Policy at the University of Yorkand one of the authors of the statisticalanalysis on which this report draws:ii“We tend to mix up concepts and measuresand use different words to describe the samething and the same words to describedifferent things.” iii2010A crisis of monitoring1 02008C a r d2006R e p o r t2004I n n o c e n t iSource: Data from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, London, October 2011. The graph showsthe percentage of children living in households below 60% of equivalized median incomebefore housing costs. For illustrative purposes, the 'Target' line assumes linear progresstowards the 2020 goal.12Central Statistics Office Ireland, Government of Ireland, 2011.B rewer, M., J. Browne and R. Joyce (2011). Child and Working-agePoverty from 2010 to 2020, Institute for Fiscal Studies, London.* EU-SILC 2009: data on income refers to 2008, other data to 2009. Poverty data was released in early 2010.

6I n n o c e n t iA deprivation indexFigure 1a, a League Table of ChildDeprivation, represents a significantnew development in the internationalmonitoring of child poverty. For thefirst time, the European Union Statisticson Income and Living Conditions,sampling more than 125,000households in 29 European countries,has included a section on the lives ofchildren aged 1 to 16. Using this data,the UNICEF Innocenti ResearchCentre has constructed the 14-itemChild Deprivation Index on whichLeague Table 1a is based.Three meals a day2.At least one meal a day withmeat, chicken or fish (or avegetarian equivalent)3.Fresh fruit and vegetablesevery day4.Books suitable for the child’sage and knowledge level(not including schoolbooks)Outdoor leisure equipment(bicycle, roller-skates, etc.)6.Regular leisure activities(swimming, playing aninstrument, participating in youthorganizations etc.)7.Indoor games (at least one perchild, including educational babytoys, building blocks, boardgames, computer games etc.)8.Money to participate in schooltrips and events9.A quiet place with enough roomand light to do homeworkC a r dThe second most obvious feature ofthe table is that the highest rates ofdeprivation are to be found in someof the newest and poorest membercountries of the European Union.Over 30% are seen to be deprived inHungary and Latvia, over 50% inBulgaria and over 70% in Romania.For Central and Eastern Europeancountries, therefore, the league table ofchild deprivation makes grim reading.11. Some new clothes (i.e. not allAmong the richest 15 countries, allexcept France and Italy have childdeprivation rates below 10%. Butclearing a bar that is set so low doesnot warrant any great applause. Inthe world’s wealthiest nations theproportion of children lacking twoor more of these basic items shouldbe at or close to zero. Yet in practiceonly Denmark, Finland, Iceland, theNetherlands, Norway and Sweden havesecond-hand)12. Two pairs of properly fittingshoes (including at least one pairof all-weather shoes)13. The opportunity, from time totime, to invite friends home toplay and eat14. The opportunity to celebratespecial occasions such as birthdays,name days, religious events etc.Fig. 2a Percentage of children deprived in countries withFig. 2b Percentage of children deprived in countries withGDP per capita between 13,000 – 25,000 (PPP)GDP per capita between 25,000 – 36,000 (PPP)308027.472.670601 0Overall, the league table shows thatapproximately 85% of the almost85 million children (aged 1 to

Any part of this Innocenti Report Card may be freely reproduced using the following reference: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (2012), ‘Measuring Child Poverty: New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries’, Innocenti Report