István György Tóth* (Tárki, Budapest, www.tarki.hu)

Child well-being indicators for Turkey: what policy priorities would international comparisons suggest?

MEETING ON SOCIAL POLICY FOR CHILDREN’S WELL-BEING

CK Farabi Hotel, Ankara 6 September 201213:45-14:15

* With contributions/articles by András Gábos and thanks are also due to Annamária Gáti(both at Tárki, Budapest)

Outline

- Introducing a provisional policy marker report card for Turkey

- EU-Turkey comparisons: indicators for material and non-material dimensions of child well being

- A summary report card for Turkey

- Conclusions

Starting point

Turkey policy performances shall also have to be evaluated in terms of child outcome indicators

Steps taken in this presentation:

1. putting Turkey into the monitoring framework as suggested to monitor the progress in member states

2. evaluate relative performances

3. formulate policy related lessons to help Gov of Turkey in setting policy targets

What is not taken here:

1. We do not claim we know enough for any policy recommendations

2. We do not claim anyone outside Turkey can make policy suggestions without thorough discussions with Turkish experts

1.9

(1.6)

24.6

(17.8)

36.5

(38.8)

9.1

(6.6)0.6

(0.5)

1.4

(2.8)

2.8(4.2)

Material deprivation

Income poverty

Low work intensity

Source: Eurostat figures, own calculations

Income:36.2 (26.5)

Material deprivation:73.0 (67.4)

Low WI:13.9 (14.1)

Total (at least one risk): 77.0 (72.4.)

Total (all combined):9.1 (6.6.)

Income poverty, material deprivation and joblessness combined: EU 2020 poverty reduction target categories

calculated on Turkey data(in % of all children, total population figures in brackets, in 2006)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40D

K SI CY FI SE CZ

AT

DE

NL

BE

SK FR IE

EU-2

7 EE HU

MT

UK LU PT PL

GR ES LT IT BG LV RO

TR20

06

2006

2007

2008

2009

A1.1. At risk of poverty rate after social transfers (%)

Definition: percentage of children (<18 years old) below 60% of the national equivalised median income

Findings:- Over one third of Turkish children suffer in relative poverty (as defined in EU) - At risk of poverty rate slightly over the Romanian figure- Child poverty exceeds the overall poverty rates for the population by 30%* - There are huge regional disparities*

Questions:To what extent it is a developmental phenomenon and to

what extent it is a policy failure? Further studies would be needed to clarify on this. - Why no more up-to date figures on Eurostat?

*UNICEF, Ankara University Report on Public Policy and ExpenditureAnalysis: Child Poverty and Fiscal SpaceSource: Eurostat, EU-SILC

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

45,0

50,0

IE

MT

NL FI CY

HU FR AT

UK LU EE DE

DK SI SE BE

CZ

EU-2

7 PL IT LT SK GR PT ES BG LV RO

TR2

006

2006

2007

2008

2009

Findings:

- Poor children’s income falls short of the relative poverty threshold by almost 40 percent- Relative gap compares to RO and BG levels- (Note: relative gap is a figure with a practical ceiling, the Turkish figure IS approaching that.)

Questions:

- What type of calibration of social assistance schemes could help closing this gap?- Why no more up-to date figures on Eurostat?

Definition: the difference between the median equivalised disposable income of people below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold and the at-risk-of-poverty threshold, expressed as a % of the at-risk-of-poverty threshold (cut-off point: 60 % of national median equivalised disposable income)

A1.2. Relative median at risk of poverty gap (%)

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

90,0

LU DK SE NL FI AT

UK SI ES DE

BE

FR CZ

MT IT CY

EU27 EE IE GR LT PT

SK PL

LV HU

RO BG

TR2006

2006

2007

2008

2009

A2.1. Material deprivation rate (%)

Source: EUROSTAT, EU-SILC

Definitions: Material deprivation rate: Proportion of children in households lacking at least 3 items in the list (e.g.: The household could not afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day, to keep the home adequately heated etc.) Severe material deprivation rate: Proportion of children in households lacking at least 4 items in the same list

Findings:

- Both material deprivation and severe material deprivation of the Turkish children is extremely high, should be decreased.

- (Note: this clearly follows at least partly from level of economic development. However, more equitable – pro-poor -economic development strategy could help decrease deprivation rate.)

Question:

- Why no more up-to date figures on Eurostat?

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

LU NL

SE DK FI UK ES SI AT

BE

FR MT

CY EE DE

CZ IT IE

EU27 PT

GR SK LT PL

LV HU

RO BG

TR20

06

2006

2007

2008

2009

A2.2. Severe material deprivation rate (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

FR CY

MT FI SI AT

LU IE LT EE SE BE

BG LV PL

CZ IT HU SK PT

EU-2

7 NL

RO ES UK

DK

DE

GR TR

2006

2007

2008

2009

A3.1. Housing cost overburden rate (%)

Source: EUROSTAT, EU-SILC

Definitions: Housing cost overburden rate: % of children living in households where the total housing costs (net of housing allowances) represent more than 40% of disposable income (net of housing allowances).

Overcrowding rate: % of children living in a household without a minimum number of rooms equal to: – one room for the household – one room per couple in the household – one room for each single person aged 18 or more – one room per pair of single people of the same gender between 12 - 17 years of age – one room for each single person between 12 - 17 years of age and not included in the previous category – one room per pair of children under 12 years of age.

Finding:

- Indicators unavailable for Turkey

Suggestion:

-To calculate on the basis of SILC

A3.2. Housing overcrowding rate (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

CY

NL

ES FI

MT IE BE

LU DE

DK SE

UK

FR

AT

PT

EU

-27

GR IT CZ SI

SK EE

PL

BG LT LV HU

RO TR

2006

2007

2008

2009

0,00

2,00

4,00

6,00

8,00

10,00

12,00

14,00

16,00

18,00

20,00

SI DK LU EL CY FI PT

NL

AT

ES IT EE CZ LV PL

FR SK MT

EU-2

7

DE

RO LT BG BE IE HU

UK SE

TR2011

2006

2007

2008

2009

A4.1. Share of children in jobless households (%)

Source: EUROSTAT, EU-LFS

Definition: The share of children living in households n which none of the members has been in paid work during the last four weeks.

Finding:

- Share of children in jobless households is shown to be surprisingly low

Question:

- What explains this, given the relatively low activity rates in the country?

A4.3. Child care (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

DK

SE

NL

FR

ES

PT

UK

LU

BE SI

EU

-27

FI

EE IT CY IE DE

LV

GR

LT

AT

BG

MT

HU

RO CZ

PL

SK

TR

20

07

Finding:

- SILC data shows non-existence of child care facilities for children below 2 years of age

Question:

- While this is inconsistent with other data from Turkey(see .. ), the coverage IS low. Important policy priority would be to increase service availability.

Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC 2009 (2007for Turkey, referring to 2006)

Definition: % of children 0–2 years not in formal childcare

B1.1. Low reading literacy performance of children aged 15 (%)

Definition: share of 15-year-old pupils who are at level 1 or below on the PISA combined reading literacy scale.

Source: OECD, PISA 2006, 2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

FI EE NL PL DK IE SE HU LV PT BE UK DE ES FR

EU-a

v IT SI EL SK CZ LT LU ATRO BG CY M

T

TR200

9

2006

2009

Findings:

-Relatively low share of Turkish children in the lowest competence category

-This is, however, compensated by much larger shares in the next („not good but less bad”) categories

- In addition: almost a third of overall educational achievement variation is due to family background (PISA 2006)

B1.2. Low reading literacy performance of children aged 10 (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

NL

BE (

Fl)

LU SE IT DE

HU LT LV DK

AT

BG

EU

-av

SK

En

g

FR SI

PL

ES

BE (

Fr)

RO CZ

EE IE GR

CY

MT

PT FI

TR

Finding:

- Indicator (similarly to a number of EU member states) is unavailable for Turkey

Suggestion:

- Enter PIRLS. The 10 years performance is a good and relatively early indicator of school performance.

Definition: share of 10-year-old pupils at or below the Low International Benchmark in reading

Source: IEA, PIRLS 2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

SK PL SI CZ

LU LT AT FI DK SE

NL

BE

DE

HU IE CY

FR EE

LV

EU-2

7

GR

BG

UK

RO IT ES

PT

MT

TR2011

2006

2007

2008

2009

B1.3. Early-school-leavers (%)

Definition. Numerator: persons aged 18–24 (i) with the highestlevel of education ISCED 0, 1, 2 or 3c; (ii) and who declared that they had not received any education or training in the four weeks preceding the survey. Denominator: consists of the total population of the same age group.

Source: EUROSTAT, EU-LFS

Findings:- Share of those leaving schools early IS overly high

(from other sources it is known: mostly girls finish studies too early)- Enrolment-age profiles for girls and boys drastically deviate from each other from age 11 onwards (for girls: a serious Sharp decline from over 80% to around 30%, (See „Expanding opportunities” paper by WB, 2012)

Questions:What policy options to reduce these rates? - (supply

(service delivery) or demand (CCT) side interventions seem more promising?

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

1 0 0

IE PL

GR F

ILT B

G SK CY

LV RO P

T SI

AT

CZ

EU-2

7EE SE

HU LU D

KD

EU

KM

TIT ES N

LBE

FR

TR2010

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

B1.4. Children in pre-primary education (%)

Finding:

- Enrolment in pre-primary schools IS extremely low*

Questions:

- Supply or demand reasons are behind?- What policy options to improve enrolment rates?

Definition: Share of children aged 4 in pre-primary education (%)

*Note: OECD 2011 shows even much lower

enrolment (see TURA)

Source: EUROSTAT, EU-SILC

Participation rates in pre-primary and primary education (ISCED0 and ISCED1)

Source: EUROSTAT, Key data on education 2011 EUROSTAT, UOE, (date extracted 2011)

ISCED0 ISCED1

Turkish children start going to school too late …

Participation rates of 15-19 year old students in lower secondary to tertiary education

Source: EUROSTAT, Key data on education 2011 EUROSTAT, UOE, (date extracted 2011)

ISCED2 ISCED4 ISCED5-6ISCED3

… and (despite spectacular developments* in the last decade), they finish going to school too early ….

*Especially as regards enrolment rates of the 14-16 year olds and the very fast

expansion of higher education

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

SI DK LU NL PT BE DE AT EE CZ PL IT FR UK FI SE

EU-A

V ES SK HU LT LV IE GR RO BG CY MT

TR20

09

B1.5. Educational deprivation (%)

Definition: % of students who report having less than 5 out of 7 educational items in their homes.Items: quiet place to study, desk, computer, educational software, internet connection, textbook, dictionary. Recommendation: further work on item selection and regular monitoring using EU-SILC is strongly recommended.

Source: OECD, PISA 2006, 2009

Finding:

- Educational deprivation (home learning „infrastructure” of children) is at an extremely high rate

Questions:

- To what extent is it a development problem?

- Any high regional variance in it?

- Can it be reduced via (for example) via free school books programs?

… and, what’s more, many of them faceserious educational deprivation

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

1 0,0

1 2,0

1 4,0

1 6,0

SK HU

UK SE DK

DE ES GR FR LV BG EE IE RO CY

AT

PL IT BE

EU2

7 LU MT

NL

PT FI LT CZ SI

TR2

01

1

20 06

20 07

20 08

20 09

B2.1. Infant mortality rate

Source: EUROSTAT

Definition: The ratio of the number of deaths of children under 1 year of age during the year to the number of live births in that year. The value is expressed per 1,000 live births.

Findings:- Infant mortality rate is still higher than the worst EU MS figures. - However, this should be understood in historical perspective as there are significant improvements in IMR and U5MR

Questions:

- How can positive developments be maintained? - Are there sufficient resources to achieve regional equalization in the improvements?

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

10 0

MT

AT

DK

UK

BG IE EE

EU

-av

DE

ES

IT LV

NL

PL

PT

SI

FR

LT

SE

BE

CZ

EL

CY

LU

HU

SK FI

RO

TR

20

10

DTP1

DTP3

M CV

Pol 3

B2.2. Vaccination coverage in children–DTP3, MCV, PoL3 (%)

Definition: Percentage of infants reaching their 1st birthday inthe given calendar year who have been fully vaccinated againstpertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, tetanus (DTP)

poliomyelitis and measles.

Source: WHO

Findings:

-Vaccination is reported to be rather high

- Health insurance coverage for children is reported to be very poor, however

-Question:

- How can health insurance coverage be extended and care for follow up of health status and medicines be improved?

B2.3. Low birth weight (%)

Source: OECD Health Data 2011

Definition: (% of children<2,500 grams)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

FI LV SE EE LT LU IE PL NL SI DK IT MT

DE FR AT

EU-27 CZ SK BE PT UK RO ES BG HU EL CY

TR20

08

2006

2007

2008

2009

B2.4. Exclusive breastfeeding rate (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

CY

SE ES NL

EU

-av IT PT

RO CZ

SK

HU BE

BG

DK

DE EE IE EL FR LV LT LU MT

AT

PL SI FI UK

TR20

03-2

008

Definition: % of children aged 6 months

Source: UNICEF The State of the World's Children 2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LV LT BG DE PL CZ RO UK IT PT HU LU FR

EU-a

v SI SK SE EE AT IE EL DK BE ES FI NL CYM

T

TR200

9

B2.5. General life satisfaction (%)

Definition: Share of children aged 13 reporting high life satisfaction – i.e. a score 6 or more. Young people rate their life satisfaction on a scale from 0 to 10. Source: HBSC 2009/2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

MT LT EL RO FI LV SK BE PT

HU PL

EU-av

EE IE SI FR ES BG IT LU UK CZ A

TDK D

E NL

SE CY

TR200

9

Tot al

Boys

Gi r ls

B2.6. Oral health (%)

Definition: Share of children aged 11 who report brushing their teeth more than once a day.

B2.7. Children who eat fruit daily (%)

Source: UNICEF, HBSC 2009/2010

Definition: Share of children aged 11 who report eating fruit at least every day or more than once a day.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

LV FI LT SK EE FR EL PL NL ES

EU-a

v SE HU CZ DE BE AT IE LU MT

UK DK IT RO BG SI PT CY

TR20

09

Total

Boys

Girls

B2.8. Children who eat breakfast every school day (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

SI EL MT

RO CZ SK HU AT LV EE LU LT

EU-a

v PL IT UK BG FI DE FR BE IE DK ES SE PT NL CY

TR20

09

Total

Boys

Girls

Definition: Share of children aged 11 who report eating breakfast every school day. Young people are asked howoften they eat breakfast on school days and at weekends.Breakfast is defined in the question as ‘more than a glassof milk or fruit juice’. Source: UNICEF, HBSC 2009/2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

FR PT LU SI DE IT EL PL MT

RO SE EE LT ES FI BE

EU-av

UK DK AT HU NL CZ LV BG IE SK CY

TR20

09

Total

Boys (%)

Girls (%)

B2.9. Physical activity (%)

Source: UNICEF, HBSC 2009/2010

Definition: Proportion of children aged 13 who were physically active on every day of the week for a total of at least 60 minutes per day.

0

0,005

0,01

0,015

0,02

0,025

0,03

0,035

0,04

0,045

0,05

SI NL

SE DK CY IT FI LU DE BE A

TCZ FR G

R ES

EU-2

7 PT PL IE MT LT H

U SK EE LV UK

RO BG

TR2008

2006

2007

2008

2009

B3.1. Teenage births

Definition: births per 100 women aged 15–19

Source: EUROSTAT

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

PT SE PL MT BE IE GR UK CY FR EE RO

EU-a

v LT FI NL SI DK DE IT HU SK CZ ES LV BG AT LU TR

Total

Gir l s

Boys

B3.2. Daily smoking (%)

Source: ESPAD 2007

Definition: share of daily smokers among those aged 16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

FI SE EE ES HU RO PL LT LV SI IE SK CY

EU-a

vGR FR PT BG CZ IT UK DK BE M

TDE N

LAT

LU TR

Total

Gi rls

Boys

B3.3. Regular alcohol use (%)

Definition: Share of children aged 16 who report having drunk alcoholic beverages 6 or more times in the last 30 days.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

ES RO CY FI HU SE IT PL BE GR LT FR

EU-a

vBG SK SI CZ EE LV UK PT M

TDK DE IE LU NL AT TR

Total

Gi rls

Boys

B3.4. Heavy episodic drinking (%)

Definition: Share of children aged 16 who report having had 5 ormore drinks on one occasion at least once in the last 30 days.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

RO CY FI SE GR PT HUM

T PL LT IE LV AT

EU-av DE

BG SI BE IT DK EE NLUK FR SK ES CZ LU TR

Total

Gir ls

Boys

Definition: Share of children aged 16 who report having ever used any illicit drugs in their lifetime.

B3.5. Illicit drug use (%)

B3.6. Tranquilliser/medicine use without doctor's orders (%)

Definition: Share of children aged 16 who report having ever used tranquillisers/sedatives.

0

5

10

15

20

25

AT

UK

BG

DE IE GR

LV RO

DK

MT

SI

SK

PT

EE

CY

NL

FI

SE

EU

-av

ES

BE

CZ

HU IT FR LT PL

LU

TR

t ranqui l l isers for order Gir l s Boys tranqui l i sers without order

Finding: Turkey is not a member of ESPAD, neither HBSC

Suggestion: it would be important to have data on risk behaviour from any of these surveys (preferably ESPAD for purposes of full comparability)

Summary report card for Turkey - material well-being

Policy conclusion:

- Efforts shall have to be made to decrease material deprivation – this, however, can be expected to come with equitable economic growth

- Investments shall have to be made into early childhood schooling

Summary report card for Turkey - education

Policy conclusion:

- Efforts shall have to be made to increase enrolment in early childhood education (supply and demand side interventions alike)

- Investments shall have to be made reduce school dropouts and early school leaving

Summary report card for Turkey - health

Areas for further inspection:

- regional disparities in access to health services

Summary report card for Turkey– Risk-taking behaviour

Policy conclusion:

Summary report card for Turkey– available lead indicators

Additional indicators should be introduced for Turkey to monitor progress

• Enrolment of 3-5 year olds in pre-school education

• Enrolment of pupils at age 14-18

• Territorial breakdowns for all the above indicators

Conclusions and lessons for the future

On most indicators the country’s performance is weaker than the EU average, while on some occasions (eg. poverty gap, teenage births) it is similar to some of the new member states (eg. RO, BG)

Initial results show remarkable progress, but some shifts in policy priorities promise results in better and more efficient delivery of improvements in child well being

Modernization/development related factorshealth and education infrastructure developments

Policy related factorsimproved access to early educationlonger schoolingmore equitable regional distribution

Data situation have to be improved and a monitoring frame should be set up todocument/monitor/analyse policies and provide feedback to them

Thank you for the attention

www.tarki.hu