Doing Better for Childrensearch.oecd.org/social/family/44453235.pdf · •Post-natal up to...
Transcript of Doing Better for Childrensearch.oecd.org/social/family/44453235.pdf · •Post-natal up to...
21-Jan-10
1
Doing Better for
Children
Dr Simon Chapple
OECD Social Policy Division
A Presentation to the Polish Parliamentary Social Policy Committee, 20th January 2010
Outline of the Report by Chapter
• Overview
• Comparing child well-being outcomes
• Public spending for children of different ages
• Policies for the under age 3’s
• Effects of sole-parenthood on child outcomes
• Intergenerational inequality
• Policy recommendations to enhance child well-being
21-Jan-10
2
Child well-being in Poland compared to
selected OECD countries
Material well-
being
Housing &
Environment
Educational
well-being
Health &
safety
Risky
behaviours
Quality of
school life
Czech Republic 18 24 19 5 23 17
Denmark 2 6 7 4 21 8
France 10 10 23 19 12 22
Germany 16 18 15 9 18 9
Hungary 20 21 12 11 25 7
Netherlands 9 17 4 8 9 3
Poland 28 22 8 14 20 15
Slovak Republic 27 25 24 1 22 25
Sweden 6 3 9 3 1 5
United Kingdom 12 15 22 20 28 4
United States 23 12 25 24 15 14
Notes: 1 is best ranked and 30 is worst-ranked in the OECD. Countries with grey
shading are significantly lower than average, white is around the average and blue
is significantly above average performance.
Compared to the rest of the
OECD, Poland does poorly for
children on Material well-being
and Housing & Environment
…examine the 5 indicators
within these 2 dimensions in
more detail…
21-Jan-10
3
Material well-being dimension
• Three indicators • Average child income
• Child poverty rate
• Educational deprivation
• Policy levers: tax and benefit system, childcare, Active Labour Market Policies, schools
• How does Poland do?
Average family income in Poland is at the
low end of the OECD
Data source: Data for this indicator is taken from the OECD Income Distribution Questionnaire, 2007 for the year 2005. The units are US dollars at
purchasing power parity exchange rates.
34
.2
29
.2
28
.6
25
.6
25
.0
24
.7
23
.2
22
.7
22
.5
22
.4
22
.3
22
.2
22
.0
21
.7
21
.4
20
.8
19
.9
19
.9
19
.0
17
.2
17
.2
17
.2
16
.4
13
.8
10
.8
9.5
7.9
7.8
5.3
5.1
19
.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
No
rway
Can
ada
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Swit
zerl
and
De
nm
ark
Un
ite
d K
ingd
om
Jap
an
Ire
lan
d
Ice
lan
d
Au
stri
a
Fin
lan
d
Ko
rea
Be
lgiu
m
Au
stra
lia
Swe
de
n
Ge
rman
y
Fran
ce
Ne
w Z
eal
and
Gre
ece
Ital
y
Spai
n
Po
rtu
gal
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
lic
Hu
nga
ry
Po
lan
d
Slo
vak
Re
pu
blic
Me
xico
Turk
ey
OEC
D 3
0
In th
ou
san
ds
21-Jan-10
4
Child poverty rates in Poland are high
Data source: Data for this indicator is taken from the OECD Income Distribution Questionnaire, 2007 for the year 2005. The child
poverty measure used is the proportion of households with children living on an equivalised income below 50% of the national median
income. Children are defined as those aged 0-17 years. Data on child poverty is missing for three countries: Japan, Poland and
Switzerland.
2.7 4
.0
4.2 4.6 6
.2 7.6 8.3 8.7 9.4
10
.0
10
.1
10
.3
10
.7
10
.9
11
.5
11
.8
12
.4
13
.2
13
.7 15
.0
15
.1
15
.5
16
.3
16
.3
16
.6
17
.3
20
.6
21
.5
22
.2 24
.6
12
.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
De
nm
ark
Swe
de
n
Fin
lan
d
No
rway
Au
stri
a
Fran
ce
Ice
lan
d
Hu
nga
ry
Swit
zerl
and
Be
lgiu
m
Un
ite
d K
ingd
om
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
lic
Ko
rea
Slo
vak
Re
pu
blic
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Au
stra
lia
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Gre
ece
Jap
an
Ne
w Z
eal
and
Can
ada
Ital
y
Ge
rman
y
Ire
lan
d
Po
rtu
gal
Spai
n
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
Po
lan
d
Me
xico
Turk
ey
OEC
D 3
0
Educational deprivation of 15 year olds in
Poland is average
Note: Educational deprivation data are derived from PISA 2006 (OECD/PISA, 2008). PISA asks questions about the possession of eight items,
including a desk to study, a quiet place to work, a computer for schoolwork, educational software, an internet connection, a calculator, a
dictionary, and school textbooks. The proportion of children reporting less than four of these educational items is used (less than four items best
represented results for cut-off points at three, four, five and six items). PISA collection processes employ standardised questionnaires,
translation, and monitoring procedures, to ensure high standards of comparability.
4 5 6 6 7 7 9 10 10
11
12
12
12 13 14 1
6 18
18 2
1
21
21 22
22
29
38
48
56 6
1
13
6
13
7
35
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ICE
DEU
AU
T
NLD
DN
K
SWI
ESP
BEL FIN
LUX
CZE
FRA
ITA
NO
R
PR
T
SWE
KO
R
GB
R
CA
N
HU
N
PO
L
AU
S
NZE IR
E
SVK
USA JP
N
GR
E
TUR
MEX
OEC
D
21-Jan-10
5
Housing and environment
• Two indicators • House crowding for children
• Local environmental conditions
• Policy levers: tax and benefit system, public housing provision, housing subsidies, Active Labour Market Policies
• How does Poland do?
Housing crowding for Polish children is very
high
Note: Overcrowding is assessed though questions on "number of rooms available to the household" for European countries from the Survey
on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) conducted in 2006; on the "number of bedrooms" in Australia; on whether the household
"cannot afford more than one bedroom" or “cannot afford to have a bedroom separate from eating room” in Japan; and on the "number of
rooms with kitchen and without bath" in the United States. Overcrowding is when the number of household members exceeds the number of
rooms (i.e. a family of four is considered as living in an overcrowded accommodation when there are only three rooms – excluding kitchen
and bath but including a living room). Data is for various years from 2003 to 2006.
10 11 1
3
15
15
16 17 18 20 20
20 20 21
22 23 2
6 31 32 34
48
55 5
9
68 70 7
3 74
30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
NLD ES
P
BEL
NO
R
FIN
IRE
LUX
DN
K
AU
S
DEU
SWE
FRA
GB
R
ICE
JPN
USA NZL
PR
T
AU
T
ITA
GR
E
CZE
SVK
MEX
HU
N
PO
L
OEC
D 2
6
21-Jan-10
6
Local environmental conditions for Polish
children are average
Note: Local environmental conditions are assessed through questions on whether the household's accommodation "has noise from neighbours or
outside" or has "any pollution, grime or other environmental problem caused by traffic or industry" for European countries; whether there is
"vandalism in the area", "grime in the area" or "traffic noise from outside" for Australia; whether "noises from neighbours can be heard" for Japan; and
whether there is "street noise or heavy street traffic", "trash, litter, or garbage in the street", "rundown or abandoned houses or buildings" or "odors,
smoke, or gas fumes" for the United States. Data is for various years from 2003 to 2006. Canada, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Switzerland, and
Turkey are missing.
11 1
2
16 16 1
9 20
20 2
2 23
23 2
5 25
26 26 27 29 30
30 32 32
33 33 3
7 39
25
0
10
20
30
40
50
AU
S
NO
R
ICE
SWE
IRE
DN
K
AU
T
HU
N
FIN
PO
L
GR
E
USA LU
X
FRA
SVK
GB
R
CZE
BEL
ESP
JPN
ITA
PR
T
DEU
NLD
OEC
D
So much for outcomes for Polish
children…now let us turn to
consideration of the policy side,
starting with social spending on
children
21-Jan-10
7
Patterns of public expenditure on
children, why and how?
• What is spent on children and at what age
• Timing matters for child well-being
• Early child development trajectories are more malleable than later ones (James Heckman)
• Therefore spend early….
Poland spends little on children: Cumulative
public spending over a child’s life
21-Jan-10
8
Poland spends less than the OECD average relative to
family income (%)
Source: OECD (2009), Doing Better for Children., Paris OECD, unpublished data..
Poland distributes less spending to younger
than to older children than the OECD average
21-Jan-10
9
Spending by year of child age in Poland as a percentage
of average family income
Source: OECD (2009), Doing Better for Children., Paris OECD.
So less is spent on young Polish
children…now consider the
policy side during these early
years (under 6 years)
21-Jan-10
10
Policies from conception to
kindergarten to support children
• Three stages
• Prenatal
• Birth
• Post-natal up to compulsory school
• Considerable variation in policies across the OECD
• Evidence for the variation in policies is weak
• Much more work needed at a country level in evaluating whether these policies work for children
Pre-natal policies
• Universal pre-natal checkups. Typically too many universal checks/scans, lack of evidence-based content
• Pre-natal benefits (e.g. start child benefits at some point during pregnancy – as in France and the United Kingdom)
• Pre-natal maternal nutrition vouchers (United Kingdom, USA). Some evidence these are positive for birth weight
• Pre-natal maternal leave allocation (may be compulsory- Germany - non-compulsory - NZL, low in Poland)
• Pre-natal maternal health booklets (e.g. Germany, France, Japan)
• Public health advice (e.g. anti-smoking and drinking campaigns for pregnant women)
21-Jan-10
11
Birth policies
• Days in hospital post-birth. Costly, no evidence of benefit
• Birth grants/baby bonuses – often seen as a mean to promote fertility (e.g. Australia, Belgium, France)
• Baby friendly hospitals (WHO) to promote breastfeeding (good evidence positive for child health and intelligence)
140 Euros or this? The Finnish baby
pack
21-Jan-10
12
Post-natal period
• Universal well-child checks
• Universal or a cascading services intensifying according to risk
• Home visits (NZL, UK, Denmark) vs. centre-based follow-up (Sweden, France)
• Child vaccination programme
• Post-natal maternal, paternal and parental leave (little evidence child outcomes respond to changes in leave duration)
• Child benefits, which are typically neutral to the age of the child or increase with age
• Child health booklets (e.g. France, New Zealand)
• Transition to early childhood education
The Polish early childhood system in
context
21-Jan-10
13
Unpaid parental leave in Poland is long
0.0
52.0
104.0
156.0
WeeksUnpaid leave FTE Paid Leave
Source: OECD Family database
Policy Recommendations I:
System design
• Support present and future well-being of children across all domains of well-being
• Develop policy to support child well-being as a system, with a coherent approach to the child life cycle and to the risks faced
• Monitor child well-being to identify improvements and areas needing policy attention
• Spend on children as if it were an investment portfolio. Subject the portfolio to a continuous iterative evaluation, reallocation and further evaluation to ensure child well-being is actually improved through time
• Set child well-being policy targets
21-Jan-10
14
Policy Recommendations II: Resourcing
• Spend more
• pre-natally & early in the child life cycle
• On those at high risk of poor well-being, especially early on
• Ensure that later investments (mostly education) complement earlier investments in at-risk children
• Spend less on:
• Highly medicalised, universal policies surrounding child birth
• Programmes captured by advantaged children, especially post-compulsory school
Policy Recommendations III: Things to try
• Pre-natal interventions (fewer universal visits, more targeting to mothers at-risk, look for evidence-based content)
• Coordinating breast-feeding with paid parental leave
• Home visiting and early childhood education interventions for at-risk children
• Methods of targeting resources to the most disadvantaged children
• Conditional cash transfers for children
• Experimental and non-experimental policy evaluation options
21-Jan-10
15
While the quality of children’s
lives in Poland is not always
good, is this compensated for by
high numbers of children?
No…aspects of the Polish
child/family system are not
working as well as they might
Polish fertility is relatively low and not rebounding
in recent years
Total fertility
rate, 2008
Change in
total fertility
rate, 2000-
2008
Poland (24th lowest) 1.39 Poland (21st lowest) 0.02
Average OECD-30 1.71 Average OECD-30 0.06
High: New Zealand 2.18 High: Sweden 0.36
Low: Korea 1.19 Low: Mexico -0.67
Source: OECD Family database. Replacement fertility=2.1 children per woman.
21-Jan-10
16
Where next for OECD child and family
work? Doing Better for Families (2011)
This publication will consider:
– Family benefit packages and how they are changing
– Removing barriers to family formation (encouraging fertility)
– Removing barriers to reconciling work & family life
– Promoting child development and well-being
– Family dissolution and public policy
– Vulnerable families and vulnerable children
Some relevant details
www.oecd.org/els/childwellbeing
Consultation document password: cwbparis
www.oecd.org/els/social/expenditure
www.oecd.org/els/social/family/database
+33 145 24 85 45