gill main [email protected] international society for child indicators conference 2011
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Developing a child-centric measure of child poverty
Gill [email protected]
International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011
![Page 2: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Is there a need for a child-centric measure of child poverty?
If so, what is the best way to develop such a measure?
Does the measure add to our understanding of child poverty and its relationship to subjective well-being?
Research questions
![Page 3: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Focus on English context
Policy review
Current definitions and measures of child poverty Relative low family income Combined low family income and (adult-defined) material deprivation Absolute low family income Persistent poverty (meeting above conditions for at least three out of the
previous four years) Very low income and material deprivation “A new approach to child poverty: tacking the causes of disadvantage and
transforming families’ lives” (emphasis added)
Policy tension between children’s ‘rights’ and children’s ‘best interests’
Policy context
![Page 4: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Two main approaches to research on childhood: Developmental approach – focus on children as
adult-becomings New sociology of childhood – children as active
agents
BUT circularity in investigating poor children as active agents – tendency to pre-classify children as poor according to policy definitions and seek only the opinions of these ‘poor’ children
Research context
![Page 5: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Focus of existing research
Poor families
Poor children
![Page 6: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Purpose of this research
Children
Poor children
![Page 7: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
‘Poverty’ and ‘child’ both contested concepts.
‘Poverty’ difficult if not impossible to measure directly.
How to test construct validity of a new measure?
Tools used here: Relationship to existing poverty measures. Relationship to children’s subjective well-being.
Methodological difficulty
![Page 8: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Selection of an appropriate approach to new child poverty measures
Focus groups with children
Pilot survey of parent-child pairs (300 pairs)
Mainstage Children’s Society survey 2010-11 (almost 5500 children 8-16)
Quarterly Children’s Society survey 2011 (2000 children, linked to parentally-supplied data)
Methodology
![Page 9: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Key interim findings and decisions
Traditional measures of child poverty useful but flawed: Not good at picking up variation between children Weak associations with subjective well-being
Socially Perceived Necessities approach useful in gaining a direct picture of children’s material situation; items identified by children have some overlap with and some significant differences to items identified by adults
Children and adults provide very similar responses to objective poverty measures; more difference in responses to subjective poverty measures
![Page 10: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Items identified by children
List of 20 items identified in focus groups. Reduced through pilot data to list of 10, based on scalability and strength of relationship to traditional poverty variables
10 items included in mainstage and quarterly surveys: Some pocket money each week Some money to save each month A pair of brand-named trainers An iPod or similar MP3 player Cable or satellite TV at home A garden or somewhere similar nearby to spend time safely Access to a family car Clothes to fit in with other people their age A holiday away from home for one week each year Monthly day-trips with family
All items associated with traditional poverty variables and subjective well-being; items form an acceptable scale.
![Page 11: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Distribution of scores on the deprivation scale
![Page 12: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Subjective well-being distribution
High likelihood of heterogeneity amongst those scoring 20.
![Page 13: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Tobit regression of subjective well-being by poverty variables
Variable Demographics + poverty + deprivation
School year (6 as reference group)
8 -1.21** -1.48** -1.45**
10 -2.38** -3.21** -2.94**
Sex 0.64** 0.79** 0.71**
Family type (two parents as reference)
Lone parent -1.34** -1.58** -1.43**
Step family -1.20** -0.71 NS -0.51 NS
Other -2.37** -3.18* -2.97*
Free school meal receipt 0.05 NS 0.36 NS
Own bedroom -0.47 NS -0.32 NS
Some weekly money -0.53 NS -0.21 NS
Adults in paid work (none as reference)
One 0.49 NS -0.37 NS
Two 1.01 NS 0.07 NS
Three+ 0.35 NS 0.62 NS
Deprivation score (lacking none as reference)
One -0.89**
Two -2.27**
Three-four -2.90**
Five + -3.44**
r² 0.08 0.14 0.21
![Page 14: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Logistic odds of being unhappy according to poverty variablesVariable Demographics + poverty + deprivation
School year (6 as reference group)
8 1.64** 1.87* 1.61 NS
10 2.43** 3.88** 3.10 **
Sex 0.59** 0.47** 0.48**
Family type (two parents as reference)
Lone parent 2.35** 2.98** 2.87**
Step family 2.52** 1.77 NS 1.61 NS
Other 2.72 NS 4.14 NS 4.01 NS
Free school meal receipt 1.06 NS 0.68 NS
Own bedroom 1.12 NS 1.09 NS
Some weekly money 1.45 NS 1.21 NS
Adults in paid work (none as reference)
One 0.75 NS 0.92 NS
Two 0.56 NS 0.75 NS
Three+ 1.10 NS 1.07 NS
Deprivation score
1 0.87 NS
2 2.59**
3-4 3.24**
5+ 5.37**
Nagelkerke r² 0.06 0.13 0.17
![Page 15: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Logistic odds of being happy according to poverty variablesVariable Demographics + poverty + deprivation
School year (6 as reference group)
8 0.51** 0.49** 0.43**
10 0.27** 0.21** 0.20**
Sex 1.39** 1.47** 1.40*
Family type (two parents as reference)
Lone parent 0.61** 0.64* 0.62*
Step family 0.67** 0.80 NS 0.88 NS
Other 0.43 NS 0.25 NS 1.01 NS
Free school meal receipt 1.14 NS 1.16 NS
Own bedroom 0.82 NS 0.89 NS
Some weekly money 0.89 NS 1.01 NS
Adults in paid work (none as reference)
One 1.58 NS 1.66 NS
Two 1.79 NS 1.78 NS
Three+ 1.51 NS 1.57 NS
Deprivation score
1 0.64*
2 0.34**
3-4 0.26**
5+ 0.30**
Nagelkerke r² 0.93 13.2 0.19
![Page 16: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Categorising families as poor Non-poor – neither no adults in paid employment nor
child receives free school meals Poor – either no adults in paid work or child receives free
school meals (12.5% of children) Very poor – both no adults in paid work and child
receives free school meals (2.5% of children)
Categorising children as poor: Non-poor – lacking fewer than 2 items (71.2% of
children) Poor – lacking 2+ items (28.8% of children) Very poor – lacking 3+ items (16.2% of children) Extremely poor – lacking 5+ items (5% of children)
Distinguishing child poverty from family poverty
![Page 17: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Child poverty by family poverty
Overall Family non-poor Family poor Family very poor0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Child non-poorChild poorChild very poorChild extremely poor
% c
hid
ren
![Page 18: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Happiness by child and family poverty status
Overall Family non-poor Family poor Family very poor0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Overall
Child non-poor
Child poor
Child very poor
Child extremely poor
Su
bje
cti
ve
we
ll-b
ein
g
![Page 19: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
When income quintiles are used
Overall Lowest Second lowest
Middle Second highest
Highest0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Overall
Not poor
Poor
Very poor
Extremely poor
Household income quintile
Me
an
su
bje
cti
ve
we
ll-b
ein
g
![Page 20: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Child poverty does appear to be distinguishable from family poverty.
Variations in children’s subjective well-being are more associated with variations in poverty at the level of the child than poverty at the level of the family.
Treating poor children as a sub-set of children rather than a sub-set of poor families provides a different kind of insight into child poverty.
Using the socially perceived necessities approach can provide valid and reliable indicators of child poverty
This measure of child poverty explains all and more of the variation in subjective well-being that was previously explained by traditional poverty measures
Child poverty (or an absence of poverty) is useful as a predictor of both low subjective well-being and of high subjective well-being.
Summary
![Page 21: Gill Main gm544@york.ac.uk International Society for Child Indicators conference 2011](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062801/56649e7c5503460f94b7e6f2/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Child-centric measures of child poverty should be included in policy.
Targeting poor families does not guarantee targeting poor children.
Policies should focus on improving children’s situations in the present as well as educating them to become non-poor adults.
Despite policy focus on positive aspects of well-being, child poverty is as useful as a predictor of low well-being as it is of high well-being. Remedial efforts to improve low well-being should not be rejected in favour of efforts to promote high well-being.
Conclusions and implications