“SURVEY ON CHILD WELL-BEING INDICATORSIN ITALY”

Valerio Belotti Coordinator Italian Childhood and Adolescence

Documentation and Analysis Centre

Public Policies and Data

GOOD POLICIES ...... GOOD DATA? (IT’S EASY!)

GOOD DATA ..... GOOD POLICIES? (IT’S HARD!)

... IN ITALY

Public Policies and Data

GOOD POLICIES ......

...... GOOD DATA?

GOOD POLICIES ......

TRADITIONAL PERSPECTIVETHE NATIONAL CENTRE FROM 1997 TO TODAY:• Find basic data concerning children , “lost” in

the institutional statistics• Organise all the basic data and indicators in

the traditional academic and socio-demographic categories

• 170 facts and indicators on-line

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?• ARE THEY USEFUL FOR TARGETED QUESTIONS ON A SPECIFIC THEME, ON A

SPECIFIC PUBLIC POLICY (HOW MANY CHILDREN HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THEIR OWN FAMILIES?)

• ARE THEY DIFFICULT FOR NON-EXPERTS TO CONSULT? • THE CONTEXTS IN WHICH THE DATA ARE COLLECTED ARE NOT

MEANINGFUL FOR THE LIVES OF THE CHILDREN• THEY DO NOT RESPOND TO THE OPINION MAKERS (WHO WANT

STATISTICS IN SYNTHESIS (ARE THE CHILDREN BETTER OFF/WORSE OFF THAN BEFORE?)

• THEY DO NOT HIGHLIGHT THE BASIC DATA WHICH ARE MISSING OR ARE NOT COLLECTED

• THEY DO NOT HELP TO COMMUNICATE - TO BUILD A PUBLIC EVENT IN WHICH TO HIGHLIGHT THE CHILDREN’S DAILY SITUATION

NEW OBJECTIVES• Identify “domains” of meaning in which to

aggregate the data and the indicators• BUILD SYNTHETIC MEASURES TO “ MEASURE” THE

CHANGE IN THE CHILDREN’S SOCIAL CONDITION

• Communicate synthetic and legible data to the mass media

• Contribute to highlighting in the public sphere the theme of children’s well-being

• Accompany public policies

Cfr.• Crc 1989: 3P• Bradshaw et al. 2007; 2008• Unicef-Irc 2007

INDICATORS AND DIMENSIONS OF MEANING

• Indentification and calculation of the

indicators AVAILABLE TODAY to distribute in

the different dimensions of meaning

RESTRAINTS IN THE CHOICE OF INDICATORS:

• REFERRED DIRECTLY TO CHILDREN• CONSISTENT IN THEIR RELATION BETWEEN THE

INDICATOR AND THE MEANING OF THE DIMENSION

• AVAILABILITY IN TIME• BOTH “SUBJECTIVE AND “OBJECTIVE”

• PROVIDED BY THE INSTITUTIONAL SOURCES (ISTAT, MINISTRIES, REGIONS, CENTRE, EU, WHO)

• WELL-BEING

• CONTEXT• NATIONAL

• REGIONAL (n° 20)

• NATIONAL

• REGIONAL (n° 20)

NATURE OF INDICATORS AND TERRITORIES

DOMAIN OF MEANING AND INDICATORS

Dimensions N° sub-dimensions

N° Indicators

N° only context

N° well-being

N° only national N° regional

Relations and ties 5 55 20 35 21 34

Material well-being 2 9 - 9 6 3

Subjective well-being 2 18 - 18 18 -

Social well-being 1 7 2 5 6 1

Time 2 15 2 13 8 7

Health 8 50 2 48 8 42

School inclusion 6 56 8 48 13 43

Safety and danger 6 47 15 32 26 21

Social and educational services 6 61 29 32 10 51

Social structure 5 22 22 - - 22

10 dimensions 43 340 100 240 116 224

SYNTHESIS OF OBJECTIVES

A. Changes over time

B. Performances of the different regional welfare

services

Regional welfare performances: procedures

• The general “map” is reduced in size and in the indicators

• References to a two or three-year period due to a lack of annual data

• Summary indexes of indicators built from z-scores

• Summary indexes not based on a simple average but on a pondered average based on correlation

coefficients between the various indicators

Relazione familiari: Applicazione dei pesi agli z-scores

                 

  z-scores Relazioni familiari

Regioni

% di 3- 10enni che

giocano con il padre nei

giorni festivi

% di 3-10enni che giocano con la madre nei giorni

festivi

% di 3-17enni che hanno genitori che non sono mai

attenti ai programmi televisivi. videocassette/dvd visti dai figli

% figli minori con affidamento congiunto

e/o alternato (condiviso dal 2006) nelle

separazioni

% figli minori con affidamento congiunto

e/o alternato (condiviso dal 2006) nei divorzi

Figli affidati nelle separazioni per 1.000

minori residenti

Figli affidati nei divorzi per 1.000 minori

residenti

% di assenso all'interruzione

volontaria di gravidanza da parte

dei genitori (2003)

wk 0.79 0.71 1.76 0.99 0.56 0.58 0.57 2.04 media pesata media semplice

Piemonte 0.79 0.84 1.15 0.52 0.30 -1.17 -1.00 0.37 0.429 0.23

Valle d'Aosta 0.63 1.17 0.38 -0.79 0.99 -1.71 -1.21 1.89 0.492 0.17

Lombardia 0.93 0.81 1.42 1.03 1.11 -0.27 -0.37 0.20 0.688 0.61

Trentino-Alto Adige 0.58 0.96 -0.39 -0.43 -0.28 -0.32 -0.48 1.21 0.235 0.11

Veneto 0.19 0.17 0.88 0.93 1.19 0.62 0.15 -0.76 0.287 0.42

Friuli-Venezia Giulia 1.51 1.31 0.15 0.43 0.45 -0.77 -1.00 -0.28 0.182 0.22

Liguria 0.34 0.05 1.11 1.72 1.01 -1.96 -2.37 -0.35 0.167 -0.06

Emilia-Romagna 0.82 0.74 -1.21 0.97 1.53 -0.07 -0.48 1.77 0.521 0.51

Toscana 0.28 0.23 -0.35 1.00 1.19 -0.57 -0.37 0.24 0.173 0.21

Umbria -0.60 -0.73 -0.89 0.83 -0.22 0.28 0.36 -0.57 -0.334 -0.19

Marche -0.45 -0.16 1.38 0.89 0.97 0.18 -0.27 0.84 0.630 0.42

Lazio 0.89 0.56 -1.39 -0.60 -0.07 -1.07 -0.48 -1.82 -0.824 -0.50

Abruzzo 1.26 1.05 -0.98 -0.43 -0.47 -0.12 -0.06 -0.73 -0.285 -0.06

Molise -0.09 0.40 0.56 0.62 -0.53 0.87 0.89 -1.95 -0.181 0.10

Campania -1.17 -1.26 -1.48 -1.61 -1.24 1.12 1.20 0.38 -0.575 -0.51

Puglia -1.13 -1.25 1.56 -1.46 -1.47 1.17 1.20 -0.75 -0.184 -0.27

Basilicata -1.44 -1.53 -0.30 -0.85 -1.03 1.42 1.52 0.51 -0.180 -0.21

Calabria -1.88 -1.77 -0.26 -0.41 -1.40 1.52 1.20 -0.27 -0.421 -0.41

Sicilia -1.54 -1.49 -0.94 -1.33 -1.01 0.52 0.99 -0.23 -0.675 -0.63

Sardegna 0.11 -0.10 -0.39 -1.05 -1.01 0.33 0.57 0.30 -0.145 -0.16

Relazioni familiari: Z-scores e Pesi2005-2006

Family relations: 2 classifications 2005-06

Rank Regions Pondered average Rank Regions Simple average

1 Lombardy 0.688 1 Lombardy 0.608

2 Marches 0.630 2 Emilia-Romagna 0.509

3 Emilia-Romagna 0.521 3 Veneto 0.422

4 Valle d'Aosta 0.492 4 Marches 0.421

5 Piedmont 0.429 5 Piedmont 0.225

6 Veneto 0.287 6 Friuli-Venezia Giulia 0.224

7 Trentino-Alto Adige 0.235 7 Tuscany 0.207

8 Friuli-Venezia Giulia 0.182 8 Valle d'Aosta 0.166

9 Tuscany 0.173 9 Trentino-Alto Adige 0.106

10 Liguria 0.167 10 Molise 0.097

11 Sardinia -0.145 11 Liguria -0.056

12 Basilicata -0.180 12 Abruzzi -0.060

13 Molise -0.181 13 Sardinia -0.156

14 Apulia -0.184 14 Umbria -0.195

15 Abruzzi -0.285 15 Basilicata -0.213

16 Umbria -0.334 16 Apulia -0.266

17 Calabria -0.421 17 Calabria -0.409

18 Campania -0.575 18 Latium -0.497

19 Sicily -0.675 19 Campania -0.507

20 Latium -0.824 20 Sicily -0.628

Final regional classifications 2005-2006

Relations and ties

Material well-being Health School

inclusionSafety and

danger Consumption Services Average positions

Region E 3 5 1 13 5 12 12 7.29

Region H 2 6 6 14 17 3 3 7.29

Region D 11 3 9 9 14 2 4 7.43

Region C 1 4 16 5 13 10 6 7.86

Region K 8 13 5 1 7 8 14 8.00

Region F 6 10 4 6 16 7 9 8.29

Region I 7 14 2 8 11 9 8 8.43

Region J 18 2 10 2 12 13 2 8.43

Region A 10 9 12 3 19 6 5 9.14

Region M 15 1 7 15 8 5 16 9.57

Region B 14 12 15 19 6 4 1 10.14

Region L 4 7 20 4 10 11 15 10.14

Region N 5 11 3 17 4 17 18 10.71

Region R 13 17 8 10 3 16 13 11.43

Region G 19 8 17 12 20 1 7 12.00

Region P 9 18 14 7 9 18 17 13.14

Region Q 17 16 11 18 1 19 10 13.14

Region O 12 20 13 16 2 15 20 14.00

Region T 16 15 18 11 15 14 11 14.29

Region S 20 19 19 20 18 20 19 19.29

Objective B. Changes over time : …..

• We are still in the analysis phase ….• Our intention is to establish, with a jury of experts, some (few) indicators

for each of the dimensions of meaning and to propose annual

variations ….

Problems and Opportunities• We are still far from an ideal map, but we are beyond a simple starting point. Perhaps there is no other social condition in which,

in Italy, there are so many regional indicators. Thanks to the impetus given by the Crc ’89

• Various indicators are available at a national level• The continuous increase in surveys hinders comparison between

different time periods• The evident lack of some indicators serves to legitimate and

promote specific statistical surveys• Some indicators do not adequately represent certain dimensions of

meaning (we need the courage to remove some of them)• It is necessary to reinforce the monitoring/process evaluation of the

policies in order to have more stringent and consistent indicators

Public Policies and Data

... GOOD POLICIES ARE NEEDED TO PRODUCE GOOD DATA.....

... AS WELL AS SOCIAL RESEARCHERS OF COURSE, BUT THE QUESTION OF POLICIES IS ANOTHER MATTER!