Child well-being

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The child's well-being is a multidimensional concept to the quality of life measure for children. Childhood concept is based on the Convention on the Rights of the Child of the UN , according to which a child is a person aged up to 18 years. However, it is controversial whether the time before the birth should be included in this term - and if so, from what point in time. The measurement of child well-being represents a very complex challenge for science. Due to the very broad term, an understanding of what exactly is to be understood by child well-being has not yet taken place. Nevertheless, there are certain parameters with the help of which a structured classification is possible. The concept, which is derived from children's rights, is therefore also related to the discussions about well-being as a holistic indicator of prosperity and, despite the universal claim, still relates primarily to the OECD countries.

Theoretical and empirical assessment of child well-being

Since the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child , the concept of child well-being has enjoyed increasing interest. In the course of this, organizations such as UNICEF and the OECD endeavor to develop a theoretical and empirical concept.

UNICEF and the Innocenti Research Center

In the course of time, the tasks of UNICEF were constantly expanded. Originally founded to help children in need after the war, new areas of responsibility have been added. It is less about ensuring child protection , as was previously the case, and more about the well-being of the child itself. In the UNICEF report "Child Poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries" the concept for measuring child well-being is presented. The attempt is made to capture the child's well-being in different dimensions.

As the first dimension, the “material well-being” of a child is listed and empirically based on relative income poverty, the proportion of children who live in households without a working parent (households without jobs) and the proportion of children who Reported deprivation of their families was measured. The low level of prosperity is expressed, among other things, in the percentage of children surveyed who live in a household that has fewer than ten books.

The second dimension, health and safety , also consists of three indicators . The first indicator reflects the infant mortality rate and low birth weight (health at age 0-1). A value of less than 2500 g is used as a weight standard. The second indicator is the percentage of children who were vaccinated under one year of age (preventative health service). Finally, the number of deaths from accidents and injuries in children and adolescents under 19 years of age (safety) is also listed as an indicator.

Another dimension is the education and training of children. The associated indicators relate, on the one hand, to the recording of performance in the areas of reading, mathematics and natural sciences (school achievement at age 15). On the other hand, the proportion of young people between the ages of 15 and 19 who are in full and part-time training is measured (beyond and basics). The last indicator of this dimension expresses the proportion of young people who are not in training or who are gainfully employed, as well as the proportion of pupils who expect a job with low qualifications (the transition to employment).

The area of relationships with family and peers is determined by the number of young people who live in single-parent family structures and in step-family structures. In addition, the proportion of children and young people who eat their main meal at one table several times a week and the proportion of schoolchildren who “find it easy to talk to their parents” (family relationship) are recorded. Ultimately, the relationship with peers is also taken into account (peer relationship). The question is how many young people aged 11, 13 and 15 perceive their peers to be “friendly and helpful”.

The behavioral risk dimension is based on the eating behavior and (over) weight of young people (health behaviors), the proportion of cigarette, alcohol and cannabis consumption and the proportion of young people who have already had sexual intercourse and have used a condom , as well as the number of births of young women (risk behaviors). Finally, this dimension is determined by an indicator that includes the children's physical experience of violence.

Ultimately, the child's subjective well-being is recorded as one dimension. The subjective assessment of the children and adolescents about their state of health is taken into account. Furthermore, the subjective life satisfaction (personal well-being) of young people is queried. The last indicator relates to the proportion of young people who “like school very much” (school life).

Unicef's selection of indicators is based on an effort to adequately reflect the well-being of children. The six dimensions provide a comprehensive record that also takes into account the subjective well-being of the children. The following is stated in the UNICEF report Child Poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries :

“When we attempt to measure children's wellbeing what we really seek to know is whether children are adequately clothed and housed and fed and protected, whether their circumstances are such that they are likely to become all that they are capable of becoming, or whether they are disadvantaged in ways that make it difficult or impossible for them to participate fully in the life and opportunities of the world around them. Above all we seek to know whether children feel loved, cherished, special and supported, within the family and community, and whether the family and community are being supported in this task by public policy and resources. "

OECD

The OECD also derives its concept for measuring child well-being from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child . Six dimensions are also worked out on this basis. These partially overlap with the dimensions of UNICEF, whereby the indicators recorded differ slightly from one another. The number of indicators considered to measure each dimension ranges from quality of school attendance to health . A total of 21 indicators were used.

The material well-being is measured by three indicators. These concern the average household net income (average disposable income), the proportion of children in households with less than 50% of the average household net income (children in poor homes) and the proportion of children who have less than four necessary educational means available (educational deprivation) . This includes an available desk, homework computer, educational software, Internet connection, calculator, dictionary and school books.

Another OECD-specific dimension of child well-being is the living conditions and the living environment . It is empirically recorded with the help of two indicators. One indicator relates to living in cramped living conditions (overcrowding). This is the case when more people live in the household than there are living rooms (without kitchen and bathroom). The second indicator is composed of a battery of questions about the living environment (poor environmental conditions). These include questions about noise, air pollution, vandalism and crime, as well as the condition of the houses.

Like UNICEF, the OECD also uses the data known under the name PISA to record education as a further dimension of child well-being. PISA data from 15-year-olds (2006) are used to generate an average value of the scores in the areas of arithmetic, writing and science (average mean literacy score). In addition, a measure of inequality is calculated from the data and introduced as an indicator (literacy inequality). This dimension is completed by the proportion of young people who are neither in school nor in vocational training (youth NEET rates).

In addition to the educational dimension , the quality of school attendance is conceived as an independent dimension. Under 11 to 15 year olds are asked about experiences with bullying in school (bullying) and about a personal relationship to the pupils (liking school).

The most extensively surveyed dimension of child welfare is health and safety . One of the focal points is the indicators that capture the earliest development of children. For example, data on the birth weight of children, the infant mortality rate, the proportion of mothers who have ever given their newborns breast milk, and whooping cough and measles vaccinations are taken into account. The further course of life, in terms of child well-being, is mapped via the death and suicide rate among children and adolescents. The final factor is the children's physical activity.

A final dimension of child well-being is summarized under the label of risk behavior by adolescents (13-19 years of age). As in the UNICEF study, the indicators on cigarette and alcohol consumption as well as the proportion of teenage births are used here.

The OECD defines the following criteria for the selection of indicators: The data should, if possible, be up-to-date, child-centered and standardized surveys that depict the quality of life of children between the ages of 0 and 17 years. In line with the self-image of the OECD, in addition to involving as many member countries as possible, the indicators should be selected in such a way that the results of the study provide practical opportunities for political intervention. This is one of the main reasons why, in contrast to UNICEF, the OECD does not record the subjective well-being of children.

Another requirement that should determine the selection was the most comprehensive possible coverage of the six dimensions. This includes, among other things, that the dimensions of the child's well-being should cover aspects of current well-being as well as aspects of future-oriented well-being.

The study presented in the end largely corresponds to these guidelines, whereby certain deficits are also identified. Not all age groups are covered, and the dimensions are insufficiently recorded (e.g. psychological indicators in health).

Difference between the OECD and UNICEF

The UNICEF and OECD measurements of child well-being differ significantly in terms of the conceptual perspectives used. UNICEF refers, among other things, to the dimension of “subjective well-being”, which takes a subjective perspective of the child as its starting point. The OECD, on the other hand, uses dimensions and indicators, the characteristics of which are in part already geared towards political (action) strategies. A subjective approach to the best interests of the child is not considered here.

As for the number of countries examined, UNICEF refers to 21 countries for its study; the OECD, on the other hand, examines child well-being in 30 nations. The nine additionally examined countries of the OECD study are: Australia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Turkey, Slovakia, Luxembourg, Iceland and Mexico.

To present the results, following the data analysis and the evaluation of the results, UNICEF ranked the individual nations, which results from the mean values ​​of the six child welfare indicators. However, such an overall ranking does not exist in the OECD study. There are no rankings here.

Similarities between the OECD and UNICEF

The concept and measurement of child well-being of both organizations have similarities in that both UNICEF and the OECD refer to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to more accurately determine child well-being. Since the OECD directly refers to the preparatory work by UNICEF (2007) and Bradshaw et al. (2007), there is further agreement in four out of six dimensions on which the measurement is based. Both organizations use material well-being as well as health and safety as well as risk behavior and education as the basis for measuring child well-being.

Current state of research on child well-being in the rich industrial nations

Through the international study Child poverty in perspective carried out by the Innocenti Research Center in 2007 . An overview of child well-being in rich countries was the first to measure and compare the situation of children in 21 industrialized nations on the basis of six dimensions of child well-being. At the national level, UNICEF-Germany joins the international Innocenti study with its 2010 study on the situation of children in Germany .

If all six indicators are combined into an average value, Germany is in eighth place (middle field) in an international comparison. The positions of the individual dimensions, however, show considerable differences in rank in some cases. In terms of the material well-being of children and young people , Germany is in 14th place (bottom group), but in terms of the dimension of subjective well-being, Germany ranks ninth. (Midfield). In the area of education and relationships with peers and families , Germany can show an improvement in its positions in 2010 compared to 2007 (+4 in each case). The areas of education in sixth place and behavior and risks in seventh place are part of the international top group (ranks 1-7).

discussion

Direct or indirect acquisition

In the spectrum of approaches, two opposing ideas can be identified with regard to a direct or indirect assessment of the child's well-being. On the one hand, the child's well-being is designed as a multi-dimensional concept that takes place via an indirect measurement. An example would be the child mortality rate. The second approach is based on the idea of ​​asking children about their quality of life themselves (Casas 1997; Ben-Arieh, Frønes 2007). An example of this is the question of subjective well-being.

Time alignment

The two approaches can be distinguished here as a development perspective (developmentalist perspective) on the one hand and children's rights perspective are referred to on the other, (child rights perspective). The development perspective emphasizes the future quality of life of children, whereas the child rights perspective places the child's well-being in the here and now. In concrete terms, the contrast between these understandings can be illustrated using a simple example. Playing with friends as long and as extensive as possible could on the one hand be seen as a positive aspect of the child's welfare ( child rights perspective ), on the other hand reference could be made to the lack of attention that could be devoted to school ( development perspective ).

Positive or negative measurement of child well-being

The original attempts to assess child well-being were strongly oriented towards the group of disadvantaged children. Critics call this approach the deficit approach . As an alternative, they developed a strengths-based perspective (Ben-Arieh, Goerge 2001; Pollard Lee 2003; Fattore et al. 2007).

For the measurement of child well-being, this approach means that not primarily specific (disadvantaged) subgroups are to be found in the center of interest, but rather the positive strengths and abilities of all children as a whole are the starting point for recording.

Individual data or aggregated data

Depending on the research focus, one final distinction can be made, which concerns the format of the data. If you want to take a look at the child's well-being within a delimited space, the data usually come from individuals or people from their immediate environment. For example, questions about experiences with bullying at school can be placed in this category. In contrast to this, for example when comparing countries, standardized data (aggregate data) are often used, for example from official statistics. Typical examples are the child mortality, suicide or youth unemployment rates.

Application based on the OECD study Doing Better for Children

The OECD's measurement of the best interests of the child was always indirect. It focuses on the child's later development (development opportunities), whereby aspects of the current situation are also taken into account. Care was taken to ensure that both aspects are taken into account in the respective dimensions. In addition, predominantly negative indicators are considered. The country comparison is based on both aggregate data and aggregated individual data, some of which are used for a more detailed analysis of subgroups according to gender, age or nationality. The data was not collected independently, but drawn from a wide variety of sources. Accordingly, they were not originally intended to be used to measure children's well-being.

One of the main reasons for choosing the dimensions and indicators used is therefore due to pragmatism. On the one hand, the OECD particularly emphasizes the inadequate theoretical basis that could guide adequate measurement and, on the other hand, the limited data basis. Since an international comparison requires a wealth of comparable measurements in the respective countries, such a study must be based on indicators that are available in all (as many) countries. In addition, however, two conceptual decisions are given that caused the measurements made. On the one hand, the researchers are skeptical about the possibilities (especially of younger children) to provide information about their well-being. On the other hand, the OECD sees itself as a policy-making institution. With this orientation in mind, dimensions of child well-being were chosen that allow direct access to politics.

criticism

Both the OECD and UNICEF concepts share certain inherent problems, despite their contribution to assessing the best interests of the child:

In the current debate, there is disagreement as to which indicators each dimension best depicts the child's wellbeing. There are no theoretically substantiated arguments for a more precise illustration of the corresponding indicators. In addition, there is no theory for correct measurement and so the indicators or dimensions are only weighted statistically or ad hoc.

The existing studies on measuring child well-being are still limited insofar as the data collected cannot, for example, be differentiated according to social group (gender, ethnic origin, socio-economic status, etc.).

Ultimately, a uniform concept for measuring child well-being turns out to be difficult because the data for the indicators vary from country to country.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c OECD: Doing better for Children. 2009, p. 24, (online, not open source) , as of June 20, 2011.
  2. ↑ UNICEF: Child Poverty in perspective. An overview of child well-being in rich countries. Innocenti Report Card 7, UNICEF Innocenti Research Center, Florence 2007, online (PDF; 1.6 MB), as of June 20, 2011.
  3. ↑ UNICEF: Child Poverty in perspective. An overview of child well-being in rich countries. Innocenti Report Card 7, UNICEF Innocenti Research Center, Florence 2007, p. 39, online (PDF; 1.6 MB), as of June 20, 2011.
  4. ↑ OECD: Doing better for Children. 2009, p. 28, (online, not open source) , as of June 20, 2011.
  5. ↑ OECD: Doing better for Children. 2009, p. 29ff, (online, not open source) , as of June 20, 2011.
  6. ↑ OECD: Doing better for Children. 2009, p. 31, (online, not open source) , as of June 20, 2011.
  7. ^ Doing better for children. 2009, p. 28f., (Online, not open source) As of June 20, 2011.
  8. ↑ UNICEF: Child Poverty in perspective. An overview of child well-being in rich countries. Innocenti Report Card 7, UNICEF Innocenti Research Center, Florence 2007, online (PDF; 1.6 MB), as of June 20, 2011.
  9. ↑ Hans Bertram, Steffen Kohl: On the situation of children in Germany 2010. Strengthen children for an uncertain future. German Committee for UNICEF, Cologne 2010.
  10. ^ Ferran Casas: Children's Rights and Children's Quality of Life: Conceptual and Practical Issues. In: Social Indicators Research. Vol. 42, 1997, pp. 283-298.
  11. ↑ Asher Ben-Arieh, Ivar Frønes: Indicators of Children's Well being: What should be Measured and Why? In: Social Indicators Research. Vol. 84., 2007, pp. 249-250.
  12. ↑ Asher Ben-Arieh, Robert Goerge: Beyond the Numbers. How Do We Monitor the State of Our Children. In: Children and Youth Services Review. Vol. 23. No. 2, 2001, pp. 709-727. (Abstract)
  13. ↑ Elizabeth L. Pollard, Patrice D. Lee, Child Well-Being: A Systematic Review of the Literature. In: Social Indicators Research. Vol. 61, 2003, pp. 59-78.
  14. ^ Toby Fattore, Jan Mason, Elizabeth Watson: Children's Conceptualization (s) of their Well-being. In: Social Indicator Research. Vol. 80. 2007, pp. 1-4.

literature

  • Janet Currie , Stabile Mark: Mental Health in Childhood and Human Capital. In: Jonathan Gruber (Ed.): The problems of disadvantage youth. An economic perspective. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 2009, ISBN 978-0-226-30945-3 , pp. 115-149.
  • K. Theo Dijkstra: Child Well-being in Rich Countries: UNICEF's Ranking Revisited, and New Symmetric Aggregating Operators Exemplified. In: K. Theo Dijkstra (Ed. :) Child Indicators Research. Vol. 2, No. 3, 2009, ISSN  1874-8988 , pp. 303-318.
  • Almas Heshmati, Chemen Bajalan, Arno Tausch: Measurement and Analysis of Child Well-Being in Middle and High Income Countries. Institute for the Study of Labor, 2007. (IZA Document Paper. No. 3203)
  • Elizabeth L. Pollard, Patrice D. Lee: Child Well-Being: A Systematic Review of the Literature. In: Social Indicators Research. Vol. 61, No. 1, 2003, pp. 59-78.
  • Dominic Richardson: Regional Case Studies. Child Well-Being in Europe. In: Sheila B. Kamerman, Shelley Phipps, Asher Ben-Arieh (Eds.): From Child Welfare to Child Well-Being. An International Perspective on Knowledge in the Service of Policy Making. Springer-Verlag, New York 2010, ISBN 978-90-481-3376-5 , pp. 403-426.

Web links

  • Hans Bertram, Steffen Kohl: On the situation of children in Germany 2010. Empowering children for an uncertain future. German Committee for UNICEF, Cologne 2010, online (PDF; 4.6 MB), June 20, 2011.
  • OECD: Doing better for children. 2009, online, but not open source , as of June 20, 2011.
  • UNICEF: Child Poverty in perspective. An overview of child well-being in rich countries. Innocenti Report Card 7, UNICEF Innocenti Research Center, Florence 2007, online (PDF; 1.6 MB), as of June 22, 2011.
  • Almas Heshmati, Chemen Bajalan, Arno Tausch: Measurement and Analysis of Child Well-Being in Middle and High Income Countries. IZA Document Paper, No. 3203, 2007, Institute for the Study of Labor, online (PDF; 804 kB), as of July 2, 2011.
  • The concept of child welfare in transition, taking into account the influence of childhood research. (Diss.) Online (PDF; 1.0 MB)
  • Innocenti Research Center