Los servicios de la ciudad

I.5.1 General household surveys

EU-SILC and the Labour Force Survey (LFS) are the most frequently used statistical tools to monitor child poverty and well-being in several Member States, for their national purposes and/or in the context of their activities within the EU Social Protection and Social Inclusion Process. It is urgent to assess the extent to which these data sources provide the “minimum database” required for an internationally comparable assessment of the most important aspects of the situation of children and their families. (See also below, point I.5.5.)

In this regard, it is also important that the SPC and its Indicators Sub-Group go on being closely involved in all the discussions, within the European Statistical System, on the content of EU-SILC – whether these discussions address the thematic modules included each year in EU-SILC or the core EU-SILC variables. The first in-depth discussion on the latter is planned for the years 2011/2012 and should lead to the inclusion in the core EU-SILC questionnaire of a set of variables specifically related to child poverty and well-being. The choice of these child-focused variables will largely be based on the analysis of the child related results of the 2009 EU-SILC thematic module on material deprivation to be adopted early 2008 (see above).

It should be noted that EU-SILC and other trans-national general household surveys are (and in view of their design and main purposes will always remain) insufficient for the monitoring of the income and living conditions of the most excluded children (children from a migrant or minority background, children living in institutions, street children…). Addressing these important aspects requires other instruments which should be further investigated at EU level. We come back to this in points I.5.3 and I.5.4 below.

I.5.2 Administrative and registers sources

Full use of the information contained in administrative/registers sources should be made to complement the information collected in the context of EU-SILC and other statistical surveys. These data have significant potential to improve national and EU knowledge of the regional dimension and of the circumstances of the most vulnerable children (see also below, point I.5.3), and this should be investigated in depth. Best ways of using these data to simulate the impact of policy changes should also be explored (see above, point I.2).

I.5.3 Specific data sources on children in vulnerable situation

The specific situation of the most vulnerable children (children in institutions or in foster care, children with chronic health problems or disabilities, abused children, street children, children from a migrant or minority background, etc) cannot be monitored using the standard survey tools. With a view to better monitoring the situation of these children, some Member States (e.g. IT, LV, HU, SK, FI and UK) have developed specific information systems based on administrative/registers data or surveys, on children in vulnerable situation.

I.5.4 Special surveys on children

In recent years, various Member States have developed specific national surveys on children, or are in the process of doing so.

a) Most of these surveys (e.g. DK, DE, FR, IE, FI, UK; see Part II, point I.4) are longitudinal surveys implemented at national level. Longitudinal data and their linkage with administrative/registers data are currently the most thorough and efficient way of measuring long-term impacts of events experienced during the youth on the individual socio-economic situation of adults. For example: for the inter-generational transmission of poverty to be properly analysed, such individual data collected regularly from the same people are needed. However, building, maintaining and using panel data is costly. Regardless of the significant policy and scientific interest of developing longitudinal data bases, Member States, especially those which are currently developing their statistical capacity, might therefore be reluctant to develop panel data sources specifically focused on children. For these countries, it is essential that an in-depth cost-benefit analysis (in terms of policy monitoring and assessment) be conducted to evaluate whether or not the actual added value provided by these powerful tools justifies the financial burden.

b) Some countries (also) conduct national non-longitudinal surveys on child well- being. This is the case, for instance of FR, IT, MT, AT, SE and UK.

c) Finally, a few quite innovative survey methods, which are based on direct interviews of children, have been carried out in some countries (e.g. in DK, SE and UK). Interviewing children on their own experience and perceptions of poverty and social exclusion allows collecting useful information on child well- being that cannot always be obtained through the parents. As was highlighted at the 6th Round Table on Poverty and Social Exclusion held on 16th and 17th October 2007, this will inter alia “help to ensure an enhanced focus on children as citizens who have a right to be fully active in their own well-being and to participate in the decisions that affect them including the shaping, implementing and monitoring of policies”.

I.5.5 International surveys

Apart from EU-SILC and the LFS, several Member States also mentioned the importance of other surveys implemented by international organisations, which can also provide useful information on child well-being. In particular: the survey on Health Behaviour in School Aged Children (HBSC) by the World Health Organisation, the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and other Drugs (ESPAD) by the Council of Europe, the Gender and Generations Surveys by the United Nations Economic Commissions for Europe, and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) by the OECD. It is important that an in-depth evaluation of these sources be carried out in order to assess whether they can contribute to an improved and comparable assessment of child well-being. In which case, they should be used to the full in the regular EU benchmarking suggested above (point I.3).

133

I.6

Improving governance and monitoring arrangements at all