Upload
dominic-lamb
View
217
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
“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!