A Practitioner's Guide to Using Child Indicators 3030902935, 9783030902933

Citation preview

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN WELLBEING AND QUALIT Y OF LIFE RESEARCH

William O’Hare

A Practitioner’s Guide to Using Child Indicators

123

SpringerBriefs in Well-Being and Quality of Life Research

SpringerBriefs in Well-Being and Quality-of-Life Research are concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical applications across the field of well-being and quality of life research. These compact refereed monographs are under the editorial supervision of an international Advisory Board*. Volumes are 50 to 125 pages (approximately 20,000–70,000 words), with a clear focus. The series covers a range of content from professional to academic such as: snapshots of hot and/or emerging topics, in-depth case studies, and timely reports of state-of-the art analytical techniques. The scope of the series spans the entire field of Well-Being Research and Quality-of-Life Studies, with a view to significantly advance research. The character of the series is international and interdisciplinary and will include research areas such as: health, cross-cultural studies, gender, children, education, work and organizational issues, relationships, job satisfaction, religion, spirituality, ageing from the perspectives of sociology, psychology, philosophy, public health and economics in relation to Well-being and Quality-of-Life research. Volumes in the series may analyze past, present and/or future trends, as well as their determinants and consequences. Both solicited and unsolicited manuscripts are considered for publication in this series. SpringerBriefs in Well-Being and Quality-of-Life Research will be of interest to a wide range of individuals with interest in quality of life studies, including sociologists, psychologists, economists, philosophers, health researchers, as well as practitioners across the social sciences. Briefs will be published as part of Springer’s eBook collection, with millions of users worldwide. In addition, Briefs will be available for individual print and electronic purchase. Briefs are characterized by fast, global electronic dissemination, standard publishing contracts, easy-to-use manuscript preparation and formatting guidelines, and expedited production schedules. We aim for publication 8–12 weeks after acceptance.

More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/10150

William O’Hare

A Practitioner’s Guide to Using Child Indicators

William O’Hare 11 Randolph Avenue O’Hare Data & Demographic Services LLC Cape Charles, VA, USA

ISSN 2211-7644 ISSN 2211-7652 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Well-Being and Quality of Life Research ISBN 978-3-030-90293-3 ISBN 978-3-030-90291-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90291-9 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Sponsoring Organizations

This publication is a joint project involving three different organizations. The funding comes from The Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore, MD. The International Society for Child Indicators (ISCI) also played a role in the project development as did the International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS). Each of these organizations is described below. The Annie E. Casey Foundation is devoted to developing a brighter future for millions of children and young people. A Baltimore-based national foundation, its work focuses on strengthening families, building stronger communities, and ensuring access to opportunity. The Foundation advances research and solutions to overcome barriers to success, help communities demonstrate what works and influence decision makers to invest in strategies based on solid evidence. Since 1948, these efforts have translated into more informed policies and practices and yielded positive results for young people and their families. The International Society for Child Indicators (ISCI): ISCI offers an organized professional home to support and foster collaboration, integrate findings, and disseminate research for developing and using indicators and measurements of child and adolescent well-being. The International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS): Established in 1995, the International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS) is a global organization with a mission to promote and encourage research in the field of quality-of-life (QOL), happiness, and well-being studies. In the last 20+ years, ISQOLS has become a globally recognized professional organization, with its own publications, journals, conferences, and identity. ISQOLS’ mission focuses on creating a paradigm shift within traditional academic disciplines and to transform “Quality-of-Life” studies into an academic discipline. ISQOLS’ goal is to establish academic degree programs, departments, and schools within institutions of higher education worldwide, all focused on the science of well-being. The ultimate goal is to help with the creation, dissemination, and utilization of knowledge of the science

v

vi

Sponsoring Organizations

of well-being across all walks of life. The Society is comprised of researchers, practitioners, professionals, students, retirees, statisticians, faculty, and people of all ages from all parts of the world, with an interest in exploring quality-of-life, happiness, and well-being.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank The Annie E. Casey Foundation for providing financial support for this project. The author also wishes to thank Barbara Clark O’Hare for providing advice and editing of the manuscript and Peter Clark O’Hare for editing help.

vii

Contents

1

2

3

Introduction and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Introduction and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Key Terms and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Development of the Child Indicator Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Connections to Child Indicator Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 The Development of an Organizational Infrastructure . . . . . . . . 1.6 Why Data and Research Are Particularly Important for Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 Sorting out Scholarship and Advocacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 Contents of this Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 The Audience for this Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

1 1 3 5 7 8

. . . . .

10 11 13 14 15

. . . . . . . .

19 19 21 22 23 24 25 27

Uses of Child Well-being Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Increasing Public Awareness about Child Well-being . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 International Reports (Reports Including More than One Country) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Country Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31 31 32

Analytic Frameworks and Perspectives for Measuring Child Well-being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child . . . . 2.3 Child Development Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Ecological Model of Child Well-being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Sociology of Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Subjective Child Well-being Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33 35

ix

x

Contents

3.3 Monitoring Child Well-being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Goal Setting for Child Well-being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Evaluating Programs and Policies Related to Children . . . . . . . . 3.6 Identifying Child-Centered Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Using Indicators in Research and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

37 38 39 42 42 42

4

Developing and Evaluating a Set of Child Well-being Indicators . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 What Is an Indicator of Child Well-being? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Statistics and Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Indicators for Individuals and Population Indicators . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Key Questions Related to Indicator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Roles and Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.1 Getting Stakeholder Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.2 Using a Data Partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.3 Relationships with Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 Identifying Indicators of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.1 Domains of Well-being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.2 How Many Indicators Do I Need? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 Where to Look for Potential Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8.1 Administrative Data and Survey Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 Different Forms of Availability of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10 Selection Criteria and Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10.1 Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10.2 Consistency and Comparability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10.3 Completeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10.4 Readily Understandable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10.5 Balanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10.6 Relevance to the Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10.7 Using a Strategic Unit of Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10.8 Timeliness of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10.9 Positive Indicators or Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.11 Limitations of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47 47 48 49 49 50 51 51 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 59 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 66 67

5

Data Analysis and Tabulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Description and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Level or Type of Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Comparative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Comparisons Over Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Comparisons Across Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.3 Comparisons Across Geographic Units . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Comparisons Using Ranking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

69 69 70 71 72 72 72 73 74

Contents

xi

5.6 Identifying Specific Place Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 Use of Statistical Significance Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8 Building an Index of Child Well-Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 The Issue of False Precision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.10 The Challenge of Disaggregation of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.11 Understanding the Meaning of Numbers and Rates . . . . . . . . . . 5.12 Outliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.13 Data Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 81 81

6

Producing a Report and Disseminating Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Understanding the Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Communication and Child Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Strategic and Opportunistic Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Presenting Data from a Comparative Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Paper or Computers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 Should Reports be Produced Every Year? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 Working with an Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9 Graphs and Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9.1 Line Graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9.2 Bar Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9.3 Pie Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9.4 Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.10 Auxiliary Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83 83 84 85 88 89 90 91 92 92 93 93 94 95 95 99

7

Examples of Indicator Projects and Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre Report Cards . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 The UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) . . . . . 7.4 The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 KIDS COUNT Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 America’s Children: Key Indicators of Well-Being . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 KIDS COUNT on the Eastern Shore of Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 Kids Count Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9 The Field of Child Indicators Studies in South Korea . . . . . . . . 7.10 Quebec, Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.10.1 Our Target Audiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.10.2 How They Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.10.3 Our Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.10.4 Biggest Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

101 101 102 103

. . . . . . . . . . . .

105 106 108 109 111 113 114 115 115 117 118 120

Chapter 1

Introduction and Overview

Abstract This chapter provides readers with an overview of the child indicator field with a particular focus on the use of child indicators in ongoing projects to promote child well-being. Some of the key concepts regarding child indicators are introduced and described, including the concept of a child indicator. This chapter contains information on the origins of the child indicator movement as well as material on why indictors are so important for promoting the well-being of children. The contents of each chapter in the book are described along with the expected audience for the book.

1.1

Introduction and Overview

Over the past few decades there has been a significant increase in the production and use of statistical indicators of child well-being, leading to a global child indicator movement. A major goal of this publication is to provide readers with a rich and detailed description of child indicators and their use. This book is intended to help individuals and organizations increase their knowledge and understanding of how to obtain and use indicators of child well-being by providing detailed information and guidance on several important topics, as well as a guide to the broader literature in this arena. A key element of this book is information on how to conduct a high-quality child indicator project. By working through the set of chapters devoted to various facets of launching and maintaining a child indicators project, readers learn the key concepts and measures used in the child indicators field. Many of the practical concerns with mounting a child indicator-based project, such as producing a yearly report on child well-being, are also discussed. While many of the examples cited in this report are taken from organizations that have extensive resources, the key points also apply to organizations with more limited resources. The focus of this book is more on projects or activities that use child indicators to promote child well-being and less on using such indicators for research projects. In other words, this book is focused on the use of child indicators largely outside of

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 W. O’Hare, A Practitioner’s Guide to Using Child Indicators, SpringerBriefs in Well-Being and Quality of Life Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90291-9_1

1

2

1 Introduction and Overview

research settings. But that is not to say that research on child indicators or measurement of child well-being is not important. One of the aspects of child indicator projects that makes them most impactful is the scientific research base that underlies the use of data on children. This involves not only developing the best measurement of child well-being but also analyses that shows the connections between cause (like public policy) and effect (outcomes related to child well-being). Statistics on child well-being are important. Anecdotal evidence can often flag potential problems, but once the problem is identified, statistical data are essential for determining how widespread the problem is, where it is concentrated geographically and which groups (e.g., racial minorities) are most affected. Data can also be useful in identifying what might cause a given problem and how the problem can be addressed. Statistical evidence is often more convincing that anecdotes for some audiences. I want to acknowledge an important bias in the material covered here. I am only able to process material produced in English. I have a strong perception that child indicator work is emerging in many non-English-speaking countries but most of that will not be covered here. Appendix 1 in O’Hare (2014) contains a short (somewhat outdated) overview in English on child indicator work among several countries in Latin America. There are two key challenges to providing a succinct portrayal of the child indicator movement. First, there is a remarkable diversity in childhood experiences around the world and this diversity poses a challenge to conceptualizing and measuring child well-being in a way that resonates globally. The enormous differences in social, cultural, and political environments around the world require quite different frameworks for the development and use of child indicators in different countries and even within countries. This book strives to answer some of the most basic questions that must be addressed in using child indicators. In that context, much of the material presented here can be helpful for individuals regardless of their socio-political environment. The materials presented here reflect a wide range of situations and strike some balance of environments but given the fact that collection and use of child indicators are more advanced in more developed societies, the material draws on and highlights those situations disproportionately. The material presented here draws disproportionately on the situation in the United States, but I think those examples illustrate more universal points. The second challenge to offering a seminal description of the child indicator field is the diversity of viewpoints involved. The child indicator field often bridges research, advocacy, and policymaking and child indictor efforts often include fields such as statistics, health, education, and economics. The child indicator movement is also linked to advances in fields of study like happiness, life satisfaction, and quality of life. The variety of perspectives complicates a concise description of the child indicators field. But the diversity of approaches can also be seen as a strength. Working together, professionals with this range of expertise results in a more robust field than any one perspective by itself.

1.2 Key Terms and Concepts

3

Research on child well-being is more advanced than information on use of child indicators to promote better lives for children. Nonetheless, as efforts to measure and monitor children’s well-being have expanded in recent years, so has non-scholarly interest and activity. This growth is evident in numerous joint projects by government, non-government organizations, and academic institutes, and in numerous “State of the Child” reports (Ben-Arieh et al., 2001; Land et al., 2001). Despite the expansion and development of the child indicator field there is a dearth in the professional literature regarding how to use data for advocacy purposes. A perusal of several recent textbooks on child indicators did not find a single article or chapter with the word “advocacy” in it (Ben-Arieh & Frones, 2009; Ben-Arieh et al., 2001; Ben-Arieh & Goerge, 2001; Brown, 2008; Hauser et al., 1997; NaarKing et al., 2004). This book is an attempt to help fill this niche. The importance of child well-being indicators is reflected in fundamental demographics. Children (defined here as the population under age 15) make up 26 percent of the world’s population (Population Reference Bureau, 2020). Thus, they represent a critical segment of population. Moreover, it is widely recognized that how children develop can have a big influence on how well they perform their adult roles. Research shows early environments shape outcomes later in life and investments made in children pay dividends later (Haywood & Gorman, 2004; Karoly et al., 2005). As one publication put it (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1990, p. 1), “Children make up one-quarter of this nation’s population and all of its future.”

1.2

Key Terms and Concepts

There is no universal definition of the term “child indicator” but generally the term connotes statistical measures related to the well-being of children. It is typically a summary statistic for a population. For example, child poverty rates and infant mortality rates are child indicators. When people use the term “child indicators” they almost always mean indicators of child well-being. The well-being part of this term is often omitted. The term child indicator is used with that meaning in this book. The term “indicator project” is used often in this book. A child indicator project is defined here as any organized activity where at least one central component is explicitly focused on improving the lives of children using data or scientific evidence. Perhaps the best way to grasp the meaning of a child indicator project is to scan the examples offered in Chap. 7. Child well-being is a key term used in this publication and in the field of child indicators. Well-being is defined by the online Oxford English Dictionary as, “The state of being or doing well in life; happy, healthy, or prosperous condition; moral or physical welfare (of a person or community).” However, it is important to realize that well-being generally reflects a richer concept than moment-to-moment happiness, or life satisfaction. The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention CDC (2021, p._) provides this definition, “Well-being is a positive outcome that is

4

1 Introduction and Overview

meaningful for people and for many sectors of society, because it tells us that people perceive that their lives are going well.” The terms “child indicator movement” and “ data-based child advocacy” are largely used interchangeably in this book. Data-based child advocacy is a term coined by the Annie E. Casey Foundation (Benjamin, 2009; The Annie E Casey Foundation, 2003; O’Hare, 2007; International Society for Child Indicators, 2009) to refer to the use of data, statistics, and science to enhance discussion and debate about topics relevant to child well-being. The child indicator movement is reflected in an editorial in the first issue of Child Indicators Research (Bong, 2008, p. 1) which states, Child Indicators Research presents measurements and indicators of children’s well-being and their usage within multiple domains and in diverse cultures. It features measures and data resources, analysis of the data, exploration of theoretical issues, and information about the status of children, as well as the implementation of this information in policy and practice.

To a large extent child indicator movement and data-based child advocacy reflect that same set of activities. Data books, state of the child reports, and report cards are terms used throughout this book. These reports take different forms in different contexts, but they all share a few common elements and reflect the applied orientation of the child indicator movement. State of the child reports are published documents (not necessarily academic publications and not scholarly papers) often authored by academicians, or researchers in conjunction with advocacy or governmental organizations that address the status of children with the goal of increasing public attention and monitoring the relative well-being of children (Ben-Arieh & Goerge, 2001; O’Hare, 2012; Ben-Arieh et al., 2014). The other commonality they share is the extensive use of statistical data on the well-being of children. This book focuses on “population-based indicators” Some indicators are meant to reflect the well-being of an individual while others are meant to reflect the collective well-being of a population. Thus, some people make a distinction between clinical indicators of child well-being and population-based indicators of child well-being. Clinical indicators are typically used by professionals such as psychologists with one client. They are usually time and resource intensive and therefore not usually suitable to use in collecting data from a large number of children as one would need to produce a population indicator. Population indicators reflect data for a group of children, often defined by geography such as children in one country or one province. These indicators are often collected in large surveys and/or administrative records such as birth certificates or school testing scores. This publication focuses on population-based indicators. There are numerous places in the book where the perspectives of researchers or scholars are juxtaposed with the orientations of child advocates or those producing or using child well-being indicators outside of a research context. This is done, in part, because a lot of the individuals involved in producing and using child

1.3 Development of the Child Indicator Field

5

well-being indicators come from a statistical or data analytical background and these contrasts are meant to speak to them.

1.3

Development of the Child Indicator Field

Over the past three decades there has been an enormous increase in the collection and use of social indicators related to children (Brown et al., 2002; Brown & Botsko, 1996; Brown, 2008; Brown & Moore, 2007; Stagner et al., 2008; Pollard & Lee, 2002; Lippman, 2004; O’Hare, 2012; Sandin, 2013; Ben-Arieh, 2000, 2006, 2012). Table 1.1 provides a list of some of the key child well-being reports and events over the past couple of decades. Admittedly, what is considered “key” is a bit of a judgement and this is not meant to be a comprehensive list. But the list in Table 1.1 provides a flavor of how the field has matured. The child indicator movement is sometimes traced back to the 1960s social indicators movement (Land & Michalos, 2018). Soon after the emergence of the social indicators’ movement, the first UNICEF State of the World’s Children annual report was published in 1980. About ten years later the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted. The United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), through its global ratification and its reporting and monitoring mechanisms, has played an important role in increasing interest in child indicator reports (Ben-Arieh, 2012). The use of indicators of child well-being has been fostered by the nearly universal acceptance of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Every country in the world except the United States, South Sudan, and Somalia has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.1 The UNCRC not only provides a framework for assessing the well-being of children, but it also fosters and promotes more measurement and reporting on child well-being around the globe (United Nations, 1989/1990). Article 44 of the Convention calls for regular reporting on child well-being by countries that have ratified the document. There is no doubt that the social indicators movement provided a helpful foundation, but the field did not begin to flourish until the 1990s. This is borne out by the flurry of events in Table 1.1. that occurred in the 1990s.

1

The United States has signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (during President Clinton’s administration), but the United States has not ratified it. In the United States system, to be ratified the treaty would have to be passed by two-thirds of the Senate and signed by the President. Despite internal efforts to persuade the United States to ratify the UNCRC there is no indication that this is likely to happen soon and there is clearly some opposition to the United States ratifying the UNCRC (Kilbourne, 1998).

6

1 Introduction and Overview

Table 1.1 Timeline of key events in the Child Indicators Movement Year 1979 1981 1983 1989 1990 1992 1994 1995

1996

1997

1999 2000 2002 2002 2003 2004 2005

2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

Activity United Nations State of the World’s Children first published First issue of Children's Defense Fund report on child well-being in United States First Health Behavior of School-Aged Children Survey United Nations adopts Convention on the Rights of the Child First KIDS COUNT report released in the United States First State of the Child in Israel published The United States Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics formed First round of United Nations Multiple-Indicators Cluster Survey launched First round of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) launched First meeting of the Multinational project on measuring and monitoring child well-being(Also known as the Jerusalem Project because of where the first meeting took place). These meetings ultimately led to formation of ISCI The United States Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics publication of America's Children Second Meeting of the Multinational Project on Measuring and Monitoring Child WellBeing Third Meeting of the Multinational Project First Programme for International Student Assessments (PISA) survey Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Second phase of Multi-national Project launched in Vienna Child Trends Data Bank launched in the United States Casey Foundation meeting of international data-based child advocates First issue of Foundation for Child Development Child Wellbeing Index published in U.S. Oslo Conference on Childhood included a special track on child indicators and foundation for International Society for Child Indicators is launched First “La Infancia Cuenta” report published in Mexico International Society for Child Indicators (ISCI) is formed First ISCI international conference (held in Chicago) Child Well-Being in the European Union published First Issue of Child Indicators Research journal published Child Well-Being in CEECIS published and WikiChild website first produced The Annie E. Casey Foundation Convenes first meeting of data-based child advocates in Latin America Second ISCI conference (held in Sydney); First OECD report on child well-being Third ISCI Conference (held in York England) Fourth ISCI Conference (held in Seoul Korea) Fifth ISCI Conference (head in Cape Town, South Africa) Sixth ISCI Conference (held in Montreal Canada) Seventh ISCI Conference (held in Tartu, Estonia)

1.4 Connections to Child Indicator Movement

1.4

7

Connections to Child Indicator Movement

Several reviews concluded that the field of children’s social indicators is related to larger worldwide movements in statistics, data production, and accountability (Ben-Arieh, 2006, 2012; Ben-Arieh & Goerge, 2001; Bradshaw & Barnes, 1999; Pollard & Lee, 2002; Hauser et al., 1997; Moore et al., 2004). Several of these connections are outlined below. First, the child indicator movement is part of the increased attention and use of social measurement. Over the twentieth century there was a sustained trend in more socioeconomic measurement (Hicks & Wattenberg, 2001). By the end of the twentieth century, social measurement of the human condition was widespread. The development of report cards on children and other regular reporting of measures of child well-being reflect a part of the measurement movement (Pollard & Lee, 2002: Ben-Arieh, 2006). Second, the child indicators movement is also part of an effort pushing governments, non-government organizations, and researchers to measure and monitor the human condition more robustly and more regularly than ever before. This movement is also asking for a less economic-centric way of measuring human progress (Stiglitz et al., 2009; Thiry et al., 2013). Critics say that statistics like the Gross National Product have driven decision-making for too long and that such economic-driven statistics do not reflect real human progress. In recent years, many terms such as “quality-of-life,” “happiness,” and “life Satisfaction” have emerged as preferential methods for conceptualizing and assessing human development. The child indicator movement can be seen as part of this move to define human success or human progress in terms other than money (Leon & Boris, 2010). Because the child indicator movement often stresses a holistic view of children that includes many non-economic measures it fits neatly into this framework. This holistic approach is reflected in numerous efforts to develop composite indices of child well-being at local, regional, national, and international geographic levels (Lamb & Land, 2014; O’Hare, 2015; Bradshaw & Richardson, 2009). Third, the emergence of the child indicators movement is related to the growth of what is often called “translational research.” This refers to being more systematic in getting scientific knowledge into the hands of decision-makers (Wethington et al., 2012; Evans, 2012). This is an effort to bridge producers and consumers of scientific evidence (Wethington & Dunifon, 2012). Much of the child indicator movement can be thought of as a branch of the translational research effort and a large part of this book focuses on the idea of making good data and science available to decision makers. In part, this is reflected in the composition of the International Society of Child Indicators membership and conference attendees which often include government officials as well as university-based scholars. Fourth, the rise of the child indicator movement is related to the increased interest in government accountability captured by concepts such as “results-based accountability,” or “results-based governance” or “data-based decisions making” (Skalski & Romero, 2011; Friedman, 2015; Wandersman et al., 2000; Schorr, 1995). The

8

1 Introduction and Overview

rapidly growing interest in children’s well-being indicators has led to demands for more accurate measures of the conditions children face, and the outcomes of various programs designed to address those conditions. In some reports a major criterion for selecting indicators is their usefulness for assessing polices. Also, policymakers are sometimes included in the process of developing the indicators and discussing the usefulness of various choices. Policymakers are often key audiences for child wellbeing reports. A data-based approach to documentation contributes to a more rational governance model. In the absence of good data, decisions rely on rumors, assumptions, misunderstandings, anecdotes, and religious/philosophical ideas. A fifth reason for the development of the child indicators movement is methodological advancements and increased data availability. In addition to the increased availability of data on children, around the world there are growing numbers of people with the skills to access and use statistical data. If there were no people with skills to analyze the data, the collection of such data would be of little value. These trends make it easier to mount a child indicator project. Many new sources of data have emerged, and researchers are less dependent on service-oriented data in reflecting important markers of child well-being. There is a symbiotic relationship between data-based child advocacy and the trends identified above. The child indicator movement gains from these trends and contributes to them as well.

1.5

The Development of an Organizational Infrastructure

As the child indicator field has expanded, some organizations have emerged to help the field develop and advance. The increase in use of child indicators is closely related to the emergence of the International Society for Child Indicators (ISCI), (https://isci-haruv.org/) which is an organization where scholars, researchers, advocates, and data users can discuss issues of conceptualizing, measuring, reporting, and using child well-being indicators. The multi-disciplinary nature of ISCI provides a broad umbrella for people who are interested in all aspects of child indicators. The International Society for Child Indicators (ISCI) has become the main organizational infrastructure for the worldwide child indicators movement. The description of ISCI on their website (https://haruv.org.il/en/inter-activ/collaborations/the-internationalsociety-for-child-indicators/) states, The ISCI incorporates senior researchers and professionals around the world who develop and support indicators to measure and monitor the well-being of children and apply the collected data to influence and formulate policies.

Formed in 2006, ISCI has a journal (Child Indicator Research), a book series, and has sponsored several international conferences. The rapid rise of ISCI reflects widespread interest in this field. ISCI is largely responsible for the Handbook on Child Well-being (Ben-Arieh et al., 2014) which is a signature achievement in terms

1.5 The Development of an Organizational Infrastructure

9

Fig. 1.1 Number of submissions to the Child Indicators Research journal by year. (Source: International Society for Child Indicators)

of covering topics related to child well-being. It includes 104 chapters in five volumes. The stated goals of ISCI are (see https://isci-haruv.org/) • • • • • • • • •

Contribute to the well-being of all children. Share knowledge and experience. Develop standards. Improve data resources. Foster collaborative research and projects. Foster diversity in methodological approaches. Enhance dissemination of information on the status of children. Help organizations apply the findings to policy and practice. Enhance the capacity of the field in countries that are in the initial stages of producing child well-being indicators.

While many goals put forth by ISCI focus on scholarship, there are several goals that go beyond scholarship into realms of advocacy, particularly in communicating results and applying indicators to policy and practice. One expression of increased interest in the child indicator field is the growth of the ISCI journal Child Indicator Research. Figure 1.1 show how the number of submissions to the Child Indicators Research Journal have increased over time. Examination of the submissions to the journal Child Indicator Research between 2007 and 2020, shows a ten-fold increase. Another organization that has played a role in the development of the child indicator field is the International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS). ISQOLS includes researchers from the child indicator field along with experts focused on many other dimensions of quality of life, ISQOLS has long supported

10

1 Introduction and Overview

research on child well-being and indicators. Most ISQOLS conferences had a children well-being/indicators’ track. Currently, ISQOLS has two endowed tracks designed to support conference presentations on children and youth. One is the Kenneth C. Land Endowed Track on the Advancement of Quality of Life and Well-being of Children. The second is the Daniel Shek-Wofoo Foundation Track for the Advancement of Adolescent Quality-of-Life Research. ISQOLS’ flagship journal (Applied Research in Quality of Life, ARQOL) has published numerous research articles on child well-being and indicators. The current ARQOL’s editor-in-chief is reinstating the track concept within the journal with the creation of a family well-being track due to the popularity of the topic and high submission rate. This track subsumes the topic of child well-being/indicators. ISQOLS is affiliated with two other quality-of-life journals that have a long history of publishing children well-being/indicators’ research, namely Social Indicators Research and the Journal of Happiness Studies. Furthermore, there is a significant segment of ISQOLS’ members who identify themselves as children well-being/ indicators’ researchers.

1.6

Why Data and Research Are Particularly Important for Children

Groups with significant political power can successfully interact and negotiate with elected officials directly while those without political power must rely on other methods to influence decision-makers or impact issues. Child advocacy groups find it difficult to compete with groups that can spend millions of dollars to support their cause. In a report on child advocacy (State Legislative Leaders Foundation, 1995, p. 29), researchers found, Leaders acknowledge that child and family groups lack the financial resources necessary to ensure legislative effectiveness. Constantly the comparison was made between advocates and well financed lobbyists.

The lack of political power among children has led individuals and organizations to search for other methods for persuading elected officials to support programs for children. Because they have little influence working directly with elected officials, child advocates often must use what Gormley (2012) calls an “outsider strategy.” By outside strategy, Gormley means that in a political context most advocates represent groups that can provide financial support for an elected official or candidate and/or votes. (Advocates can promise that if an elected official votes or makes a decision that benefits their group, they will encourage the group to vote for that official in the next election). But children and child advocates have neither money nor votes to offer. After reviewing child advocacy in the United States Gormley and Cymrot (2006, p. 114) concluded, “Child advocacy groups are different from most other

1.7 Sorting out Scholarship and Advocacy

11

groups in that they represent a constituency that is positively constructed but powerless.” This point is echoed by the United States child advocacy group, Every Child Matters (2013) which states, “Children don’t vote and don’t donate to campaigns, so it’s up to all of us to speak up for them.” Outsider strategies include appeals to the public through channels such as public policy research, reports, press conferences, and media outreach. Such efforts often include heavy use of statistical data. One prominent review of child advocacy groups (Reid, 2001, p. 106) concluded, Child advocacy groups use a wide range of activities to influence the decisions and practices of government, business, and society. Organizing public education, reporting findings to the public and to government officials, and lobbying and testifying all build public awareness and support for policy issues.

Child advocates hope to elevate the political saliency of children’s issues in a political context by using data to get media attention and sway voters. This perspective of child advocacy is supported by Reid (2001, p. 124) who concluded, “Decision makers are particularly interested in scientific information and advocates have learned to use it to promote their causes.” In summary, data and indicators are more critical for children and child advocates compared to other groups who often have more traditional access to political power.

1.7

Sorting out Scholarship and Advocacy

The increased interest in monitoring children’s lives through the development of statistical indicators has promoted attention to the well-being of children from many perspectives. Given the many viewpoints incorporated in the child indicator movement, it is not surprising that tension sometimes emerges in the field. One such tension is between scholars/researchers on the one hand and advocacy/practitioners on the other hand. In addition, individuals come to the child indicators field from a variety of perspectives which reflect differences in how they see scholarship and advocacy. There are a couple of key dimensions that often make scholarly publications on child well-being different than those designed for a public audience. First, the level of complexity in scholarly publications is often higher than publications for a general audience. For scholarly publications, readers are expected to have an interest in the issue and to have a degree of knowledge about the issue and methodology. Second, publications designed for a general audience often focus more on descriptive data while those designed for researchers and scholars often have more of an analytical focus. Advocacy and science can be seen as ends of an activity continuum. At one end, some advocates pay little attention to scientific evidence. At the other end of the continuum, some scientists pay little attention to the social impact of their research and do not work to get their findings in front of public or policymaking audiences.

12

1 Introduction and Overview

But there are many points along the continuum where scholarship and advocacy can overlap in ways that enhance both. In other words, there is a place for advocacy within the child indicator movement that is consistent with widely accepted scientific principles and practices. When people view an advocate as someone who argues for one side of a disagreement regardless of the unbiased facts, it is understandable why scholars might eschew advocacy. Most scientists are trained to examine the facts first and then endorse the view that is supported by the facts. One of the obstacles to recognizing the use of child indicators in an advocacy context is the narrow view of advocacy among some scholars and scientists. De Vita et al. (2001, p. 4) state, “The term ‘advocacy’ is often considered synonymous with “lobbying”, but such a narrow definition captures only one function in a much broader set of advocacy activities.” Advocacy can encompass a broad range of activities including many that most scholars would feel comfortable performing such as public education, public policy research, lobbying for better/ more data on children, and better measurement of child well-being (O’Hare, 2014). These activities can easily contribute to the goal of bettering the lives of children. It is also important to understand that advocacy does not necessarily mean adversarial. Many times, advocacy involves recognizing and working with allies or other groups that have a common interest. For example, a researcher providing child advocates with data or research findings that advocates are not able to develop themselves, could be seen as advocacy on the part of the researcher. Many of the regular publications of child well-being indicators over the past thirty years have been undertaken by organizations that are not primarily scholarly organizations. For example, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Save the Children UK, The African Child Policy Forum, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the Foundation for Child Development have all used publications of child indicators to raise public awareness of children’s issues and to improve the lives of children. Many of these reports are reviewed more fully in Chap. 7. A host of countries have prepared “report cards” on child well-being. Pioneering “state of the child” reports were published as early as the 1940s (Ben-Arieh, 2008; Ben-Arieh et al., 2001). There is another distinction between use of child indicator by scholars compared to use in advocacy that merits discussion. Scholars typically use child indicators to add to our collective knowledge about how children are doing and what conditions (lower poverty rates, providing health care, a good education system) lead to better child outcomes. Advocates typically use child indicators to increase public awareness and motivate action. In that context, the adequacy of a set of child indicators is less important for advocacy than for scholarship. For advocates, getting the attention of the public and elected leaders is often the key goal and a set of child indicators that is less than perfect by scholarly standards can provide what is needed for advocates. There is another distinction between writing for scholars and writing for the public that should be noted. Credibility is important in both scholarly and advocacy

1.8 Contents of this Publication

13

work but achieving credibility in public discourse if often different than in scholarly or research circles. In a scholarly context credibility typically comes from proper conceptualization, high quality data, and the use of proper methodology, but that is not always true in public communication. Many readers do not have the skills or background to assess the appropriateness of social science or data analysis methodology so they will use other measures to judge credibility. Among those outside the scholarly world, credibility often comes from other sources such as the organization or author issuing the report, and/or the fact that it appears in the popular press. When a report appears in the public media (such a newspaper or on television) it adds credibility to the report for many people. For better or worse, one of the criteria some people will use to judge a publication is how polished or “spiffy” the publication looks. As one considers the look of a report, do not overlook this aspect.

1.8

Contents of this Publication

This book addresses topics from a scholarly/research perspective as well as a more practical focus but the bulk of the material slants toward a more practical emphasis. This is done for a couple of reasons. Material that addresses the topics of this book from a more scholarly perspective (particularly the data-related aspects) are more widely available in other sources. Material that addresses the topics from a practitioner’s perspective are less widely available. If your main interest is in learning how to create and use child indicators in a research environment there are other/better publications than this book. For example, the five-volume set of research papers published in 2014, called the Handbook of Child Well-being (Ben-Arieh et al., 2014), is the best single source of information on child indicators from a scholarly or research perspective. The book provides 114 chapters on the state-of-the-science of conceptualizing and measuring child well-being from almost every perspective. Another book which addresses child well-being from a scholarly perspective is The SAGE Handbook on Child Research (Melton et al., 2014). Articles in the journal Child Indicators Research offer a solid base of information for researchers. Papers presented at the ISCI conferences also provide a rich source of science-based information on the well-being of children and often provide a range of new considerations for both new and existing child indicators projects. In writing this book, a strong effort has been made to make sure each chapter can stand alone to the extent possible. Therefore, readers should be prepared to see some material repeated in more than one chapter. Following this introduction and overview chapter, Chap. 2 focuses on theories or frameworks for developing a set of child indicators. Several of the major frameworks, theories, or perspectives used in measuring child well-being are presented but the content of Chap. 2 is not meant to be comprehensive.

14

1 Introduction and Overview

Chapter 3 discusses many of the different uses of child indicators. While the information presented in Chap. 3 is not exhaustive, it covers most of the primary uses of child indicators. Chapter 4 underscores the importance of accurate and reliable statistical data. It provides information on what an indicator is and provides some guidance about what data to collect. This chapter also includes information on how to assess quality of indicators. Good data are the bedrock of child indicator projects. Chapter 5 provides information on how to tabulate or analyze the data. This often involves a balance between the best approach from a statistical research perspective and the best approach from the perspective of communicating with the public or non-scientific audience. Trying to blend these two perspectives can be tricky but the many successful publications on child indicators suggests the tension can be managed. Chapter 6 provides material on planning and producing a child indicator report. This chapter covers topics such as designing a data-based report that facilitates communication of statistics. This chapter also provides information on disseminating a report of key data or findings. The best data in the world is of little use if it is not shared effectively with others. Chapter 7 provides several examples of successful indicator projects from around the world. These examples provide a good view of the range of child indicator projects along with more details about how they fit into the broader landscape.

1.9

The Audience for this Material

The main audience for this publication is individuals and organizations interested in bettering the lives of children using data and science, particularly those who have not used statistical child indicator data for this purpose in the past. This publication may be useful for those individuals and organizations who are just starting to use child indicators and it may also be of interest to scholars or researchers who want to increase public attention for their research. Part of the audience for this publication are those individuals who have been trained in quantitative social science methods but have little or no experience using such data outside of academe. There are many highly trained social scientists who would like to play a larger role in the public discourse around children’s policy issues by getting their research in front of leaders and leadership groups. Getting more academic or research rigor into the public dialogue would be good and there are many groups trying to better children’s lives who could benefit from the skills that trained data analysts possess. There are several ways in which the use of quantitative information, such as social indicators, in the public or public policy arena is different than the use of such data within the scholarly world. Many such details are provided in this publication. The information in this publication will help readers combine statistical and scholarly work with activities designed to improve the lives of children. Finding

References

15

others involved in the same kind of work can be useful in understanding the importance of the work.

References Ben-Arieh, A. (2000). Beyond welfare: Measuring and monitoring the state of children—New trends and domains. Social Indicators Research, 51(3), 235–257. Ben-Arieh, A. (2006). Is the study of the ‘state of our children’ changing? Revisiting after five years. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(7), 799–811. Ben-Arieh, A. (2008). The child indicators movement: Past, present, and future. Child Indicators Research, 1(1), 3–16. Ben-Arieh, A. (2012). How do we measure and monitor the ‘state of our children’? Revisiting the topic in honor of Sheila B. Kamerman. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 569–575. Ben-Arieh, A., Cassas, F., Frones, I., & Korbin, J. (2014). Handbook of child Well-being: Theories, methods, and policies in global context. Springer Publishers. Ben-Arieh, A., & Frones, I. (Eds.). (2009). Indicators of children’s Well-being: Theory and practice in a multi-cultural perspective. Springer. Ben-Arieh, A., & Goerge, R. (2001). Beyond the numbers: How do we monitor the state of our children? Children and Youth Services Review, 23(8), 603–631. Ben-Arieh, A., Kaufman, N. H., Andrews, B. A., Goerge, R., Lee, B. J., & Aber, J. L. (2001). Measuring and monitoring children’s Well-being. Kluwer. Benjamin, D. (2009). Framing in the field: A case study. In New directions for youth development (Vol. 124, pp. 91–96). Wiley Interscience. Bong, J. L. (2008). Editorial. Child Indicators Research, 21, 1–2. Bradshaw, J., & Barnes, H. (1999). How do nations monitor the well-being of their children? In Child well-being in rich and transition countries. Conference papers. Luxembourg: Luxembourg Income Study. Bradshaw, J., & Richardson, D. (2009). An index of child Well-being in Europe. Child Indicators Research, 2(3), 319–351. Brown, B., & Botsko, C. (1996). A Guide to states and Local-level indicators of child well-being, available through the federal statistical system. Paper prepared for the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, MD. Brown, B., & Moore, K. (2007). An overview of state-level data on child Well-being available through the Federal Statistical System. Child Trends. Brown, B., Smith, B., & Harper, M. (2002). International surveys of child and family Well-being: An overview. Child Trends. Brown, B. V. (Ed.). (2008). Key indicators of child and youth Well-being: Completing the picture. Lawrence Erlbaum. De Vita, C. J., Mosher-Williams, R., & Stengel, N. A. J. (2001). Nonprofit organizations engaged in child advocacy. In C. J. De Vita & R. Mosher-Williams (Eds.), Who speaks for America’s children? (pp. 3–38). The Urban Institute Press. Evans, V. J. (2012). Translation in the social and behavioral sciences: Looking back and looking forward. In E. Wethington & R. E. Dunifon (Eds.), Research for the public good: Applying the methods of translational research to improve human health and Well-being (pp. 23–31). American Psychological Association. Every Child Matters. (2013, December). Email Newsletter. Friedman, M. (2015). Trying hard is not good enough: How to produce measurable improvements for customers and communities. PARSE publishing. Gormely, W. T., & Cymrot, H. (2006). The strategic choices of child advocacy groups. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 102–122.

16

1 Introduction and Overview

Gormley, W. T. (2012). Voices for children: Rhetoric and public policy. Brookings Institution Press. Hauser, R. M., Brown, B. V., & Prosser, W. R. (Eds.). (1997). Indicators of children’s Well-being. Russell Sage. Haywood, M. D., & Gorman, B. K. (2004). The long arm of childhood: The influence of early life social conditions on mean mortality. Demography, 41(1), 87–107. Hicks, C. T., & Wattenberg, B. J. (2001). The first measured century. The AEI Press. International Society for Child Indicators. (2009, May). Recent Conferences: NGOs gather at Landmark Mexico Gathering. ISCI Newsletter, p. 3. Karoly, L. A., Kilburn, M. R., & Cannon, J. S. (2005). Early childhood interventions, proven results, future promise. RAND Corporation. Kilbourne, S. (1998). Opposition to United States ratification of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child: Responses to parental rights arguments. Poverty Law Journal, 4, 56–112. Lamb, V., & Land, K. (2014). Methodologies used in construction of composite child Well-being indices, (chapter 95). In Handbook of child Well-being: Theories, methods, and policies in global context. Springer Publishers. Land, K. C., Lamb, V. L., & Mustilo, K. S. (2001, December). Child and youth Well-being in the United States, 1975–1998: Some findings from a new index. Social Indicators Research, 56, 241–320, London: Penguin. Land, K. C., & Michalos, A. C. (2018). Fifty years after the social indicators movement: Has the promise been fulfilled? An assessment an agenda for the future. Social Indicators Research, 135, 835–868. Leon, E., & Boris, E. T. (2010). The state of society: Measuring economic success and human Wellbeing. The Urban Institute. Lippman, L. (2004). Indicators of child, family, and community connections. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, United States Department of Health and Human Services. Melton, G. B., Ben-Arieh, A., Cashmore, J., Goodman, G. S., & Worley, N. K. (2014). The Sage handbook of child research. Sage Publications. Moore, K. A., Lippman, L., & Brown, B. (2004). Indicators of child Well-being: The promise for positive youth development. ANNALS, AAPSS, 591, 125–145. Naar-King, S., Ellis, D. A., & Frey, M. A. (2004). Assessing Children’s Well-being: A handbook of measures. Lawrence Erlbaum. O’Hare, W. P. (2007). Data-based child advocacy: Using demographic indicators to increase public awareness of child Well-being in the United States. Paper presented at the Applied Demography Conference, San Antonio, TX, January 7–9. O’Hare, W. P. (2012). Development of the child indicator movement in the United States. Child Development Perspectives, 6(1), 79–84. O’Hare, W. P. (2014). Data-based child advocacy: Using statistical indicators to improve the lives of children. Springer Publisher. O’Hare, W. P. (2015, June). A research note on statistical methods used to create indices of child Well-being. Child Indictors Research, 8(2), 279–298. Pollard, E. I., & Lee, P. D. (2002). Child Well-being: A systematic review of the literature. Social Indicators Research, 61, 59–78. Population Reference Bureau. (2020). https://www.prb.org/international/ Reid, E. (2001). Building a policy voice for children through the nonprofit sector. In C. J. De Vita & R. Mosher-Williams (Eds.), Who speaks for America’s children? The role of child advocates and public policy (pp. 105–133). The Urban Institute Press. Sandin, B. (2013). History of Children’s Well-being. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Cassas, I. Frones, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child Well-being: Theories, methods, and policies in global context. Springer Publishers. Schorr, L. (1995). The case for shifting to results-based accountability. Center for the Study of Social Policy.

References

17

Skalski, A. K., & Romero, M. (2011, January). Data-based decision making. In Principal leadership. National Association of Secondary School Principals. Stagner, M., Goerge, R. M., & Ballard, P. (2008). Improved indicators of child Well-being. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. State Legislative Leaders Foundation. (1995). States legislative leaders: Keys to effective legislation for children and families. Centreville, MA. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Retrieved July 17, 2011, from www.stiglitz-senfitoussi.fr The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (1990). 1990 KIDS COUNT Data Book. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2003). Data-based advocacy. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Thiry, G., Bauler, T., Sebastien, L., Paris, S., & Lacroix, V. (2013). Characterizing demand for ‘beyond GDP’. Final report of BRAINPOOL, European Commission. United Nations. (1989/1990). United Nations convention on the rights of children. www.unhchr.ch/ html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm United States Center for Disease Control. (2021). Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) Wellbeing concepts. https://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/well-being.htm#:~:text¼Well%2Dbeing%20is%20 associated%20with%20numerous%20health%2D%2C%20job%2D,%2C%20and%20economi cally%2Drelated%20benefits.&text¼For%20example%2C%20higher%20levels%20of,speed ier%20recovery%3B%20and%20increased%20longevity Wandersman, A., Imma, P., Chinmanb, M., & Kaftarianc, S. (2000). Getting to outcomes: A results-based approach to accountability. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 389–395. Wethington, E., & Dunifon, R. E. (2012). Research for the public good: Applying the methods of translational research to improve human health and Well-being. In APA Bronfenbrenner Series on the Ecology of Human Development. American Psychological Association. Wethington, E., Herman, H., & Pillemer, K. (2012). Introduction: Translational research in the social and behavioral sciences. In E. Wethington & R. E. Dunifon (Eds.), Research for the public good: Applying the methods of translational research to improve human health and Wellbeing (pp. 3–19). American Psychological Association Press.

Chapter 2

Analytic Frameworks and Perspectives for Measuring Child Well-being

Abstract Many different disciplines and perspectives are reflected in the work on child indicators, so it is not surprising there are many different analytic approaches and frameworks for studying child well-being. This chapter covers several of the leading frameworks used by those working in the child indicator field. It is worth noting that some successful child indicator projects are undertaken with little or no acknowledgement of theoretical framework. In practice, selection of indicators for a project or study may depend as much on what data are available and organizational resources as it does on a theoretical approach.

2.1

Introduction

It would not be fair to call this a chapter on theories of child well-being, although there are some theoretical aspects included in what I would call frameworks and perspectives on measuring child well-being. The distinctions between theories, frameworks. and measurement are often blurry, and it is sometimes difficult to distinguish an analytic approach to measuring child well-being from emphasis on the kinds of measures that should be included. This chapter presents several of the leading analytic frameworks on how child well-being can be conceptualized as well as thoughts on some of the disagreements in the field. This chapter is meant to provide information on many popular frameworks for measuring child well-being, but it is not meant to be comprehensive or exhaustive. Since developing and using child well-being indicators draws people from many different fields and perspectives it is not surprising that there are many different viewpoints for how to measure child well-being (Ben-Arieh et al., 2014). Some of this heterogeneity in conceptualizing and measuring child well-being is captured by Ben-Arieh et al. (2014, p. 3) who state, The tensions among subjective and objective well-being and its indicators, between moment and possible future consequences, and between individual and macro-level illustrate the challenges of theorizing well-being.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 W. O’Hare, A Practitioner’s Guide to Using Child Indicators, SpringerBriefs in Well-Being and Quality of Life Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90291-9_2

19

20

2 Analytic Frameworks and Perspectives for Measuring Child Well-being

Many of the disagreements or tensions in the field are as much about what measures to emphasize as they are about differences in theories of child well-being. Sometimes, the differences in approaches are more about the proper mix of indicators, such as positive and negative indicators, or objective and subjective indicators rather than the specific conceptual theory to be employed. While there have been attempts to develop an overall theory of childhood wellbeing (Raghavan & Alexandrova, 2015; Lansford et al., 2019) the complexities of defining well-being have resulted in little consensus. Academicians are typically focused on developing a conceptual understanding and explaining the phenomenon of interest, in this case, child well-being. From this perspective a theoretical framework is critical. In less academic settings, simply providing information to policymakers and the public may be the primary focus of a project or campaign and what is measured and reported may depend more on factors such as organizational resources and what measures are readily available for the population of interest than theories of child well-being. It is worth noting that many successful child indicator projects have not used any definitive theoretical underpinning (O’Hare, 2013). When the key audience is the public or policymakers rather than researchers or scientists, providing an overarching theory or framework is less important. Nonetheless, having a conceptual framework in mind can be helpful in deciding what data to collect and how to combine measures to produce a picture of child wellbeing (Axford, 2009; Bong, 2014). For example, knowing what domains of wellbeing are most important to an organization’s mission can provide direction in where to look for data. Much of the material offered in this chapter is conceptual, but it is important to note that concepts often drive what specific measures or indicators are used in measuring child well-being and how the indicators are framed. Having a conceptual framework does not automatically specify what measurements should be used. Researchers with the same conceptual structure may use different indicators. For example, there can be an agreement on the principle that child poverty is an important dimension of well-being without an agreement on exactly how poverty should be measured. To some extent, the role of a theoretical or analytical framework is driven by a project’s ability to collect their own data. For those who have the means to collect original data, having a theory to guide the collection is extremely helpful. For those who must rely on data collected by others the choice of indicators is often restricted, so a theoretic approach is less critical. In practice, the compilation of indicators for a project may be largely driven by what others have collected and presented previously and/or what is available rather than a particular theoretic outline.

2.2 The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

2.2

21

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

While it may not be seen as theoretical, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) provides one of the most widely used frameworks for measuring child well-being around the world. According to Lundy (2014, p. 2439), The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (United Nations 1989) is acknowledged as the most comprehensive international statement on childhood.

The UNCRC has not only increased interest in the subject of child well-being, but it has also provided a useful framework and fostered an incredible amount of research on children (Alderson, 2008). While Lundy (2014) argues that “child’s rights” are different than “child well-being” the UNCRC has been widely utilized by those working on indicators of child well-being to elevate the topic on the public and political agendas. The UNCRC plays three important roles in the child indicator movement. First, it has increased interest in the well-being of children. Second, it provides a widely accepted framework for what dimensions or domains to include in assessing child well-being. Third, it has resulted in many reports on the well-being of children. The UNCRC is composed of 54 inter-related Articles which spell out the most important facets related to the well-being of children. The crux of the UNCRC (1989, p. 1) is captured in the preamble which states, Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the child, by reasons of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.

Several of the articles in the UNCRC spell out specific domains of well-being that should be measured and monitored but the UNCRC is heavily focused on broad aspirations or goals rather than detailed prescriptions. It is more about what to measures and less about how to measure it. The UNCRC, sets standards for children’s well-being in a series of domains such as education where it says a child has a right to education and to “develop its personality and abilities to the fullest” (Article 29). Similarly, Article 24 describes goals for child health and Article 19 provides directions for measuring protections from physical violence (i.e., protection from child abuse). Article 44 of the Convention calls for regular reporting by countries that have signed the document. The requirement for regular reporting is important for monitoring progress, and the regular reports also help increase public awareness of child well-being. In the words of Hood (2006, p. 249), Regular reports on the state of children are an essential tool in raising public awareness, achieving political support for improving children’s living conditions and promoting and ensuring children’s rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The UNCRC is not widely recognized in the United States in part, because the United States is one of only three countries that has not ratified the UNCRC (the

22

2 Analytic Frameworks and Perspectives for Measuring Child Well-being

other two countries are Somalia and South Sudan). Reluctance to accept the UNCRC in the United States is sometimes based on a misperception among some leaders that they would be giving up authority over American children to an international body if they signed the agreement. In addition, in the United States, the term “rights” has often been interpreted differently than in other countries. For most counties, these rights are viewed as aspirations and goals for children rather than legal obligations that a government must provide. The conceptualization of the term “rights” in the UNCRC is captured by Ben-Arieh et al. (2014, p. 1) as, “Rights are implicitly understood as creating well-being or opportunities for well-being, referring to the quality of children’s lives economically and emotionally.” Although the UNCRC is more than thirty years old, researchers and advocates are continually providing updated interpretations of its meaning and how to implement it (Gran, 2017). The constant attention to this framework for assessing child wellbeing is testimony to the central position it holds in the child indicators field. In summary, the UNCRC provides a framework many countries have used to develop more and better ways to measure the well-being of their children and it has stimulated many reports of child well-being. There is also documentation that the UNCRC has improved child well-being in some countries (Mekonen & Tiruneh, 2014).

2.3

Child Development Perspective

The child development perspective highlights the changing social role and expectations of children as they age from infancy to adulthood and stresses the importance of making sure measures of child well-being are appropriate for each stage of development. This theoretical perspective also highlights the cumulative effect of childhood experiences. Negative experiences in one stage can lead to problems in later stages. For example, research shows later emotional well-being and cognitive capability are strongly influenced by the attachment between mother and infant in early development (e.g., Ainsworth & Bell, 1970; Bowlby, 1969; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Positive emotions experienced by infants are associated with resilience in later life. A caregiver’s responsiveness to an infant’s behaviors influences the child’s selfrepresentations and beliefs about others, which in turn influence emotional regulation and behavior. One expression of this notion is Erikson’s (1968) social development theory which asserts that maturation occurs in eight distinct stages. Each stage presents a particular challenge that the individual must overcome. The way the age-specific challenge is dealt with makes a huge impact on the subjective well-being of the individual. Resolving challenges allows him or her to resolve the next set of challenges of the following stage of development. For example, toddlers (1–3 years old children) face the challenge of becoming autonomous. That is, the child tries to control his or her environment by depending less and less on his or her

2.4 Ecological Model of Child Well-being

23

caretaker. Preschool children (3–5 years of age) learn to cooperate with other children and adults in completing school and play activities. School-age children (6 years to adolescence) are faced with the challenge of demonstrating academic competence and mastering social skills. The major challenge in adolescence is identity formation—to know who they are and what they want to be. The different measures of child well-being associated with various stages of child development are also reflected in Sirgy’s (2021) conceptualization and measurement of child well-being/quality of life measures. Use of this framework suggest indicators should be collected for each of the many developmental stages of childhood. In practice, there are often more measures for some stages of development than others which requires care in selection and use of indicators to provide a complete and balanced portrait of child well-being.

2.4

Ecological Model of Child Well-being

The ecological model envisions the child at the center of concentric rings of influences. Each ring represents a set of factors which impact the life of the child and the life trajectory of the child. Collectively, the rings represent the total social, emotional, and physical environment of the child. This conceptualization of child well-being is reflected in Bronfenbrenner’s (1981) ecological theory which focuses on interactions between the child and the environment. These interactions are analysed in several hierarchical levels. According to Bronfenbrenner, at the lowest level (microsystem), child-environment interactions focus on any single immediate setting (family, school, neighborhood, etc.). At the next level (mesosystem) two or more microsystems interact. For example, analysing the interface between child interactions at school and child interactions within the family reflects a specific mesosystem. The next level is the exosystem, which is the most macro. An exosystem contains settings where the child is not directly involved; however, the setting influences the child and his or her interactions with the environment. Examples of exosystems include the parents’ workplace, the parents’ affiliations within the neighbourhood, the government social services, etc. The microsystem, the meso-system, and the exosystem constitute the child’s developmental context. To explain children’s well-being, the researcher must collectively consider these three ecological sets of factors and study their influence interactively or simultaneously. This model provides a framework for analysis as much as a conceptualization of child well-being. This approach stresses identifying, measuring, and analysing the totality of factors for each system. Like Bronfenbrenner, Garbarino (2014) posits that children are at the heart of the set of influences, and it is the collective impact of those influences which determine child well-being. Garbarino states (2014, p. 1365),

24

2 Analytic Frameworks and Perspectives for Measuring Child Well-being . . .we find the that the process of cause and effect depends on the child as a set of biological and psychological systems set within the various social, cultural, political, and economic systems that constitute the context in which development phenomena are occurring.

The most recent report card from the UNICEF Gromada et al. (2020, p. 6) also employs a conceptual framework very similar to the Bronfenbrenner’s model. In the Innocenti conceptualization, child outcomes are at the center of concentric spheres that include: • • • • • •

Context Policies Resources Networks Relationships Activities

The Innocenti report includes measurements for all these levels. In summary, the ecological perspective conceptualizes child well-being as the product of concentric influences from the very micro to the very macro level.

2.5

Sociology of Children

The sociology of children and childhood underscores two distinct dimensions in measuring child well-being. Some measures of child well-being focus more on the likely life trajectory while other measures focus on current state of well-being. For example, doing well in school is largely about the likely trajectory of a child and their future well-being while hunger or ill-health reflect current state of well-being. This has led to an important distinction between “well-being” and “well-becoming”. In contrast to the immediacy of well-being, well-becoming describes a future focus. Qvortrup (1999) claims that the preoccupation with the next generation of children is a preoccupation of adults, not children. Others argue that many perspectives on wellbecoming typically focus on opportunities rather than current status. An emphasis on well-becoming may overlook measures of current well-being and focus on traits or conditions that predict future well-being. Well-becoming is concentrated on preparing children to be productive workers, good family members, and responsible citizens. The investment in children’s futures may represent an important part of children’s well-being but may also imply a view of childhood that overlooks key elements of present life. For example, a child who spends many hours on schoolwork may lose out on leisure activities of play today, but the schoolwork may result in an improved life in the future, including as an older child. To some extent, this distinction is covered in the UNCRC where children’s rights refer to their rights now and to their right to develop into an adult. The most recent publication from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2021) uses this distinction between current status and future

2.6 Subjective Child Well-being Measures

25

status in their framework. They refer to this difference as current well-being and future well-being. The well-becoming perspective (i.e., indicators that suggest future success) is still dominant in the child indicators field but is no longer the only perspective. Wellbeing—children’s current well-being or status—is now considered legitimate as well. A focus on current well-being of children does not deny the importance of a child’s development toward adulthood. The status and position of children must be understood within the framework of the present and within a framework of life course development. Total well-being includes both perspectives. Most researchers would agree that we should be measuring both current wellbeing and conditions that can predict future well-being. The sociology of children perspective puts an emphasis on measuring current status or well-being that may be overlooked by those focusing on the well-becoming aspect of child indicators.

2.6

Subjective Child Well-being Measures

I am not sure the subjective well-being should be called a theoretical approach, but it represents a way of assessing child well-being that is increasing rapidly. It is probably fair to say that from a theoretical perspective, one cannot get a complete picture of child well-being without measures reflecting an understanding of how the child sees the world. Traditionally there has been reluctance among social scientists to accept children’s self-reported information as reliable, particularly relative to the perceptions of adults, but that is changing. Several publications are now available documenting how best to communicate and collect data from children themselves (Richman, 1993; Garbarino & Stott, 1989; Mason & Danby, 2011). The rise in use of subjective measures of child well-being is partly a reaction to the shortcomings using purely objective measures to capture the full picture of child well-being. Objective measures typically refer to characteristics such as family income, educational performance, or physical health of the child. Data for these types of measures seldom come from the child directly. Tensions sometimes exist between subjective and objective perspectives of child well-being and their indicators (Axford et al., 2014). This is typically not a question of “who is right?” but rather “the proper mix of subjective and objective measures.” The idea of using children’s perceptions as measures of well-being has gained currency and many scholarly studies of subjective well-being in childhood and adolescence have emerged (Ben-Arieh et al., 2001; Tarnish, 2020; Andresen et al., 2019; Melton, 1980; Cherney & Perry, 1994; Spilsbury et al., 2009; Stoecklin, 2018). This work helped promote widespread discussions and debates about including subjective well-being in measuring overall child well-being. The growing recognition of the importance of subjective child well-being is reflected in the fact that an entire issue of Child Indicators Research (Volume

26

2 Analytic Frameworks and Perspectives for Measuring Child Well-being

12, Issue 2, April 2019) was devoted to exploring subjective measures of child wellbeing. Ben-Arieh et al. (2017) provide an overview of subjective well-being in a large on-going international study providing a detailed picture of child subjective wellbeing based on collecting comparable data from 15 countries on four continents. According to the authors, There has been a remarkable growth in interest internationally in the topic of subjective wellbeing over the last few decades. There is now a substantial research evidence base on this topic in relation to adults, and the issue of subjective well-being has attracted the interest of governments and policy organizations. In comparison the study of children’s subjective well-being has lagged behind.

Many researchers today agree that well-being has an important subjective dimension. This subjective component has been called by several different names including “happiness” or “life satisfaction,” or “quality of life” (Diener, 1984; Huebner, 1991; Huebner et al., 1998; Ryff, 1989; Keyes, 1998). While government statistical agencies still focus primarily on objective measures of well-being, the subjective perspective is starting to be seen in that arena. The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2021) recently stated, However, many indicators that measure living conditions fail to measure what people think and feel about their lives, such as the quality of their relationships, their positive emotions and resilience, the realization of their potential, or their overall satisfaction with life—i.e., their ‘well-being.’ Well-being generally includes global judgments of life satisfaction and feelings ranging from depression to joy.

Subjective well-being data must be gathered directly from children and that has strengths and limitations. In addition to the benefit of getting subjective well-being measures from children, another reason for gathering data directly from children is that experiences, values, and perceptions are much less shared between parents and children than once presumed (Kuczynski et al., 1997). Children and adolescents have their own opinions, experiences, evaluations, and aspirations. Obtaining data directly from children is important because some adults may overlook relevant information about children’s activities and interests and wrongly assume that children’s perspectives must be the same with that of adults (Casas, 2000, 2001; Mason & Watson, 2014). It is also worth noting there are some important limitations on data that can be collected on subjective child well-being. Children, below a certain age (probably around age 8 or 10 years old) are not able to respond knowledgably to questions about their well-being. Huebner (1991) concluded that, “the notion of children’s global life satisfaction can be reliably and validly assessed in children as early as 8 years old.” However, gathering data only from children ages eight and older leaves out about half of all children (using 0 to 17 as a definition of children) in terms of collecting data of this type. This restriction means the subjective approach to understanding child well-being cannot be used to get a comprehensive picture of all children.

References

27

To repeat a common theme in this book, the ability of obtain information directly from children for a study is related to whether an organization has the resources to gather their own data or whether they must rely on data gather by someone else like a government agency. Subjective well-being measures are seldom collected by government statistical agencies as often or as widely as other “objective” measures of child well-being such a poverty or educational attainment.

References Ainsworth, M. D., & Bell, S. M. (1970). Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated by behavior of one-year-olds in strange situation. Child Development, 41, 49–67. Alderson, P. (2008). Children as researchers. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Researching children: Perspectives and practice (pp. 273–288). Routledge. Andresen, S., Bradshaw, J., & Kosher, H. (2019). Young Children’s perceptions of their lives and Well-being. Child Indicator Research, 12(1), 1–7. Axford, N. (2009). Child Well-being through different lenses: Why concept matters. Child and Family Social Work, 14(3), 372–383. Axford, N., Jordrell, D., & Hobbs, T. (2014). Objective or subjective Well-being? (chapter 94). In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Cassas, I. Frones, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child Well-being: Theories, methods, and policies in global context (pp. 2699–2737). Springer Publishers. Ben-Arieh, A., Cassas, F., Frones, I., & Korbin, J. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of child Well-being: Theories, methods, and policies in global Context. Springer Publishers. Ben-Arieh, A., Dinisman, T., & Rees, G. (2017). A comparative view of children’s subjective Wellbeing: Findings from the second wave of the ISCWeb project. Child and Young Services Review, 80, 67–80. Ben-Arieh, A., Kaufman, N. H., Andrews, A. B., Goerge, R. M., Lee, B. J., & Aber, J. L. (2001). Measuring and monitoring children’s Well-being. Kluwer. Bong, J. L. (2014). Mapping domains and indicators of Children’s Well-being, (chapter 97). In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Cassas, I. Frones, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child Well-being: Theories, methods, and policies in global context (pp. 2797–2805). Springer Publishers. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss (Vol. 1). New York Basic Books. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1981). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press. Casas, F. (2000). Perceptions of video games among Spanish children and parents. In C. Feilitzen & U. Carlsson (Eds.), Children in the new media landscape. Children and media violence yearbook 2000 (pp. 123–125). Nodicom, University of Goteborg and UNESCO. Casas, F. (2001). Video games: Between parents and children. In I. Hutchby & J. Moran-Ellis (Eds.), Children, technology, and culture. The impacts of technologies in children’s everyday lives (pp. 42–57). Routledge/Falmer. Cherney, I., & Perry, N. W. (1994). Children’s attitudes toward their rights: An international perspective. Symposium in the 23rd International Congress of Applied Psychology, Madrid. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective Well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identify: Young and crisis. Norton. Garbarino, J. (2014). Ecological perspective on child Well-being chapter 46. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I. Frones, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child Well-being (pp. 1365–1384). Springer Publisher. Garbarino, J., & Stott, F. M. (1989). What children can tell us. Jossey-Bass. Gran, B. K. (2017). An international framework of children’s rights. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13, 79–100.

28

2 Analytic Frameworks and Perspectives for Measuring Child Well-being

Gromada, A., Rees, G., & Chzhen, Y. (2020). Worlds of influence: Understanding what shapes child well-being in rich countries. Innocenti Research Centre. unicef-irc.org Hood, S. (2006). Reporting on Children’s Well-being: The state of London’s children reports. Social Indicators Research, 80, 249–264. Huebner, E. S. (1991). Initial development of the students’ life satisfaction scale. School Psychology International, 12, 231–240. Huebner, E. S., Laughlin, J. E., Asch, C., & Gilman, R. (1998). Further validation of the multidimensional student’s life satisfaction scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 16(2), 118–134. Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social Well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 121–140. Kuczynski, L., Marshall, S., & Schell, K. (1997). Value socialization in bidirectional context. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of values. A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 23–50). Wiley. Lansford, J. E., Brik, A. B., & Al Fara, H. (2019). A framework for child Well-being in gulf countries. Child Indicators Research, 12, 1971–1987. Lundy, L. (2014). United Nations convention on the rights of the child and child Well-being, (chapter 84). In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Cassas, I. Frones, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child Wellbeing: Theories, methods, and policies in global context (pp. 2439–2462). Springer Publishers. Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of family, parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Museum manual of child psychology, 4 (pp. 1–102). Wiley. Mason, J., & Danby, S. (2011). Children as experts in their lives: Child inclusive research. Child Indicators Research (Special Issue), 4(2), 185–189. Mason, J., & Watson, E. (2014). Researching children: Research on, with, and by children, (chapter 96). In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Cassas, I. Frones, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child Well-being: Theories, methods, and policies in global context (pp. 2757–2796). Springer Publishers. Mekonen, Y., & Tiruneh, M. (2014). Implementation of the convention on the rights of the child and its effect on child Well-being, (chapter 85). In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Cassas, I. Frones, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child Well-being: Theories, methods, and policies in global context (pp. 2463–2501). Springer Publishers. Melton, G. B. (1980). Children’s concepts of their rights. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 9, 186–190. O’Hare, W. P. (2013). A case study of data-based child advocacy: The KIDS COUNT project. Child Indicators Research, 6(1), 33–52. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). Measuring what matters for child Well-being and policies. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/e82fded1-en Qvortrup, J. (1999). The meaning of child’s standard of living. In A. B. Andrews & N. H. Kaufman (Eds.), Implementing the U.N. convention on the rights of the child: A standard of living adequate for development. Praeger. Raghavan, R., & Alexandrova, A. (2015). Toward a theory of child Well-being. Social Indicators Research, 121, 887–902. Richman, N. (1993). Communicating with children. Helping children in distress. Save the Children. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations of the meaning psychological Well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. Sirgy, J. (2021, June). The Well-being of children and youth. Chapter in The Psychology of Quality of Life, pp. 551–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71888-6_24 Spilsbury, J., Korbin, J., & Coulton, C. (2009). Mapping children’s neighborhood perceptions: Implications for child indicators. Child Indicators Research, 2(2), 111–131.

References

29

Stoecklin, D. (2018). Freely expressed views: Methodological challenges for the right of the child to be heard. Child Indicator Research, 12(2), 569–588. Tarnish, N. (2020). Children’s multidimensional subjective well-Bing in OECD and non-OECD countries: Is cross-country comparison possible? Child Indicators Research, 13, 51–66. United Nations. (1989/1990). United Nations convention on the rights of children. www.unhchr.ch/ html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Risk and protective factors. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/riskprotectivefactors.html

Chapter 3

Uses of Child Well-being Indicators

Abstract This chapter covers several of the most common uses of child well-being indicators. Most of the uses covered here are based on projects or activities that use child indicators to promote child well-being. The application of child indicators often depends on the purpose of the project and a given indicator, or indicator project, may have many uses. Note that this chapter focuses on the use of child indicators rather than their creation which is covered in Chap. 4.

3.1

Introduction

The applications of child well-being indicators typically depend on the context, the purpose of the project, and the characteristics of a given indicator. Six different uses of child indicators are identified and discussed in this chapter. This list covers primary uses but is not meant to be an exhaustive list. The six specific uses listed below are not presented in any specific order. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Increasing public awareness about child well-being Monitoring child well-being Goal setting for child well-being Evaluating programs and policies related to children Identifying child-centered problems Using Indicators research and analysis

Additional functions of child indicators have been suggested by others (Ben-Arieh et al., 2013). There is considerable overlap among the six categories listed above and many applications of child well-being indicators fit into more than one of the categories. Despite the attempt to be parsimonious, some material may be referenced in more than one section of this chapter.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 W. O’Hare, A Practitioner’s Guide to Using Child Indicators, SpringerBriefs in Well-Being and Quality of Life Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90291-9_3

31

32

3 Uses of Child Well-being Indicators

3.2

Increasing Public Awareness about Child Well-being

Using child indicators and data to raise public awareness and increase public attention and interest in the well-being of children is probably the single biggest application of child indicators (with the possible exception of use in scholarly research). Growing numbers of indicator-based reports around the world are designed to educate the public and inform policymakers about the levels and trends in child well-being. Raising public awareness has been a theme in indicator projects for some time. Ben-Arieh (2006) found 199 “child reports” as of 2006 and the vast majority of the reports found by Ben-Arieh were from governments, advocacy groups, and international organizations, rather than university or research centers. This reflects the strong public orientation of such reports. Regular reports on the well-being of children not only provide information about children, the issuance of a report on this topic also signals that the well-being of children is an important topic on the public agenda. Using data to generate public interest in improving the lives of children can put political pressure on policymakers to enact programs to enhance child well-being. The absence of reports or data on children or specific aspects of children’s lives is likely to diminish the amount of public attention this topic receives. Frequent reports on child well-being can have a cumulative impact, particularly if they come from different organizations and offer different perspectives. Thus, increasing the number of reports on child well-being is likely to increase the level of public awareness about the problems facing children and elevate the issue on the public agenda. In the words of Hood (2006, p. 249), Regular reports on the state of children are an essential tool in raising public awareness, achieving political support for improving children’s living conditions and promoting and ensuring children’s rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

And another report (Children’s World, 2016, p. 4) states, The purpose is to improve children’s well-being by creating awareness among children, their parents and their communities, but also among opinion leaders, decision makers, professionals and the general public.

Examples of several key reports based on child indicators that have been produced and disseminated over the past few decades are discussed below. It is important to recognize that this is not a complete listing of such reports, but just a sample. The reports reviewed here are simply meant to provide readers with a better sense of the range of reports using child indicators. Some of these reports are covered again in Chap. 7. The focus is on recurring reports because they are likely to have the most impact and visibility.

3.2 Increasing Public Awareness about Child Well-being

3.2.1

33

International Reports (Reports Including More than One Country)

The United Nations has long been one of the leaders in data-based reports on children. The United Nations State of the World’s Children (UNICEF, 2019) is an annual report which began in 1979 and has pioneered this type of data-rich publication. A recent report (United Nations, 2014, p. i) captures the thrust of the report series, Thirty years have passed since The State of the World’s Children began to publish tables of standardized global and national statistics aimed at providing a detailed picture of children’s circumstances. Much has changed in the decades since the first indicators of child well-being were presented. But the basic idea has not: consistent, credible data about children’s situations are critical to the improvement of their lives—and indispensable to realizing the rights of every child.

In terms of raising public awareness about the importance of child well-being, another key development was the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in 1990. The UNCRC fosters civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights of children (Doek, 2014; Vuckovic et al., 2013). The UNCRC not only provides a framework for assessing the well-being of children, but it also fosters and promotes more measurement and reporting on child well-being around the globe (United Nations, 1989/1990). Article 44 of the Convention calls for regular reporting on child well-being by countries that have ratified the document which has stimulated production of child indicators. For example, Doek (2014, p. 212) concludes. “With regard to measuring the impact of CRC’s implementation, there is ongoing discussion on the development of indicators, with considerable attention focused on quantitative results, for example, statistics on infant mortality, malnutrition, and other health rates; education enrollment figures; and the number of children in institutions, foster care, and juvenile justice systems.” The adoption of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) also fostered increased measurement and reporting on the well-being of children around the globe (United Nations, 2000). Although the MDGs, adopted in 2000, are not focused on children per se, many of the Millennium Development Goals, such as reducing child mortality and achieving universal primary education, are directly related to the well-being of children. Other goals, such as improving maternal health and eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, are closely related to child well-being (United Nations, 2000). The MDGs project has been replaced/updated by the U.N Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015. In my opinion the specific goals of the SDGs are not as focused on child-related elements to the extent of the MDGs. The work outlined above indicates that the United Nations has taken a leadership role in using data to increase public awareness of child well-being, but the United Nations is not the only international organization engaged in such work. The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) has a large

34

3 Uses of Child Well-being Indicators

initiative to promote the use of statistical indicators for monitoring general social well-being and children have been a very visible part of this initiative. In addition to comprehensive reports on child well-being (OECD, 2009), OECD has established a website where information can be shared, and views among scholars can be exchanged (http://www.wikiprogress.org/index.php/Child_wellbeing). The most recent OECD report (2021, n.p.) on child well-being, in a long series of such reports, states, “The report lays the groundwork for improving child well-being measures in order to inform comprehensive child policies.” OECD has also held a series of international meetings on statistics, knowledge, and power under their “Measuring Progress of Societies” initiative and the topic of child well-being has been reflected in such meetings (Ben-Arieh & Gross-Manos, 2009). A variety of international Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have contributed to the collective effort to increase awareness of child well-being as well. For example, the Save the Children UK organization produced a series of reports that use child well-being indicators to raise awareness of specific programs (Save the Children UK, 2012). Several other multi-national efforts have emerged to produce systematic data on children in the past couple of decades. A few are reviewed below to provide a flavor of such initiatives and to provide ideas about some key indicators of child wellbeing. For more detailed information on comparable international surveys with data on children, see Brown et al. (2002). The Health Behavior of School-Aged Children (HBSC) study is a cross-national survey conducted in collaboration with the World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. The HBSC aims to gain new insights into and increase the understanding of young people’s health and well-being, health behaviors, and their social context. Initiated in 1982 in three countries, there are now more than 35 participating countries and regions. The first cross-national survey was conducted in 1983–1984, the second in 1985–1986, and subsequently every four years using a common research protocol. More information about HBSC is available on their website at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/org/despr/studies/behavior/HBSC.cfm Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) compares countries on mathematics and science ability of children. TIMSS first collected data in 1995 and data have been collected several times since then. More information is available on their website at http://www.nces.ed.gov/timss/. The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a worldwide evaluation of 15-year-old school pupils’ scholastic performance. The survey was first conducted in 2000, and then repeated every three years thereafter. It is coordinated by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, with a view to improving educational policies and outcomes. More information about PISA is available on their website at http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_ International_Student_Assessment. The reports covered above have been sustained over time which is important. Repeated publications on a topic underscores an organizations’ commitment to that

3.2 Increasing Public Awareness about Child Well-being

35

topic and repeated publications have more visibility and are likely to have more impact on policymakers and the public. In addition, repeated reports facilitate monitoring child well-being. When a topical publication is released at the same time each year, the public, the research community, and the media come to expect it and are ready to report on it and/or use the data in the report.

3.2.2

Country Reports

Over the past three decades many countries have begun producing regular updated reports on the well-being of children based on child indicators. Several such reports are identified in Table 3.1. The reports listed in Table 3.1 are only a sample of such reports, but they give readers a flavor of this kind of activity. The reports in Table 3.1 are produced by a mix of government agencies and nonprofits or Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), often with the involvement of university scholars and researchers. They are similar in the fact that they all rely heavily on statistical indicators to provide a broad portrait of child well-being and they have all been published on a regular basis over the past few decades. They often serve two advocacy-related purposes: raising public awareness and making data more easily available. It is the intention of most, if not all, of these country reports to stimulate some type of action to improve the lives of children. A quote from an Israeli report (Israel National Council for the Child Report, 2007, p. iii) captures a common sentiment, This report is more than just a passive portrayal or silent image of the world of children in Israel. It should serve as a vital tool in safeguarding of the rights of children in Israel and as a basis for taking action to improve their welfare.

Similarly, in discussing the report from Ireland, one prominent official (Andrews, 2008, p. iii) stated, The State of the Nation’s Children: Ireland 2008 is an important resource for all those who seek to understand the experience of childhood in Ireland. As such, it will help us in our task of making Ireland a better place for children.

Several government and non-governmental organizations have also contributed to the child indicator movement. In the United States, the KIDS COUNT initiative of The Annie E. Casey Foundation has been producing a KIDS COUNT Data Book every year since 1990. The report contains key child well-being indicators for each state and ranks the state on a comprehensive index of child well-being. The 2011 edition of the KIDS COUNT Data Book (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2011, p. 37) reiterates the primary purpose of the annual KIDS COUNT report, It is our hope that the KIDS COUNT Data Book, and the accompanying KIDS COUNT Data Center will help raise the visibility of children’s issues on the national agenda and serve as a tool for advocates, policymakers and others to make better decisions.

36

3 Uses of Child Well-being Indicators

Table 3.1 Data-based reports on children from selected countries Country

Australia Canada Israel Ireland Korea Mexico The Netherlands South Africa United States United States United States United States

Over the past couple of decades, several countries have began producing regular reports on the well-being of children. Some reports are produced by government agencies while others are produced by Nongovernmental Organizations within the country. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Making Progress: The Health, Development and Wellbeing of Australia’s Children and Young people Canadian Council for Social Development Report: The Progress of Canada’s Children Israel National Council for the Child Report; The State of the Child in Israel: A Statistical Abstract State of the Nation’s Children;Office of the Minister of Children and Youth Affairs Report Study of Comprehensive Child Well-Being by Korean Government Red por los Derechos de la Infancia en Mexico (Children’s Rights Network in Mexico): México KIDS COUNT Report/La Infancia Cuenta: Kinder Intel Report South African Child Gauge Report The Annie E. Casey Foundation, KIDS COUNT Data Book - produced yearly since 1990 Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Families Statistics; America’s Children Foundation for Child Development’s Child Well-Being Index (ended in 2017) Children’s Defense Fund State of America's Children

The United States Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (2020) has been issuing a report on the well-being of children every year since 1997. The work involves several of the federal government statistical agencies. At various points in the past, similar work has been conducted by the Foundation for Child Development in their funding of the Child Well-Being index (CWI) and the Children’s Defense Fund annual report on children. Two other closely related data-based report series have emerged in recent years in the United States that greatly help child advocates make their case with respect to funding children’s programs. First Focus (2020) has been issuing a report called Children’s Budget each year since 2007 that shows how the interests of children are reflected in the United States federal budget. This report series is the first sustained look at how the Federal government supports (or does not support) children with dollars. A companion report has been issued each year since 2007 called Kids’ Share (Urban Institute, 2020) which shows similar data from a historical and projections perspective. While these two reports do not use measures that are typically thought of as child well-being indicators, they are data-rich and provide useful government budgetary information about children in a public policy context. It is also notable that the production of country reports on the well-being of children is not just happening in the richest countries of the world. For example, a recent issue of the Child Indicator Research journal (Volume 14, Issue 2,) is totally

3.3 Monitoring Child Well-being

37

devoted to child indicator work in Asia. Lau and Bradshaw (2010) also provide information on child well-being in Pacific Rim countries. The African Child Policy Forum (2021) has issued a stream of reports focused on the well-being of children in Africa. Another recent article in the Child Indicator Research (Langford et al., 2019) discussed a child indicator framework for the Gulf countries. Appendix A in O’Hare (2014) provide a summary of child indicator work in Latin America. The South African Children’s Institute at the University of Cape Town has produced a publication called South African Children’s Gauge, since 2005 (Children’s Institute, 2013). According to one source (Price, 2009, p. 6), The South African Children’s Gauge, now in its fourth year of publication, has gained a reputation as an invaluable resource that monitors the country’s progress in realizing children’s constitutional rights.

In Mexico, the non-profit group Red por Los Derechos de la Infancia in Mexico (2010) has produced a publication called La Infancia Cuenta en Mexico (Children Count in Mexico) since 2004. The report provides measures of child well-being for the states of Mexico. A rough translation of one passage in the 2010 Book (Red Por Los Derechos de la Infancia in Mexico, 2010, p. 5) says, “We hope this edition of the publication will facilitate access to the information necessary for defense and promotion of the rights of children in our country.” One benefit of data-based reports on children is the wide appeal across different groups in society. For example, reports based on quantitative indicators generally have some appeal across the political spectrum. Conservatives like the way that data can be used to provide accountability for government programs. Liberals appreciate the way that data illuminate problems and issues that often the focus of their attention. Even when there is disagreement about the best solution from a policy perspective, data can serve as a conversation starter and kick off policy debates that are often beneficial. The annual report series discussed above have all emerged in the past 30 years and reflect the growing interest in data-based reports on child well-being. Collectively these annual reports on the well-being of children have raised public awareness about children in a mutually re-enforcing way. In summary, there are growing numbers of organizations in a variety of settings working to increase public awareness about the well-being of children by publishing data-based reports. The sample of reports and efforts outlined here are all relatively new (within the past few decades) and clearly such efforts are increasing.

3.3

Monitoring Child Well-being

A key phrase used in the child indicator world is “measuring and monitoring child well-being.” The monitoring part of this phrase reflects on-going regular reports which allow users to see if child well-being is improving or deteriorating over time. Monitoring also provides information on which groups within a country or areas

38

3 Uses of Child Well-being Indicators

within countries (provinces, states, or regions, for example) are doing better and which are doing worse in terms of child well-being. Finally, monitoring often allows one to understand which domains of child well-being are improving and which are not. The production and use of child well-being indicators have expanded recently, in part, because they provide useful ways to determine whether a country, state, or group of children is moving in a positive direction (Brown & Corbett, 1997). Monitoring suggests repetitive reports including use of the same measures over time to determine progress, or lack of it. Many of the reports discussed in the previous section provide this kind of monitoring capacity. Reports that focus on change over time are particularly useful for monitoring child well-being. Many child indicator experts understand the important role indicators and data play in monitoring child well-being. For example, Hood (2006, p. 249) concludes that, “Monitoring and reporting on the well-being of children has a central role to play in the development of policies to improve children’s lives.” Brown and Moore (2009, p. 2) state, “Having strong data at the national and state level is key to developing, targeting, and monitoring policies and programs for children and youth.” Monitoring is often used in the context of accountability. For example, one of the main purposes of The Child Development Index published by Save the Children UK (2012) is “holding government to account for children’s well-being” in the publication’s subtitle. Likewise, many provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child invite on-going monitoring of child well-being from the children’s rights perspective. Such monitoring promotes accountability for child wellbeing. In summary, there are many examples on how child indicators are being used to monitor child well-being developments over time. Such data provide an excellent way to determine if child well-being is improving or deteriorating and such an assessment can often be linked to public policies. The publications are typically meant to promote policies that address the problems discussed in a report.

3.4

Goal Setting for Child Well-being

Another use for statistical indicators of child well-being is their application in setting goals. Advocates use data to set goals and benchmarks for child well-being and to assess whether countries, states, and other governmental entities are meeting those goals (Ben-Arieh et al., 2013). Several examples of this type of application are described below. In Great Britain, a goal of cutting child poverty in half over ten years, led to significant reduction in child poverty rates (Waldfogel, 2010). There is widespread belief that identifying lower child poverty as a goal was crucial to the improvements in child poverty that were seen following adoption of the goal. Millennium Development Goals set by the United Nations is another example where goal setting involved data and indicators. Many of the Millennium

3.5 Evaluating Programs and Policies Related to Children

39

Development Goals include measuring and reporting on the well-being of children based on statistical indicators. This has led to many reports assessing progress towards the goals. In the United States, the federal government initiative called Healthy People 2020 explicitly sets goals related to health and many goals relate to children. Some of the goals included in Healthy People 2020 are: • Reduce the rate of infant deaths, • Reduce rate of child deaths, • Reduce the rate of low weight and pre-term births. The articulation of such goals often helps shape policies to reach the goals and foster the data collection needed to monitor movement toward the goal. The America’s Children report published annually by the United States InterAgency Forum on Child and Family Statistics has played a similar role. After reviewing the use of the report, Bradburn and Fuqua (2010, p. 101) state, “This pegging of data to goals is one source of indicators’ power to engage and effect changes.” In summary, using child indicators and statistical data on children to set goals and measure movement towards goals is another important part of the child indicator movement.

3.5

Evaluating Programs and Policies Related to Children

Statistical indicators of child well-being are often used to evaluate policy and programs (Ben-Arieh et al., 2013). Because of their usefulness in evaluation, indicators of child well-being are increasingly seen as an important component in the policy process (Ben-Arieh & Frones, 2009; Ben-Arieh & Goerge, 2006). In discussing the changes experienced by the child indicators field Ben-Arieh and Goerge (2006, p. 21) note, . . .we argue that yet another change of focus is appropriate. We refer to the role of indicators in shaping policies and services, which requires that indicators be devised and used in ways that would extend their impact beyond building knowledge.

Many others agree. For example, one widely read European publication (Eurochild, 2009) states, Indicators are increasingly valued as a means to interpret and present statistical data, monitor policy implementation, and provide the grounds for evidence-based policies and increased accountability.

This application of statistics on children fits neatly into the framework of the child indicators movement and data-based child advocacy. According to Ben-Arieh et al. (2001, p. 41).

40

3 Uses of Child Well-being Indicators . . . . indicators make possible the evaluation of particular programs and policies, especially over time. Current policies can be examined in light of past efforts and evaluation of proposed changes can be enhanced.

In the context discussed here, indicators are used in two different kinds of evaluations. The first kind of evaluation is an evaluation of broad approaches to child welfare which typically takes place when comparing several jurisdictions. This is a broad assessment of the overall conditions facing children. For example, when countries, provinces, or states are ranked in terms of child well-being, this is often taken as an evaluation of that country, provinces, or states’ effort to care for children and reflects the values of a political regime or administration that holds power in that locality. The use of child indicators in a public policy context typically takes place at a national or state/provincial level, but they have also been used at the local level as well (McCroskey, 2008). Assessing trends in child well-being over time is a way to assess the efficacy of political regimes or administrations and to hold leaders accountable for child wellbeing. One example is the Child Friendliness Index which is used to rank all 52 African countries based on the extent to which they have child friendly policies. Mekonen (2010, p. 207) defines a child-friendly government as “one which is making the maximum effort to meet its obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill child rights and ensure child well-being.” The Global Movement for Children aspires to create a similar index for all countries in the world (Global Movement for Children, 2010). Evaluation of child well-being across many geographic areas (such as countries, provinces, or states) allows stakeholders to see whether approaches seem to be improving children’s lives. Detecting which systems seem to be working best to improve the lives of children can lead to model programs and the spread of practices most likely to improve the lives of children. The unfolding field of child indicators provides the kind of evidence policymakers need to provide the environment children need to thrive. Some would argue that major changes in governance over the past few decades have increased the relevance of child well-being indicators for policymakers. There has been more interest in public accountability over the past 30 years and this movement requires more and better data (Brown & Corbett, 1997). Corbett (2008, p. 33) argues, In short, this focus on results, public accountability, and new forms of organizing social assistance increasingly demands a much more sophisticated use of what we broadly think of as social indicators.

Stated succinctly, “Accountability requires counting.” (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2009, p. 7). Counting (measuring) is the heart of the child indicator movement. The second way in which indicators are used is in evaluations of individual programs and policies. Statistical measures of child well-being are often used to determine whether a particular program has been a success or a failure. Data are used to reveal whether specific approaches to solving a specific problem have been

3.5 Evaluating Programs and Policies Related to Children

41

successful or not, so that they can determine whether more or different action is needed. Researchers use specific child indicators in evaluation, such as using teen birth rates to evaluate the effectiveness of abstinence programs and standardized test scores to evaluate education styles. Reflective of several similar reports, The Center on Education Policy (2011) used state-level standardized test scores in United States public-school students to assess educational attainment differences across states and among groups of students. There are many examples of how child indicators have been used to evaluate public policies. Several scholars have found that more supportive state welfare policies are associated with better conditions and better outcomes for children (Belsky et al., 2006: Bernal, 2008; Jack & Tonmyr, 2008; Portwood et al., 2010; Rose & Rowlands, 2010; Cohen, 1998; Ritualo & O’Hare, 2000; O’Hare & Lee, 2007; O’Hare et al., 2013a, 2013b, Bradshaw, 2014). Aizer and Doyle (2014) provide an economic framework for using indicators to evaluate child welfare interventions. Bradshaw and Richardson (2009, p. 319) examined the relationship between policies and child well-being in several European countries and found, There are positive associations between child well-being and spending on family benefits and services and GDP per capita, a negative association with inequality and no association with prevalence of ‘broken’ families.

In looking across developed countries, Bradshaw (2014) reports that the percentage GDP spent on families exhibits a positive correlation with subjective well-being among children, but the association does not rise to the level of statistical significance. The 2009 Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development study of child well-being in developed countries devotes a chapter to examining the relationship between child well-being and social spending across the child’s life cycle and another chapter to policy choices in early childhood (OECD, 2009). One country where a child indicator report has been widely interwoven with government activities is Ireland. Several findings from the State of the Nations’ Children report in Ireland related to gender differences in physical activities and a growing gender gap over time, resulted in a commitment by the National Children’s Strategy to develop a national recreation policy for teenagers. The development of the recreation policy took place over a two-year period and the policy “Teenspace— National Recreation Policy” was published in 2007. There is an important connection between data and policy. Child well-being indicators are being used in a variety of ways to assess or evaluate programs, policies, and “policy-regimes.” Such data are often used in an accountability context, that is, trying to hold leaders accountable for the general well-being of children.

42

3.6

3 Uses of Child Well-being Indicators

Identifying Child-Centered Problems

One element often found in a child indicator report is the identification of key problems. This use of child indicators is critical because problems that are not recognized by the policymakers are not likely to be addressed, and if the public is not aware of those problems the solutions are not likely to get public support. In summary, the use of child indicators to identify problems and issues related to child well-being is widespread and important.

3.7

Using Indicators in Research and Analysis

The use of child well-being indicators in research is large and growing. Along with increases in the availability of child indicator data, there has been an increase in the precision and utility of concepts related to child well-being. I do not say much about this use of child indicators in research here because that ground is covered very well in professional journals including the Child Indicator Research journal, the multi-volume Handbook of Child Well-Being, and standard textbooks on research and statistics. In addition, papers presented at conferences of the International Society for Child Indicators and the International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies provide a lot of information on this topic. There has been a close connection between the development of data and the conceptualization of child well-being. As new and better measures of child wellbeing become available through research, those publishing child well-being indicators can provide a more complete and sharper picture of children. Research on child well-being measures is linked to use of indicators in many practical settings. For example, researchers help practitioners understand the meaning of statistical indicators so they can decide on which ones are best to use for their purposes. Researchers also help explain why a particular indicator is important and how the indicator is connected to other measures, such as public policies. This kind of foundational information often ends up being cited in reports for the public and provides a solid foundation for many child indicators reports.

References African Child Policy Forum. (2021). The African report on child Well-being. https://www. africanchildforum.org/index.php/en/component/com_sobipro/Itemid,158/pid,2/sid,57/ Aizer, A., & Doyle, J. J. (2014). Economics of child Well-being: Measuring effects of child welfare interventions. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Cassas, I. Frones, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child Well-being: Theories, methods, and policies in global context. Springer Publishers. Andrews, B. (2008). Foreword in state of the Nation’s children: Ireland 2008. Office of the Minister for Children and Youth.

References

43

Belsky, J., et al. (2006). Effects of sure start local Programmes on children and families: Early findings from a quasi-experimental cross-sectional study. British Medical Journal, 332, 1476–1482. Ben-Arieh, A. (2006). Measuring and monitoring the Well-being of young children around the world. Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2007, : Early Childhood Care and Education. Ben-Arieh, A., Casas, F., Frønes, I., & Korbin, J. E. (2013). Handbook of child Well-being: Theories, methods and policies in global perspective. Springer Publishers. Ben-Arieh, A., & Frones, I. (Eds.). (2009). Indicators of children’s Well-being: Theory and practice in a multi-cultural perspective. Springer. Ben-Arieh, A., & Goerge, R. M. (Eds.). (2006). Indicators of Children’s Well-being. Springer. Ben-Arieh, A., & Gross-Manos, D. (2009). Taxonomy for Child Well-Being Indicators. Presentation at the 3rd Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Forum on ‘Statistics, Knowledge and Policy: Charting Progress, Building Visions, and Improving Life,’ Busan Korea, October 27–30. Ben-Arieh, A., Kaufman, N. H., Andrews, A. B., Goerge, R. M., Lee, B. J., & Aber, J. L. (2001). Measuring and monitoring children’s Well-being. Kluwer. Bernal, R. (2008). The effect of maternal employment and child care on child cognitive development. International Economic Review, 49(4), 1173. Bradburn, N. M., & Fuqua, C. J. E. (2010). Indicators and the Federal Statistical System: An essential but Fraught Partnership. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 63(1), special editor Kenneth Prewitt. Bradshaw, J. (2014). Overview: Social policies and child Well-being. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Cassas, I. Frones, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child Well-being: Theories, methods, and policies in global context. Springer Publishers. Bradshaw, J., & Richardson, D. (2009). An index of child Well-being in Europe. Child Indicators Research, 2(3), 319–351. Brown, B., & Corbett, T. (1997). Social indicators and public policy in the age of devolution. Special Report No. 71. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on Poverty. Brown, B., & Moore K. A., (2009). What get measured get done: High priority opportunities to improve our nation’s capacity to monitor child and youth Well-being. Paper prepared for the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Child Trends, Washington, DC. Brown, B., Smith, B., & Harper, M. (2002). International surveys of child and family Well-being: An overview. Child Trends. Center for Education Policy. (2011). State test score trends through 2008–2009: Progress lags in high school, especially for advanced achievers. Center on Education Policy. Children’s Institute. (2013). In L. Berry, L. Biersteker, A. Dawes, L. Lake, & C. Smith (Eds.), South African child gauge. University of Cape Town. http://www.ci.org.za/depts/ci/pubs/pdf/ general/gauge2013/SouthAfricanChildGauge2013.pdf Children’s World. (2016). Children’s views on their lives and well-being in 15 countries: A report on the Children’s World survey, 2013–14. https://isciweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ ChildrensWorlds2015-FullReport-Final.pdf Cohen, P. N. (1998). State policies, spending, and kids count indicators of child well-being. Unpublished paper by the Population Reference Bureau, Washington, DC. Corbett, T. J. (2008). Social indicators as a policy tool: Welfare reform as a case study. In B. V. Brown (Ed.), Key indicators of child and youth Well-being: Completing the picture. Lawrence Erlbaum. Doek, J. E. (2014). Child Well-being; Children’s rights perspective. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Cassas, I. Frones, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child Well-being: Theories, methods, and policies in global context. Springer Publishers. Eurochild. (2009, November). What are the latest policy developments at EU level. Eurochild policy briefing No. 5, Brussels, Belgium.

44

3 Uses of Child Well-being Indicators

First Focus. (2020). Children’s Budget 2020. First Focus. https://firstfocus.org/resources/report/ childrensbudget2020 Global Movement for Children. (2010). News release. http://www.gmfc.org/en/newsroom/gmcpress-releases-and-news/895-commitment-tochildren-index-enters-new-phase Hood, S. (2006). Reporting on children’s Well-being: The state of London’s children reports. Social Indicators Research, 80, 249–264. Israel National Council for the Child Report. (2007). The State of the Child in Israel 2007: A Statistical Abstract. http://www.children.org.il/pro_articles_list_eng.asp?ProjectID¼35 Jack, S., & Tonmyr, L. (2008). Knowledge transfer and exchange: Disseminating Canadian child maltreatment surveillance findings to decision makers. Child Indicators Research, 1(1), 51–64. Langford, J. E., Brik, A. B., & Al Fara, H. (2019). A framework for child Well-being in the gulf countries. Child Indicator Research, 12(4), 1971–1987. Lau, M., & Bradshaw, J. (2010). Child Well-being in the Pacific rim. Child Indicator Research, 3, 367–383. McCroskey, J. (2008). Using child and family indicators to influence communities and policy in Los Angeles county. In A. Ben-Arieh & I. Frones (Eds.), (2009). Indicators of children’s Wellbeing: Theory and practice in a multi-cultural perspective. : Springer, pp. 501–148. Mekonen, Y. (2010). Measuring government performance in realizing child rights and child Wellbeing: The approach and the indicators. Child Indicators Research, 3(2), 205–242. O’Hare, W. P. (2014). Data-based child advocacy: Using statistical indicators to improve the lives of children, springer publisher. Presentation at the International Society for Child Indicators Conference, Seoul, Korea, http://isci.chapinhall.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/P1_OHare_ et_al.pdf O’Hare, W. P., & Lee, M. (2007). Factors affecting state differences in child well-being. KIDS COUNT Working Paper, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, MD, available online at www.kidscount.org O’Hare, W. P., Mather, M., Dupuis, G., Land, K. C., Lamb, V. I., & Fu, Q. (2013a). Analyzing difference in child Well-being among United States. Child Indicators Research, 6(2), 401–431. O’Hare, W. P., Riche, M. F., & Lippman, L. (2013b). Development of the U. S. Federal interagency forum on child and family statistics. Presentation at the 4th International Society for Child Indicators Conference, Seoul, Korea, http://isci.chapinhall.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ P1_OHare_et_al.pdf Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). Doing better for children, Chapter 2, Comparative Child Well-being Across the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, . Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). Measuring what matters for child Well-being and policies, Paris, France. Portwood, S. G., Shears, J. K., Eichelberer, C. N., & Abrams, L. P. (2010, April). An institute for social capital: Enhancing community capacity through data sharing. Child Indicators Research, 3(2), 261–273. Price, M. (2009). Foreword in South African Child Gauge 2008/2009. : Children’s Institute, University of Cape Town. Red Por Los Derechos de la Infancia. (2010). La Infancia Cuenta. Red Por Los Derechos de la Infancia. Mexico City, Mexico, www.infanciacuenta.org Ritualo, A., & O’Hare, W. P. (2000). Factors related to state differences in child well-being. Paper presented at the Southern Demographic Association Conference, October. Rose, W., & Rowlands, J. (2010). Introducing the concept of child Well-being into government policy. In C. McAuley & W. Rose (Eds.), Child Well-Being: Understanding Children’s Lives. Jessica Kinglsey Publishers. Save the Children UK. (2012). The child development index: Holding government to account for Children’s Well-being. Save the Children UK. http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/ files/docs/child-development-index.pdf

References

45

The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2009). 2009 KIDS COUNT Data Book. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2011). 2011 KIDS COUNT Data Book. The Annie E. Casey. http://datacenter.kidscount.org/DataBook/2010/Default.aspx UNICEF. (2019). State of the world’s children. http://www.unicef.org/sowc/ United Nations. (1989/1990). United Nations convention on the rights of children. www.unhchr.ch/ html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm United Nations. (2000). United Nations millennium declaration. http://www.un.org/ millenniumgoals/ United Nations. (2014). Every child counts. United Nations. http://www.unicef.org/sowc/ United States the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2020). https://www. childstats.gov/ Urban Institute. (2020). KIDS SHARE. https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-centerinitiatives/kids-context/projects/kids-share-analyzing-federal Vuckovic, S. N., Doek, J. E., & Zermatten, J. (2013). The rights of the child in international law. Rights of the child in a nutshell and in context. Bern. Waldfogel, J. (2010). Britain’s war on poverty. Russell Sage Foundation.

Chapter 4

Developing and Evaluating a Set of Child Well-being Indicators

Abstract Finding statistical indicators of child well-being is one of the most important activities of a child indicator project. When one is looking for indicators for a specific location or a specific group, it can be especially difficult to find the right piece(s) of statistical data. Several potential sources of indicator data are examined here. Many of the key criteria for judging data are presented and discussed in this chapter. It is vital to recognize that not all statistics related to children are indicators of child well-being. This chapter includes ideas about domains or clusters of indicators that are often used. The first part of this chapter focuses on finding appropriate child well-being indicators and the second part focuses on evaluating such indicators.

4.1

Introduction

Selecting the indicators, one plans to use in a project is a crucial step because the statistical indicators selected are the bedrock of a child well-being indicator project. Indicator evaluation is also an important activity in an indicator project. Selecting meaningful and reliable data has a big impact on the credibility of a data book or report and ultimately on the credibility of the organization and individuals producing the report or making the data available. The selection and presentation of reliable high-quality data allow researchers and advocates to gain a better understanding of child well-being and help tell convincing, credible, and persuasive stories to influence public opinion and policy decisions. A wise choice can draw attention to critical aspects of child well-being and drive policy decisions. A poor choice of indicators can undermine the organization’s goals. The appropriateness of an indicator needs to be assessed in the context of the overall project. Typically, this is not just a statistical judgment. If possible, it is useful to involve data experts, policy staff, and a communications team in the indicator selection process. If indicators do not make sense to readers of a report or users of data, they are not likely to have much impact. Even if they make sense but are not relevant, they will not have much impact. So thoughtful judgments about what indicators to include are © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 W. O’Hare, A Practitioner’s Guide to Using Child Indicators, SpringerBriefs in Well-Being and Quality of Life Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90291-9_4

47

48

4 Developing and Evaluating a Set of Child Well-being Indicators

necessary. Child advocates must select the data that meet high-quality standards and that are most relevant to child well-being in their locality. Since many groups undertaking data-based projects typically have limited resources (financial and human), it is important to balance the resources that go toward data collection with the resources that will be needed for analysis, dissemination, and presentation. Since data collection is often one of the first activities in an indicator project, too often the resources dedicated to a study can be consumed by data collection leaving too little for getting the information out to users. Perhaps it goes without saying that dissemination of data and findings are critical. It is important to assess the budget at the beginning of a project to make sure the organization is budgeting properly. It may be better to reduce the resources dedicated to data collection to make sure there are funds available to disseminate the information effectively. In summary, to achieve results, organizations need to understand how to find and use data to make compelling cases and inspire action in a cost-effective way.

4.2

What Is an Indicator of Child Well-being?

There is no universal definition of the term “child indicator” but generally the term connotes a statistical measure related to the well-being of children. It is typically a summary statistic for a population. For example, child poverty rates and infant mortality rates are child indicators. When people use the term “child indicators” they almost always mean indicators of child well-being, either overall well-being or well-being in a particular domain like health or material wealth. The well-being part of this term is often omitted. The term child indicator is used with that meaning in this book. The concept of “well-being” is central to the development of the child indicators. Well-being is defined by the online Oxford English Dictionary as “The state of being or doing well in life; happy, healthy, or prosperous condition; moral or physical welfare (of a person or community).” The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2021) defines the term as, “Well-being is a positive outcome that is meaningful for people and for many sectors of society, because it tells us that people perceive that their lives are going well.” Well-being generally reflects a richer concept than moment-to-moment happiness, or life satisfaction. Well-being generally includes global judgments of life satisfaction and feelings ranging from depression to joy. The term well-being often means a holistic or comprehensive vision of well-being which includes many dimensions or domains such as: • Material well-being • Education • Health

4.4 Indicators for Individuals and Population Indicators

49

• Emotional well-being, • Subjective well-being These dimensions are often referred to as “domains.”

4.3

Statistics and Indicators

In the context of the child indicators movement, it is important to understand the distinction between statistics and indicators. Nearly all indicators of child well-being are statistics but not all statistics are indicators of child well-being. For example, describing the age composition, the racial composition, and perhaps the geographic distribution of children can be useful, but these statistics themselves typically do not provide information about how well children are doing so these are not well-being indicators. One good test for identifying whether a statistic is a well-being indicator is determining if there is a consensus that if a high value for a statistic is a good thing or a bad thing for children. For example, there is wide agreement that a high poverty rate is bad for children but there is no similar agreement that having a high percentage of children in a particular racial or ethnic group is good or bad for children. Both are statistics but only the poverty rate is an indicator of well-being. A related idea is determining if there is a consensus on whether an indicator increasing in value is a good thing or a bad thing. For example, if the infant mortality rate for a society is increasing it is widely agreed that is bad for children. On the other hand, there may be no consensus that an increase in the percent of children going to private schools rather than public schools is a good thing or a bad thing for child well-being. Including background information in a report or dataset is often useful, but it is important to help individuals understand these are not indicators of well-being Sometimes background measures are called context variables. Such background statistics can be useful, but this is not the same as evaluating the well-being of children. It is important to select indicators, which measure child well-being, and not just statistics. Being clear about what is a measure of child well-being can help clarify the concept for readers.

4.4

Indicators for Individuals and Population Indicators

Some indicators are meant to reflect the well-being of an individual while others are meant to reflect the collective well-being of a population. Developmental psychologists have tested instruments over decades for successfully interviewing children to understand their cognitive capacities and other skills. But such measures are typically used in clinical settings rather than measuring population characteristics.

50

4 Developing and Evaluating a Set of Child Well-being Indicators

Thus, some people make a distinction between “clinical indicators” of child wellbeing and “population-based indicators” of child well-being. Clinical indicators are typically used by professionals such as psychologists with an individual client. They are usually time and resource intensive and therefore not suitable to use in collecting data from many children and summarized to produce a population indicator. Population-based indicators reflect data for a group of children, often defined by geography such as children in one country or one province. These indicators are often collected in large surveys and/or administrative records such as birth certificates or school testing scores. This book focuses on population-based indicators.

4.5

Key Questions Related to Indicator Selection

Bong (2014, p. 2797) states, “One of the important first steps in an effort to measure and monitor children’s well-being is to decide what to measure.” The data selected for a project depends a great deal on whether an organization has the resources to collect their own data or whether they need to rely on data collected by others, usually a government agency. Either way, there are a couple of steps one should take at the beginning of the project to frame the work. The first step involves understanding how the data will be used. The main goal of a project may be to simply make data available to a wide audience, or it may be to further a particular agenda like improving child heath. Some data are selected for publications that are intended to focus on a key piece of legislation or a key issue. There are many questions to answer before developing good set of child indictors and collecting data. These include, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

What is the purpose for collecting data? How do the indicators relate to an organization’s agenda? Is there one indicator/trend the organization is specifically looking to track? Does the organization need to select indicators that clearly connect to ongoing policy discussions? Is this set of indicators meant to provide a comprehensive portrait of child wellbeing or address one domain such as health or education? Are the indicators meant to be used to develop an index of overall child wellbeing? Does the data need to be disaggregated by sex, race, age, or income? Is there a specific unit of geography that one must use? Does the organization need to select indicators that will be “newsworthy”? Are the indicators selected ones that the organization plans to update on a regular basis? If so, how frequently does it hope to update them?

Addressing these questions early in the process of creating or developing a set of child well-being indictors can provide direction and avoid problems later in the process. A good analytic framework (covered in Chap. 2) will help this effort.

4.6 Roles and Relationships

4.6 4.6.1

51

Roles and Relationships Getting Stakeholder Input

In general, there are three ways in which projects are organized. First, some organizations undertake child indicator projects solely within the organization with little or no input from outsiders. Second, some organizations do most of the work internally, but look for input from stakeholders and outside experts. Third, some projects are undertaken with multiple partners. . .often the partners undertake distinct tasks like data analysis or communication. This approach may include input from stakeholders or the community members. Getting stakeholder or community input and support for a project is usually a good idea, but there can be costs involved in the process. Establishing opportunities to get input from stakeholders takes staff time. When a project hopes to use input from stakeholders or community representatives in selecting indicators there are generally two broad approaches that are used to identify what statistics to gather. Some projects spend time early in their development engaging with stakeholders to determine what an ideal set of indicators would be without regard to what data might be available. Other groups spend little time on thinking about abstract indicators and move quickly to finding out what indicator data are available. Both approaches can work, but a balance is important. Sometimes participants resent spending a lot of time discussing ideal indicators when they are not likely to be available. This is particularly likely to happen when working with a group of people who have little experience using data. It is not unusual for people to expect an indicator to exist when it does not. . . .at least not for the location or group of interest. In the early stages of selecting indicators, it is a good idea to have a data expert involved to provide some guidance about what kind of data are likely to be available. Many indicators are available at higher levels of aggregation, but not available for smaller locations, or by age, sex, or race. Before going too far in the project make sure the indicators the organization plans to use are available for the groups and geographic units needed.

4.6.2

Using a Data Partner

Data collection and analysis can require a lot of staff time and the availability of people with the tools or skills to handle statistical data. Collecting your own data can be costly and may not always be the best way to optimally use an organization’s resources. If an organization does not have the capacity to collect data on their own, one option is to work with a data partner (consultant, subcontractor, etc.) that can provide such expertise. Assessing the ability of a data partner to undertake the work required

52

4 Developing and Evaluating a Set of Child Well-being Indicators

is not always easy because this type of work is relatively rare, and it is usually difficult to find a partner who has done this type of work before. In searching for someone or some organization that can help with data, it is natural to look at universities. In this context, it is important to be extremely clear about what the organization is looking for from a data partner. Is the organization looking for someone to collect and assemble data for delivery to an organization for their analysis or is it looking for someone to provide analysis in addition to collecting and organizing data? Some people think of data accumulation and organization as a service much like accounting or computer services, but academicians typically do not see their role as one of assembling and providing descriptive information or data sets for others. They see their role as a data analyst. Making sure the distinction between assembling data and analyzing data is clear from the beginning can reduce problems later.

4.6.3

Relationships with Agencies

In many projects, it is helpful for an organization staff to develop and maintain relationships with staff in government agencies that produce data. Developing relationships with staff in government agencies can help organizations learn what data exist and obtain relevant data. Also, when data are not easily or publicly available, agency personnel can sometimes grant permission to access data or, at the very least, describe what data exist. Similar relationships with research centers help not only to identify data but to understand strengths and weaknesses of statistics as well as implication of methodological changes in data collection procedures. It is wise to reach out to build relationships with staff at government agencies and research centers and engage them regularly to understand the availability of critical metrics and indicators. One way to build such connections and relationships is to form a data advisory board or committee for a project and make sure people from key statistical agencies are on the board. This has been done in many state KIDS COUNT projects in United States and one unanticipated outcome was the chance for data experts from different government statistical agencies to talk with one another. As surprising as it may seem, statistical experts in different government agencies often do not have an opportunity to talk with their counterparts in other agencies. The agency experts were often grateful for a forum to talk with their counterparts in other agencies. Another way to gain the favor of government agencies that have statistical data on children is to be a public advocate for them, particularly in the context of budgets. Budgets for data production and dissemination are always vulnerable and tough fiscal situations make them even more vulnerable. Data-producing agencies rarely have strong advocates for their work outside of the government, so when a group does speak up to help protect the funds needed for data production the group gets noticed by the agency. Helping agencies maintain or expand funding for data

4.7 Identifying Indicators of Interest

53

production is an often-overlooked aspect of data-based child advocacy (O’Hare, 2014). There are at least four reasons why data may not be available. First, data from government agencies may be missing because the government agency lacks the resources or ability to collect and present good data. Second, it could be that the government is withholding the data, because releasing it would make the government regime look bad. Third, data for smaller geographic areas may be withheld because they are based on a small sample size or number of events which would lead to unreliable estimates. Fourth, data for small areas may be limited because producing such data would risk violating confidentiality or privacy of survey or census respondents. A strategy for obtaining data that an agency may not want to release is to find a friendly legislator. An inquiry or request for data from a legislator often has more weight than such an inquiry or request from a nonprofit group or researcher. Also, outreach to government officials above the statistical agency may be useful. In some situations, working with government agencies can require a delicate balance. On the one hand, the governmental information in data books is often used by advocates to show that the government is not doing a good enough job to improve the lives of children. On the other hand, organizations need to maintain good relationships with government statistical agencies so that it can count on continuing to get data from the government. It is understandable that governments may be reluctant to provide data that will be used to criticize the government. Sometimes having a data partner as an intermediary that is requesting government data can mitigate this potential problem. On the other hand, staff in statistical agencies producing the data often welcome the opportunity to see their data get more visibility even if those above them in the government would prefer not to make the data available.

4.7

Identifying Indicators of Interest

With a good sense of the goals of the project, the stakeholders, and the tasks to be undertake, identifying an appropriate set of indicators can begin. Some indicator projects just focus on one aspect or one dimension of child well-being such as health or education. Many other projects attempt to provide a more holistic or comprehensive portrait of child well-being. The goals of an indicator project should drive the selection of data. If an organization plans to examine child well-being from a holistic perspective, indicators will be needed to reflect a variety of domains and striking a balance among domains will be important. If an organization only plans to look at one domain or one dimension of child well-being a small cluster of indicators can be used to reflect the domain and balance is less of an issue. This is the way Ben-Arieh and his colleagues (2014, p. 5) address the need for balance,

54

4 Developing and Evaluating a Set of Child Well-being Indicators Any comprehensive attempt to look at children’s well-being must balance the various socioeconomic and cultural domains of children” lives and be carefully constructed to include current but historically often excluded subpopulations of children, e.g., those with disabilities: indigenous minorities: very poor or isolated population: those separated from families: and those who are homeless, refuges or immigrants

There are several publications focused on assembling indicators of child well-being (Schorr, 1995; Child Trends, 2009; Brown et al., 2008; National Association of Child Advocates, 2001). The information in Chap. 7 also provides guidance on child well-being indicators used by others.

4.7.1

Domains of Well-being

Experts often make a distinction between domains and indicators. Domains are relatively broad areas of well-being such as health or education. Using domains in a publication usually involves assembling a cluster of indicators. For example, if the domain were education, one could include school dropout rates, pre-school data, attendance rates, test scores, and graduation rates among other potential measures. These compose a cluster of indicators that reflect the education domain. Chapter 7 contains detailed examples of domains and indicators. In selecting potential indicators, it is often useful to start by deciding which domains are most important. Once domains are selected, one can start looking for good indicators in each domain or use indicators that have already been identified by others. There is widespread agreement that domains are important in measuring child well-being, but there is no agreement on exactly what the set of domains should be. Bong (2014) lists several studies that use different domains of child well-being and Richardson (2014) provides several examples of domains and indicators that have been widely used. In one study, examination of 19 domain-driven indices of child well-being (O’Hare & Gutierrez, 2012) found that three domains or dimensions of well-being (economics, health, and education) were used in nearly every study examined. So, starting the search for indicators with those three domains might be helpful. Beyond economics, health, and education, two other domains that were used by many researchers were family/community and risks/behavior. In recent editions of the KIDS COUNT Data Books, (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2021) four domains (see Chap. 7) are used with four indicators in each domain. The Innocenti Research Centre Report Card Number 7 used six domains (Innocenti Research Centre, 2007). Both Aber and Jones (1997) and Pittman and Irby (1997) argue indicators have moved beyond basic needs to measures which reflect the degrees of child development. As Resnick (1995, p. 3) states,

4.7 Identifying Indicators of Interest

55

children’s well-being indicators are on the move from concentrating only on trends of dying, distress, disability, and discomfort to tackling the issue of indicators of sparkle, satisfaction, and well-being.

These efforts in turn moved the field from efforts to determine minimums, as in saving a life, to indicators that focus on quality of life. This shift was further supported by efforts to better understand what quality of life entails and its implications for children (Casas, 2000; Huebner et al., 1998, 2004). To some extent the developmental stage of a country may drive availability of data. In less developed countries basic indicators of life and death may be both more appropriate and more widely available. In more developed countries survival indicators are less important (because the vast majority of children survive) and more socioeconomic or quality-of-life measures are often used.

4.7.2

How Many Indicators Do I Need?

For organizations just starting their first indicator project the question about the required number of indicators may arise. There is no right answer to this question, but there are two important considerations. First, what is the purpose of the publication or data? Second, what is the availability of high-quality indicators of child well-being? At times, an organization may be tempted to present all the indicators they can find. If the key goal of the project is largely to make child well-being indicators more easily available to people, this is not a bad approach, although sometimes readers may feel overwhelmed if there are too many indicators. In terms of communication power, it is often more powerful to have a few well-chosen indicators rather than a large compilation. It is occasionally more powerful to have a smaller number of wellchosen indicators than a large set of indicators. Presenting a large number of indicators also raises the issue of duplication. Sometimes two different indicators measure the same thing, or nearly the same thing. For example, the percent of children in poverty and the percent of children in low-income families are two indicators that measure very similar conditions. This can raise problems with users who may be unsure which of two closely related indicators is the best one to use for their purposes. Other times, indicators may be selected because of their “newsworthiness.” If a major goal of an indicator project is to get public attention, some indicators may be more useful than others. In particular, indicators that are related to topics currently on the public agenda or topics in the news are more likely to get attention. For example, if health care is a popular topic of discussion, using the percent of children without health insurance as an indicator may garner more attention than a measure focused on education.

56

4.8

4 Developing and Evaluating a Set of Child Well-being Indicators

Where to Look for Potential Indicators

To obtain and select high-quality indicators on children for use in data books, report cards, and other reports, staff members need to understand where to find data and how to access it. Child well-being indicator data are usually gathered or assembled in one of three ways. First, organizations with sufficient resources may decide to conduct their own data collection to create indicators, often using experts in surveys and statistics. Second, organizations may locate data that are available from government agencies but will need to convert those data into rates or indicators of well-being. For example, one may find the number of infant deaths and the number births and construct an infant mortality rate for those data to be meaningful. Finally, it is not unusual to find the rates or measures one is looking for already available. For example, child poverty rates are often available from government sources. In the context of child indicator projects, collecting data may refer to getting data that has already been produced by, for example, a government statistical agency or collecting original data such as a survey. Child advocates regularly rely on data from government agencies, and sometimes from private or university-based survey organizations. The availability and quality of data from different sources varies widely from one location to another. Reading the literature on child well-being is another good way to come up with ideas about what indicators to collect or use. Exploring child well-being indicators or statistical data that have been used by others is often a good way to get input into data selection. Talking to peers in other localities about their data sources may help identify opportunities to find similar data in your locality. Selecting indicators that have been used by others has two advantages. First, if an indicator has been used by other organizations, it is more likely to exist for your application. Second, the fact that the indicator has been used by others increases the credibility of using it in a project. In Chap. 7, several major reports are referenced where one can get ideas about child indicators used by others. Often data from a variety of sources are put together in a data report. Making data from a variety of sources available in one place is often one of the biggest value of data reports. Combining data from difference sources (survey and administrative records) is called an integrated data set. Organizations should develop a list of indicators by considering the data sources that are available and the questions about child well-being that the organization wishes to address. Scrutinize each indicator to determine whether it meets basic data quality standards shown in Sect. 4.10 adds value in assessing child well-being.

4.8 Where to Look for Potential Indicators

4.8.1

57

Administrative Data and Survey Data

Almost all data used by child indicator projects come from one of two sources: (1) surveys (including censuses) and (2) administrative records or service data. Each of these sources has strengths and weaknesses. More details about these two sources of data are provided by Goerge (2014). Survey and census data are often collected with data analysis in mind, but administrative records or service data are usually not collected explicitly for statistical purposes. Examples of administrative records are student test scores, birth and death certificates, or vaccination records. The information from these sources is typically collected for program administration or for legal reasons, not statistical purposes. Sometimes data collected for administrative purposes provides good child well-being indicators, but other times the data collection method may cause methodological concerns. On some dimensions, such as timeliness, both survey data and administrative data can be judged by the same criteria. But on other dimensions, such as accuracy, the quality of survey data is usually assessed differently than administrative data. Frameworks for measuring accuracy of survey data are more developed and more widely used than measures of accuracy for administrative data. One seminal framework for assessing survey results is offered by Groves et al. (2004, p. 48) and includes decomposition of total error into several components, • • • • • • •

Validity Measurement error Processing error Coverage error Sampling error Nonresponse error Adjustment error

There is no similar widely used framework for assessing the quality of data from administrative records, but Czajka and Stange (2018) offer the following framework for identifying errors for integrated databases based on common international statistical standards: • • • • •

Relevance Accuracy and reliability Timeliness Coherence and comparability Accessibility and clarity

In some cases, private survey companies have developed data on child well-being. These data need to be scrutinized to ensure that they comply with quality data standards identified in Sect. 4.10 of this chapter. It is also important to understand how a survey organization is viewed by the public and policymakers. Does the

58

4 Developing and Evaluating a Set of Child Well-being Indicators

survey organization have a particular political slant? This is particularly true among polling organizations. Even if the data collected are valid, use of it can impinge on the credibility of a report if the organization that collected the data is viewed negatively. The credibility of the organization collecting the data must be assessed in the local social-political context.

4.9

Different Forms of Availability of Data

Data in government agency files can be effectively unavailable because members of the public do not know that they exist or how to obtain them. Sometimes organizations can find the data, but do not have the capacity to download and analyze it. Other times data can be found easily via the Internet, but the presentation may be difficult to use or comprehend. Data availability means different things to different people. It is important to understand exactly what is meant when data are said to be publicly available. It can involve availability through printed reports with tables, online reports, online tables, on-line tabulation software, downloadable datasets, and Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS). For organizations that do not have strong computer resources, some of these formats may make the data effectively unavailable.. Some government statistical agency data are publicly available in print or easily on the Internet, other public agency data are less easily available. If an agency says certain data are publicly available, make sure the data are available in a format your organization can access. The limitations faced by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), or non-profit organizations, or civil society groups may not be clear because as a rule, statisticians working in government agencies interact with other researchers, and those researchers typically have the computer and human resources to access computerized data files. In some cases, statistical agencies envision universities as the primary users of their data, but NGOs and other stakeholders seldom have the computer resources available to university staff. Organizations using child indicators data have a wide range of data expertise. Organizations with ample statistical and computer capabilities can use computerized files released by government agencies, but those without such capabilities may not be able to access data in computerized formats. There are times when it behooves an organization with limited computer resources to partner with a university or a research center to gain the computer power available there. Some datasets have not been published or posted online simply because of limited public interest and/or limited agency resources. Sometimes such data can be accessed by directly contacting the agency holding the data. Advocacy to make such publicly data available is an important data-based child advocacy activity.

4.10

4.10

Selection Criteria and Considerations

59

Selection Criteria and Considerations

After locating potential indicators, it is important to assess their quality and suitability for a given project. Several publications provide standards one can use to help determine the quality or appropriateness of data (Innocenti Research Centre, 2020; Ben-Arieh & Gross-Manos, 2009; Lippman et al., 2014). According to the United States Interagency Forum on Child and Family (2020) good well-being indicators must meet the following criteria: • • • • •

Easy to understand by broad audiences Objectively based on reliable data Balanced, so that no single area dominates the report Measured regularly so that they can be updated and show trends Representative of large segments of the population.

Citing criteria from established sources can add credibility and authority to the data and the organization producing or releasing the data. This point is particularly important for smaller or less known organizations. As stated earlier, assessment of indicators is complicated because it includes statistical expertise but also involves judgments about normative expectations as well as aspects of communication and a clear assessment of the intended audience(s). Of course, the local cultural and social context are important. In selecting a set of indicators, it is important to know about the intended audience for the data or report. Indicators selected for a scholarly audience may be different than those selected for a general public audience, or an audience focused on programs and policies. The focus in this section is largely on statistical properties.

4.10.1 Accuracy Assessing the accuracy of a given statistical estimate or set of estimates involves at least two dimensions. The first dimension is a conceptual dimension: Does the statistic adequately reflect what the organization is trying to measure? It is particularly important to assess this dimension when an organization must use data that are collected by others. What is available may not reflect the concept that one is trying to measure. For example, the organization may want to measure the level of learning by young children before entering school, but the only related measure available is the percentage of 3- and 4-year-olds who attend preschool. On its face, this just measures attendance at a facility, not how much education or learning is done there. Also, such a measure does not reflect education that takes place in the home and education that takes place in other kinds of childcare settings such as family day care. Another example is an organization that may want to measure the early health environment for infants, but it must use the infant mortality rate.

60

4 Developing and Evaluating a Set of Child Well-being Indicators

The examples in the previous paragraph are often called “proxy” measures which mean they are used in place of the real measures desired. A proxy indicator is one which is not exactly what is desired but is closely related to the measures being sought. The need to spell out how a proxy variable is related to what one really wants to measure is a judgment call. Child poverty is sometimes an indicator and sometimes used as a proxy variable. Poverty might be used to reflect lack of adequate nutrition or unstable housing situations when those measures are not available directly. Proxy measures are fine, but one should explain why the measure is being used and how it is related to the measure that is desired. Oftentimes, proxy variables are closely related to the concept in mind. The second dimension is the statistical properties of the indicator: There are several criteria for judging the quality of a statistic estimate. The term “fitness for use” is often used. After reviewing the statistical standards employed in many countries, Czajka and Stange (2018, p. ix) conclude, The literature across these countries and organizations is nearly uniform in defining data quality as ‘fitness for use’ in which ‘good’ or ‘high‘ quality data meets its intended purpose in operations, decision-making, and planning.

Data analysts and statisticians often make a distinction between sampling error and nonsampling error in estimates. Sampling error (described below) can often be measured, but nonsampling error is usually more difficult to assess. Sampling error is the error that comes from trying to estimate the characteristics of a population from a sample of that population. Sampling error is sometimes expressed as margin of error (sometime labeled the MOE) or standard error. These terms reflect the expected level of error in an estimate based on sample characteristics such as sample size and how the sample was drawn. When there are large margins of error for a set of estimates, the differences between estimates can easily be misleading because the difference between two estimates may be due to random error and not a true difference. Nonsampling error includes errors such as respondents misunderstanding a question, misstating the facts (either deliberately or out of ignorance) and failure to capture a representative sample of the population. The impact of nonsampling error is difficult to measure and assessing the impact of nonsampling error often involves judgement. One of the most fundamental principles for data quality in both sample surveys and administrative data is the estimation error related to the sample size or the number of events. In general, the larger the sample size and the larger the number of events, the more reliable the estimate. Using a small number of events to produce rates can be problematic. When numbers are small, minor changes in the actual number of events can result in large changes for rates. When an infant mortality rate or a teen birth rate is based on only a few infant deaths or births to teens, year to year changes may be largely random but could result in a big change in rates. For example, if the number of teen births for a jurisdiction increases from two to four from one year to the next, the teen

4.10

Selection Criteria and Considerations

61

birth rate will double, but there is probably little or no real change in the actual underlying risk of a teenager having a birth. Analysts can use a couple of techniques to try to overcome issues with small numbers of events or small sample sizes. One approach is to sum events over several years to increase the sample size or number of events that are used to calculate a rate. For example, for much of the 1990s, the KIDS COUNT Data Book produced a statelevel poverty rate for children by combining five years of data from the United States Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey to provide large enough sample sizes for reliable estimates for the small states (O’Hare & Pollard, 1998). Combining several years of data provides a larger sample that produces more reliable results. This approach has been used in the American Community Survey conducted by the United States Census Bureau. They produce data accumulated over a five-year period for small places in order to base the estimates on a larger sample. Another approach to overcome a small sample size or a small number of events is to combine several geographic areas together. For example, combining counties or provinces into a multi-county or multi-province region may provide enough events to produce reliable data for the multi-county region or provinces can be combined into a region. Data from administrative records typically do not have measures of standard errors attached to them. There are two statistical perspectives regarding random error in administrative data like birth certificates. Some experts believe that since 100 percent of the birth records are used to construct a rate (like a teen birth rate) there is no random error, and any differences is a true difference. However, others believe that estimates for a given year or population contain random error when the number of events is small. In this perspective the data for one year is conceived as a sample from a larger universe of all possible years. The issue is summarized by the United States National Center for Health Statistics NCHS (2004, p. 30) this way: When the number of events is large, the relative standard error is usually small. When the number of events is small (perhaps less than 100) and the probability of such an event is small, considerable caution must be observed in interpreting the data.

In addition to sampling error, an indicator may be biased if data collection results in systematically lower or higher values for some group of people. In other words, bias is error in a particular direction (too high or too low). This can happen with samples and administrative data. Bias can be injected by how the data are collected (for example asking a question on a survey in a certain way) or it can be injected by collecting data from a selected subset of the population. If the data are from a sample, it is important to understand not only the size of the sample but whether the sample was selected using scientific statistical principles and reflects the population of interest. In other words, how representative are the data. If data are from an administrative source, it is important to understand who is included in the administrative records and who is not. Administrative data seldom reflect the entire population. If the data are from a program that provides aid to needy children or families, the population of recipients is not likely to be a representative

62

4 Developing and Evaluating a Set of Child Well-being Indicators

sample of an area because some needy children are not participating in the program. This can introduce biases. Small biases in statistics are often not a problem. Determining when bias is too much bias is a judgment. It is important to recognize that a larger sample will not overcome bias in a sample or a set of administrative data that is not representative of the population. If one is comparing groups or geographic areas and the bias is consistent (for example of the rate is 10 percent too low everywhere) it may be fair to compare relative outcomes because the data for all groups and locations are subject to the same bias.

4.10.2 Consistency and Comparability Lack of temporal consistency or spatial consistency among indicators—are two potential problems (O’Hare & Patterson, 2015). For data to be consistent and comparable, it must have been collected consistently across all jurisdictions and consistently over time. Small deviations in consistency are typically not a problem. Child welfare data are a good example of where problems can occur because of definitional inconsistency. Sometimes different child welfare agencies collect and code data quite differently so that it is not appropriate to make comparisons. For example, some states in the United States provide data on all records of child abuse reports even if they turn out to be unfounded. Other states remove reports if they are unfounded. If a concept has been measured different ways in different places or differently at different points in time, it can compromise comparability.

4.10.3 Completeness Some data sets, especially those with voluntary participation, are often incomplete and likely to be biased. There are two key dimensions to completeness. One is whether all appropriate individuals are included in the data set. If a dataset is meant to reflect a given population all members of the population must be in the data set, or the data set must represent a representative sample of the population. If certain types of individuals are not included in the data set it can introduce bias. The other kind of incompleteness is related to missing data on characteristics for individuals. For example, if certain kinds of people (those with low incomes, for example) refuse to complete information for a health care visit or survey, analysis based on the data set is likely to be biased. People who voluntarily provide information are often systematically different than those who do not. Another example is some educational data that do not include children who are expelled from school or home schooled. Similarly, many educational estimates only reflect those in public school which only represent a segment of all students, and often a biased segment of all students.

4.10

Selection Criteria and Considerations

63

Administrative or service data are often an incomplete reflection of the population of interest because they only capture children and families who have been served by an agency. Other children and families may have the same problems but were not served. These are a select sample of the whole population.

4.10.4 Readily Understandable Indicators used in reports intended for a popular audience must be easily understood. Some indicators may be valid reflections of well-being but are too complicated to explain or require too much explanation to be used in a publication geared to the public. It is important to limit the use of jargon or nomenclature that is not widely used by the public. For people working in any field, it is common to use words or terms that are commonly understood with colleagues. Limit the use of jargon in labels. One test for a good measure is whether it can be clearly described to the public in 6 to 10 words. For example, the child poverty rate or percent of children in poverty, is a good indicator label. Also be mindful of the fact that most readers will only look at the label to understand measures so do not count on a more detailed explanation of a measure that appears in an appendix or footnotes to overcome difficulties that might occur in trying to describe a measure with a 6-to-10-word label. It is good to have definitions in a report, but they are unlikely to be viewed by many readers.

4.10.5 Balanced The term balance is used in at least three different ways in the child well-being literature. It can mean a balance in the domains represented. A second use means balance in terms of groups of children represented in a report (i.e., different ages, difference race/ethnic groups, etc.). The third use means a balance of positive and negative factors. For a comprehensive report on children, one needs to balance indicators from a variety of perspectives including domains or dimensions of child well-being. For example, if there are six indicators of health but only two each for education, income, and community, a simple average across all indicators would give the health domain higher weight and therefore the mean would not reflect a balanced set of indicators. There are two main ways to achieve balance when combining domains. One is to include the same number (or about the same number) of indicators in each domain. For example, the 2021 KIDS COUNT Data Book uses four indicators for each of four domains. Balance can also be achieved by weighting indicators and/or domains. By combining indicators into a domain average and giving each domain equal weight

64

4 Developing and Evaluating a Set of Child Well-being Indicators

in an index can produce a balanced index of well-being even if the number of indicators in each domain differ. Another example in providing a balanced and comprehensive portrait of all children (ages 0 to 17) is providing balance for all age groups of children. Some measures, like child poverty, reflect all ages of children but others, such as the infant mortality rate, or the high school graduate rate are age specific. If one is trying to provide a comprehensive picture of all children (under age 18) it is important to have about the same number of indicators for preschoolers as for teenagers.

4.10.6 Relevance to the Agenda It is important to select indicators that shed light on issues that have been chosen for the organization’s agenda. For example, if one is preparing a report on the health of children and it includes a measure of child poverty, one should explain to readers why a measure from another domain has implications for health. For example, child poverty may be included because children in low-income families may not have the same access to health care as children from higher income families.

4.10.7 Using a Strategic Unit of Geography Sometimes an organization will not have a choice of what geographic unit to use because the indicators of interest are only available for one set of geographic units. But when there is a choice of geographic units, the decision about what geographic unit to use should be driven by three principles. (More information on this topic is included in Chap. 5.) First, people are most interested in seeing data about the area where they live. So more detailed geographic levels are better than less detailed geographic levels for gaining the attention of readers. From this point of view, neighborhoods are better than cities, cities are better than states or provinces, and states or provinces are better than national data. Second, decisions need to take data quality into consideration. The same measure (for example child poverty) may be more accurate at one level of geography (usually larger units) than other levels of geography (typically smaller units). Third, decisions about what level of geography to use should be made with the policy power of localities in mind. From this perspective, using geographic units that have more policymaking authority are better than using geographic units with less policymaking authority. Showing differences for geographic units that have no policymaking powers is not as effective for achieving change as showing differences for geographic areas that do have policymaking power. There is often a tradeoff because there are typically more indicators and more policymaking power at higher levels of geography, but more public interest in lower

4.10

Selection Criteria and Considerations

65

levels of geography. So, these two goals may conflict. People may be most interested in neighborhood-level data, but neighborhoods do not have decision-making power and/or data are not available. Choosing the best level(s) of geography requires good judgment. Understanding the local context and the data attributes are critical for making such decisions. An approach that may work in one place may be inappropriate somewhere else.

4.10.8 Timeliness of the Data How recently were these data collected? Are they still meaningful? Scientists and policymakers sometimes differ on the importance of timeliness. For many scholarly studies, researchers are focused on underlying conceptual relationships so using older data is acceptable. For policymakers and journalists on the other hand, anything other than very recent data can easily be dismissed. In a political context, using data collected during a previous administration is sometimes dismissed by the current administration. This can be problematic because for many measures of child well-being there is often a significant time lag between when the data are collected and when they become available. If using data from multiple sources, it is often trickly to get the data for the same time period (such as a given year). One must decide if it is better to use data all from the same year (which may mean using older data for some measures) or to use the most recent data available for each indicator even though they do not represent the same year. If using data that may be old, one way to try and blunt this type of criticism is using the phrase “the most recent data available” or accentuating that the organization is using the “best data available.” In the end, assessing whether the data are timely enough is a judgment call and often depends on the way the data are being used and the audience.

4.10.9 Positive Indicators or Assets Organizations should also consider including positive indicators. While most of the indicators produced by government agencies measure problems, analysts should be aware of the usefulness of positive indicators of child well-being. Because child development includes positive as well as negative developmental processes, including positive indicators is helpful for a balanced picture of child well-being. Many authors have made the point that the child indicator movement is dominated by measures of short-comings or problems and largely underplays assets (Moore & Lippman, 2005; Aber & Jones, 1997). Concerns about the overuse of negative indicators has at least three dimensions. First, some people argue that too often the data are framed as a negative indicator rather than a positive one which is

66

4 Developing and Evaluating a Set of Child Well-being Indicators

related to how a given statistics and its complement are used. For example, instead of talking about high school dropout rates (a negative indicator), one could talk about high school graduation rates (a positive indicator). Also, if 25 percent of children in a given place are living in poverty, it also means 75 percent are not living in poverty. The decision about how to present this statistic could lead to a more positive interpretation. A second interpretation of positive indicators is related to the distinction between current data and trends. If the poverty rate for a given set of children is 25 percent, but the poverty rate has decreased from 30 percent five years ago, one could present this as a positive trend or a negative situation. Finally, some argue that positive well-being or thriving is not just the absence of problems or negative aspects in ones live and the absence of problems or failures does not necessarily indicate proper growth and success (Moore & Lippman, 2005; Ben-Arieh, 2006; Moore et al., 2004). Indicators that reflect thriving are different than indicators that reflect problems. Thus, the challenge has become developing indicators that hold societies accountable for more than the safe warehousing of children and youth (Pittman & Irby, 1997). Closely related to the idea of positive and negative indicators is the idea of protective and risk factors (Hawkins et al., 1992). The presence of protective factors such as intelligence, school readiness, and behavioral control for young children can help individuals cope with problems. From this perspective, child well-being can be assessed by examining the relative balance of protective and risk factors in their life. A good summary of various positive and protective factors is provided by Lippman et al., 2014). Scales (2011) provides an explanation of how development assets can lead to better assessment of child well-being. Others push back against this perspective by noting that government programs generally focus on solving difficulties or fixing problems. From this perspective it makes sense to focus on identifying and quantifying problems. If the point of a report is to motivate public action, focusing on problems is probably more likely to achieve that goal than reporting positive outcomes.

4.11

Limitations of Data

Since no data are perfect it is important to understand the limitations and shortcomings of data being used. All data have some deficiencies, but some are more important than others. Many times, the audience for child indicators are not well versed in statistics and may not recognize the limits of a data series or how limitations impact the quality of the data. Readers may be looking for help in understanding the relative importance of a limitation. When discussing limitations of data in a report, it is often important to explain why a given limitation is not so severe that it totally undermines use in the report or study. Otherwise, the readers are left wondering why the information is being used if

References

67

it is considered problematic. One must try to balance an explanation of potential limitations with the value of the data. But when advocates ignore the limitations of data or fail to explain them adequately, the result can be damaging. If advocates report data inaccurately, or fail to note the limits of the data, that can put the organizations credibility at risk. The extent to which data shortcomings make data unusable is a judgment involving the shortcomings of the data and the context. Deciding how much inaccuracy is too much inaccuracy is a judgement that must be made with the accuracy of the data or indicator and the context in mind. At times, organizations are faced with providing data with some shortcomings and limitations or providing no data at all. . .or a very limited set of measures.

References Aber, L. J., & Jones, S. (1997). Indicators of positive development in early childhood: Improving concepts and measures. In R. M. Hauser, B. V. Brown, & W. R. Prosser (Eds.), Indicators of children’s Well-being (pp. 395–408). Russell Sage. Ben-Arieh, A. (2006). Measuring and monitoring the Well-being of young children around the world. Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2007, : Early Childhood Care and Education. Ben-Arieh, A., & Gross-Manos, D. (2009). Taxonomy for child well-being indicators. Presentation at the 3rd Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Forum on ‘Statistics, Knowledge and Policy: Charting Progress, Building Visions, and Improving Life,’ Busan Korea, October 27–30. Ben-Arieh, A., Cassas, F., Frones, I., & Korbin, J. (2014). Handbook of child well-being: Theories, methods, and policies in global context. Springer. Bong, J. L. (2014). Mapping domains and indicators of children’s Well-being, (chapter 97). In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Cassas, I. Frones, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child Well-being: Theories, methods, and policies in global context (pp. 2797–2805). Springer Publishers. Brown, B., Hashim, K., & Marin, P. (2008). A guide to resources for creating, locating, and using child and youth indicator data. Child Trends. Casas, F. (2000). Perceptions of video games among Spanish children and parents. In C. Feilitzen & U. Carlsson (Eds.), Children in the new media landscape. Children and media violence yearbook 2000 (pp. 123–125). Nodicom, University of Goteborg & UNESCO. Child Trends. (2009). Brown, B., & Moore, K. A. What get measured get done: High priority opportunities to improve our nation’s capacity to monitor child and youth well-being. Paper prepared for the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Child Trends, Washington, DC. Czajka, J. L., & Stange, M. (2018). Transparency in the reporting of quality for integrated data: A review of international standards and guidelines. Mathematica Policy Research, Report to Internal Revenue Service. https://mathematica.org/publications/transparency-in-the-reportingof-quality-for-integrated-data-a-review-of-international-standards Goerge, R. M. (2014). Different sources of information, (chapter 100). In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Cassas, I. Frones, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child Well-being: Theories, methods, and policies in global context (pp. 2867–2878). Springer Publishers. Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeu, R. (2004). Survey methodology. Wiley Intercedence.

68

4 Developing and Evaluating a Set of Child Well-being Indicators

Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse and prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 64–195. Huebner, E. S., Laughlin, J. E., Asch, C., & Gilman, R. (1998). Further validation of the multidimensional student’s life satisfaction scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 16(2), 118–134. Huebner, E. S. (2004). Research on assessment of life satisfaction of children and adolescents. Social Indicators Research, 66(1–2), 3–33. Innocenti Research Centre. (2007). Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries. Innocenti Report Card 7, UNICEF. Innocenti Research Centre. (2020). Worlds of influence understanding what shapes child well-being in rich countries. Innocenti Report Card 16, UNICEF. Lippman, L. H., Ryberg, R., Terzian, M., Moore, K. A., Humble, J., & McIntosh, H. (2014). Positive and protective factors in adolescent Well-being (chapter 99). In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Cassas, I. Frones, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child Well-being: Theories, methods, and policies in global context (pp. 2823–2866). Springer Publishers. Moore, K. A., Lippman, L., & Brown, B. (2004). Indicators of child wellbeing: The promise for positive youth development. ANNALS, AAPSS, 591, 125–145. Moore, K. A., & Lippman, L. H. (Eds.). (2005). What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development. Springer. National Association of Child Advocates. (2001). National Association of Child Advocates 2001/ 2002 Annual Report from the President. Copeland, Tamara Lucas. O’Hare, W. P. (2014). Data-based child advocacy: Using statistical indicators to improve the lives of children. Springer Publisher. O’Hare, W. P., & Gutierrez, F. (2012). The use of domains in constructing a comprehensive composite index of child Well-being. Child Indicators Research, 5(4), 609–629. O’Hare, W. P., & Patterson, S. (2015). Assessing spatial and temporal differences in state-level child Well-being based on tests of significance. Child Indicator Research. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12187-015-9354-y O’Hare, W. P., & Pollard, K. (1998). How accurate are state-level estimates from the current population survey? Population Research and Policy Review, 17(1), 21–36. Pittman, K., & Irby, M. (1997). Promoting investment in life skills for youth: Beyond indicators for survival and problem prevention. In A. Ben-Arieh & H. Wintersberger (Eds.), Monitoring and measuring the state of children: Beyond survival. European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research. Resnick, M. (1995). Discussants comments, Paper presented at the indicators of children’s wellbeing conference. Conference paper (Vol. II). Richardson, D. (2014). International comparisons of child Well-being, (chapter 114). In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Cassas, I. Frones, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child Well-being: Theories, methods, and policies in global context (pp. 3219–3248). Springer Publishers. Scales, P. K. (2011). Youth development assets in global perspective; results from international adaptations of the development assets profile. Child Indicators Research, 4, 619–645. Schorr, L. (1995). The case for shifting to results-based accountability. Center for the Study of Social Policy. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2021). KIDS COUNT Data Book. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. United States Center for Health Statistics. (2004, April). Special reports from the National Vital Statistics Reports, Series 24, No. 13. United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Well-Being Concepts | HRQOL | CDC. United States Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2020). America’s children in brief: Key national indicators of well-being. https://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/index.asp

Chapter 5

Data Analysis and Tabulation

Abstract Once data have been collected, staff of an indicator project must decide how to analyze or tabulate the data and how to present it. Appropriate choices about analyzing and presenting data depend on the goals of project, resources of the organization, and the audience. For example, the extent to which reports are analytical versus descriptive varies widely. This chapter provides information on some the key questions and issues regarding data analysis and presentation.

5.1

Introduction

Analyzing and interpreting data is a critical part of child indicator projects. No matter how good the data are, if they are not analyzed correctly and presented to the audience in a way that makes them understandable, they are of little value. Although some child indicator projects simply list or present a set of indicator values, most projects provide some type of analysis in the presentation. Even listing values requires thoughtful presentation to make it easy for readers to understand the meaning of the data. Organizations can use data analysis to identify trends and patterns in child wellbeing, highlight the most important data, educate stakeholders and policymakers, undertake policy analysis, guide the organization’s agenda, determine long-term goals, and measure the outcome of their advocacy work. Statistical analysis, graphing, and mapping software can help with analyzing and presenting data effectively. The term analysis means different things to different people. For trained social scientists and data experts, it typically involves statistical computations. For a popular audience the term might just mean assembling and presenting statistical information. One should be prepared for different interpretations of what is meant by “data analysis.” To gain attention from a popular audience it is often useful to provide analysis that informs public policies and public programs designed to help needy children. Analyzing how child outcomes may be shaped by policy can help advocates put findings in the context of government social policy, as well as important social and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 W. O’Hare, A Practitioner’s Guide to Using Child Indicators, SpringerBriefs in Well-Being and Quality of Life Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90291-9_5

69

70

5 Data Analysis and Tabulation

economic developments. Such connections make a report more appealing to a popular audience. Often an important goal of a report is to get readers to think about the well-being of children. Sometimes a good strategy to engage readers is to present intriguing data and ask readers to wonder about what explains trends or differences. Creating complicated variables or conducting sophisticated complex statistical analysis may be fine for a technical audience, but it is not likely to be absorbed by a general audience or by policymakers. If readers understand how the data analysis was performed, they are more likely to accept the results of the analysis. If the analysis is mysterious or unclear, readers are less likely to believe the conclusions. In some cases, one might want to conduct a complex analysis but just describe the results in a publication meant for a popular audience. This provides readers with the key points of the analysis without asking them to understand the methodology, which can be made available in supporting documentation. Keep in mind the overall goal of the report. If the goal is to convince an audience of something, too much data can confound what point(s) are key. Do not let key points get overwhelmed by too many statistics.

5.2

Description and Analysis

An important distinction related to reporting child indicators is the distinction between description and analysis. Briefly, description provides data showing the condition, status, or well-being of children, while analysis often uses indicators to provide information about why the observed condition is that way. In other words, analytical research typically focuses on causality or relationships among variables. Sometimes the distinction between the two approaches is not clear, hence the term descriptive analysis. Understanding these two kinds of data uses at the outset of a project can be important. Aiming to present a descriptive report is different than preparing an analytical report. Decisions about how to mix description and analysis, as well as what kind of analysis to use, depend on context and the audience. This decision may also depend on the capabilities of the organization preparing a report. It is also important to limit conclusions in a report to the data presented in the report or cite the sources of other conclusions. It is not unusual for advocacy reports to contain conclusions that are not based on the data presented in the report. Some advocacy organizations might use a report as an opportunity to include their perspective on a topic or issue even if it is not based on evidence in the current report. If a conclusion that appears in a report not based on evidence the current report, that needs to be made clear. Making claims that go beyond the evidence presented can result in a loss of credibility. Many users of indicators focus on using the data to describe a situation, often with the hopes that the description will motivate leaders to act. For example, an organization may put out a report highlighting the fact that a certain location (state, city,

5.3 Level or Type of Statistical Analysis

71

region, province) has a very high child poverty rate. This descriptive information is often meant to motivate leaders to reduce child poverty in that area. However, in some cases, there is a tradeoff between being mostly descriptive or being more analytical, particularly in a political context. When one only provides descriptive data from a credible source, the publication is often viewed very positively by most people. The readers learn important facts and the organization gains credibility. On the other hand, when analysis highlights policy solutions or approaches there is a danger some readers who disagree with that approach or perspective will dismiss the entire publication including the credible data. If the primary goal of a project is to make indicators of child well-being more easily available to a wide audience a descriptive approach may work best. If the primary goal is pushing for a solution to a given problem, analysis may be needed.

5.3

Level or Type of Statistical Analysis

The level of statistical analysis one uses in a child indicator project or report depends on the audience and what the goals are. If one is trying to reach a non-technical audience (policy makers, public, decisions makers), simple analysis that is easy to understand can be powerful. Basic statistics are not covered here because there many books provide information on this topic (Blalock, 1972; McFedries, 2019; De Veaux et al., 2009; Simon, 2005). For most statistics used in child indicator reports, relatively basic statistical software such as spreadsheets are often sufficient. EXCEL is one software program that is widely used in this kind of work. For presentation in a professional journal or for a professional audience more powerful statistical software such as Statistical Analysis System (SAS), Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and R, may be needed. The more powerful statistical software can also provide the simpler statistics that are common in child indicator reports. The choice of statistical methods sometimes produces a tension among project participants. Those who have more advanced research and/or statistical training may want to use statistical procedures that would be appropriate for a research publication. But those more sophisticated analyses may be too confusing for some audiences and communication experts are likely to argue for a simpler statistical approach. In my experience, a simpler analytical presentation greatly enhances communication of the results and conclusions for non-technical audiences.

72

5.4

5 Data Analysis and Tabulation

Comparative Analysis

Comparing the indicator values is one of the more common ways to give the data more meaning for a wide audience. Several kinds of comparative approaches are described below. These approaches are not mutually exclusive.

5.4.1

Comparisons Over Time

Comparisons over time can reveal whether well-being is getting better or worse for children. This is sometimes called temporal analysis. This can involve changes in a single indicator, a set of indicators, changes in the value for an entire domain of indicators, or a comprehensive index of well-being. The time frame that can be shown with this kind of analysis is often constrained by the availability of comparable data. One needs data from at least two points in time to show change over time (a beginning point and an end point) but is it better to have more than two points. The more data points used for a temporal analysis, the more reliable the conclusions are likely to be. In this approach, one should always be certain the data values reported at each point in time are comparable. Changes in the way concepts are measured and/or changes in the population included in data collected can compromise comparability. Selecting a starting point and an ending point for a trend need to be done carefully. It is easy to make the same set of data appear to support different conclusions. For example, Table 6.1 in Chap. 6 shows yearly child poverty rates in the United States from 2000 to 2019. By choosing different stating points and ending points, one can make the data support different conclusions. Looking only at the child poverty rates in 2000 and 2018 (both 16 percent) it looks like there was no change over the period. But looking at intermediate points indicate there were increases and decreases in child poverty over that time period. Also, looking at the child poverty rates in 2013 (22 percent) and 2019 (14 percent), it looks like there was dramatic improvement in child poverty over that period

5.4.2

Comparisons Across Groups

Comparisons across groups can easily reveal disparities in outcomes. One might want to compare groups defined by characteristics such as race and ethnicity, sex, or age. For example, one might want to compare the poverty rate for males and females. Keep in mind that rates or estimates for small groups may be unreliable, so one should be cautious about drawing attention to small differences. See the section on statistical significance testing later in this chapter, for more information on this issue.

5.4 Comparative Analysis

5.4.3

73

Comparisons Across Geographic Units

Comparisons across geographic units (for example states, countries, provinces, cities, or neighborhoods) are widely used because people often want to know how their locality compares to other localities. Comparisons across geographic areas can reveal areas where child outcomes are particularly bad (or good), and this is useful because different localities often employ different policies related to children So, geographic comparisons often have the benefit of tying together policies and outcomes. When one identifies a place where child well-being is better than other places, it offers a chance to ask why? One can explore why a place with good child outcomes is different than other places with poor child outcomes in terms of socioeconomic conditions and/or public policies for children. This can shed light on whether policies were in place that led to better outcomes. Highlighting the places where child outcomes are the best can also be useful from an advocacy perspective because it provides evidence of what can realistically be achieved. This provides a goal that is not abstract or theoretical, but something clearly achievable. For geographic units not ranked at the top, it raises the question of why are they falling behind? It also signals jurisdictions that are average should not be complacent and they should strive to understand why their child outcomes are not better. Sometimes an organization will not have a choice of what geographic unit to use because the indicators it wants to use are only available for one set of geographic units. But when an organization has a choice of geographic units, the decision about what geographic unit to use should be driven by three principals. First, people prefer to see data about the state/county/city/neighborhood where they live. More detailed geographic granularity is better than less detailed geographic levels for gaining readers’ attention. From this point of view, neighborhoods are better than cities, cities are better than states or provinces, and states/provinces are better than national data. Second, data availability and quality are important variables in deciding on what geographic units to use. It is not unusual for the quality of data at one level of geography to be higher quality than other geographic levels. The third factor in decisions about what level of geography to use should be made with the policy power in mind. Geographic units that have policymaking power will vary by location or issue. In some countries, subnational jurisdictions have important policy-making authority, but in other countries most of the policy decision making is done at the national level. Using geographic units that have more policy-making authority or policies related to children is better than using geographic units with less policy-making authority. There is generally a fundamental tradeoff in selecting geographic units because available data and audience desires are often at odds. Because there are typically more indicators and more accurate indicators available at higher levels of geography, the tradeoff in selection of geographic units often involves presenting a richer more

74

5 Data Analysis and Tabulation

precise picture of child well-being at a higher level of geographic or a more restricted, and perhaps less precise, view at smaller levels of geography. Audiences typically like to know about the location where they live, but usually smaller the geographic units have less data available regarding child well-being and often the data for small areas are less accurate. In other words, there is more child well-being data at the national level than at the state or provincial level; there is more child well-being data at the state or provincial level than at the substate or sub-provincial level; and there is more data for a city than for the neighborhoods within a city. People may be interested in neighborhood-level data, but neighborhoods often do not have decision-making power or good data. Choosing the best level(s) of geography to use requires good judgment as well as an understanding the context and social environment where an indicator project is taking place is critical for making such decisions. An approach that may work in one place may be inappropriate somewhere else. There is not a single right answer to the question about what geographic units to use, but one is likely to gain more public attention by presenting a more limited set of measures for lower levels of geography rather than a richer set of measures for larger areas.

5.5

Comparisons Using Ranking

One approach to data presentation and analysis that often garners public attention is ranking geographic areas on measures of child well-being. Rankings can be based on an index of overall child well-being and/or for each major dimension of child wellbeing, or even on a single indicator. There are three reasons why rankings are often useful. First, they are very appealing to the mass media. Media often pay attention to rankings because popular media (newspapers, television, and radio) in areas that are the top or bottom of the rankings find it an easy story to write, and the local audience is often interested. Second, rankings can also be useful from an advocacy perspective because they promote competition among geographic areas to have better child outcomes than their neighboring areas. When a jurisdiction is ranked low on child well-being the local leaders are often asked why they are ranked so low and what they are going to do about improving child well-being. In other words, rankings spur action to improve child well-being. Third, ranking is a statistical technique that is easily understood by policymakers and the public. Ranking conveys information to the public in a way that more sophisticated statistical techniques may not. It is difficult for me to think of another statistic that is as widely understood as rankings. On the other hand, it should be noted that among professional data analysts and statisticians, ranking geographic units in terms of child well-being is sometimes criticized because it is seen as a limited kind of analysis, relative to more complex analysis often used by scholars. With ranking, one may learn that state A is better

5.6 Identifying Specific Place Names

75

than state B, but one does not now learn how much better state A is than state B. More sophisticated methods (for example, sum of standard scores) can tell one how a locality is compared to another. However, introducing the idea of standardized scores and sum of standardized scores (or other statistical methods) to a general audience can add confusion. If one has not been active in using child well-being indicators in a pubic and/or political environment before, there is one predictable outcome that has been seen regularly with rankings. If a set of geographic units are ranked on child well-being, the elected leaders in units that are ranked as poor are likely to disparage the report. At the same time, child advocates in locations which are ranked poor are likely to endorse the report, because it reinforces the idea that their locality needs to invest more to improve child well-being. For units ranked at the top of a list the views of elected leaders and child advocates are reversed.

5.6

Identifying Specific Place Names

The importance of identifying specific geographic units in analysis differs between analysis for a scientific audience and presentation of child well-being indicator for a non-scientific audience. In public presentations it is often a good idea to use names of specific locations (like cities, states, or countries) rather than referring to them by their characteristics, such as “large cities” or “northern provinces.” In scholarly writing, specific geographic units such as states, or provinces, or countries, are not particularly important because scholars are considering broad concepts. From an academic perspective it is the characteristics of a location that are more important than the specific location. If a set of countries are ranked in terms of child well-being, for example, it is the characteristics of the countries that are important from a scholarly perspective. From the perspective of engaging public or policymakers’ the specific names are particularly important. Providing names often engages elected officials from the named places. If a city is at the top (or bottom) of a ranking, the leaders of the city will receive questions about why. By naming places, it can motivate the top elected official in an area to respond publicly to the issue of child well-being. Also, identifying countries and localities within countries (states, provinces, cities) by name often helps readers connect with the information. For example, in the Innocenti Research Centre report card (2021) The Netherlands was rated the best country and Chile the worst. In the 2021 KIDS COUNT Data Book, the state of Massachusetts was ranked as the best on the KIDS COUNT child well-being index and Mississippi was ranked worst.

76

5.7

5 Data Analysis and Tabulation

Use of Statistical Significance Testing

Tests of statistical significance are used in a lot of scholarly research, but statistical significance testing is used less often in child indicator reports. Statistical significance testing is a technique to determine how likely a given difference (for example the child poverty rates in two states) is likely to be found by chance. If the probability of an observed difference is low, it is said to be statistically significant. For more information on statistical significance testing see Mohr (1990).1 In deciding about using statistical significance testing, it is also important to keep in mind how statistics in data books or report cards are likely to be used. There are at least four reasons why statistical significance testing is not widely used in child well-being reports. First, statistical significance testing is typically used in hypothesis testing but the data in most indicator projects are seldom used in this way. Second, in many popular publications the number of comparisons could be very large. For example, comparing each for the 50 states in the United States to each other for multiple indictors produces thousands of comparisons. In addition to methodological considerations, figuring out an effective way to show all the comparisons is challenging. Third, statistical understanding is weak in many audiences and discussions of statistical significance may be more confusing than helpful. After assessing information about public understanding of statistical concepts, one report (Child Trends, 2002, p. 7) concluded, “In sum, the only direct evidence of public understanding of standard errors indicates that only 16 percent of the public has an accurate understanding of the concept.” Fourth, the thresholds used for determining statistical significance in most academic applications may be different that the thresholds used for public policy decisions. Most scholarly work requires a high level of statistical significance to be achieved before the results are deemed trustworthy. One of the most widely used thresholds for statistical significance tests is the five percent rule. This means if one concluded an observed difference was real, based on standard statistical significance testing, the likelihood is they would be wrong only five percent of the time. For many public policy decision, decision-makers are likely to accept guidance that is less rigorous. In some cases, decisionmakers are looking for any evidence that helps guide a decision. Although statistical significance testing is widely seen as an important criterion for evaluating a claim, other rules for judging importance are often used outside of academic circles. For example, in the United States Courts civil trials often use the “preponderance of evidence rule” and criminal courts use the “beyond a reasonable

1

In recent years, some experts in the statistical community have started to push back on the extensive use of statistical significance testing. For those who want to see more details on this issue please see Wasserstein et al. (2019).

5.8 Building an Index of Child Well-Being

77

doubt rule.” Both seem heavily judgmental from a social science perspective, but they are the rules that are used to make critical decisions in societies. It is important to recognize that in the world of academics and scholars, there is typically no timetable for a decision. If one experiment or analysis does not produce statistically significance results one can always conduct another analysis. In the world of public policy decision making there are many times when decisions cannot be postponed. On the other hand, it is important to recognize that some readers will look at any difference as meaningful. For example, the difference in child poverty rates of 31.5 percent for Group A and 31.7 percent for Group B, is probably meaningless, but some readers are likely to say Group B has a higher poverty rate. There is often enough error in the measures of child well-being that small statistically differences are meaningless. If one does not provide information on statistical significance tests, it is important to remind readers that small differences may not be meaningful. KIDS COUNT Data Book does not mention statistical significance to avoid confusion among KIDS COUNT audiences, but the KIDS COUNT Data Center includes information on statistical significance for most of the indicators. Thus, less statistically inclined readers do not have to grapple with statistical significance, but researchers can find the information they want. In the yearly publication of the United States Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics report on the well-being of American children, they use statistical significance testing by putting in arrows indicating a yearly increase or decrease for each indicator. If there is no arrow, it indicates the yearly change was not statistically significant. Statistical significance testing is a bit easier in that publication because it only contains national level data (i.e., no states) and the only comparison is one year to the previous year. Advocates need to consider the level of statistical expertise of the audience when deciding about using statistical significance testing. Keep in mind that many policymakers and influential people have limited understanding of statistics. For some audiences use of statistical significance may be more confusing than clarifying.

5.8

Building an Index of Child Well-Being

The concept of child well-being is often thought of as a holistic or comprehensive reflection of children. Given the holistic nature of the concept it is not surprising to see researchers combine measures that reflect multiple indicators or domains into a single index of child well-being. Over the past few decades, researcher have increasingly used indicators from multiple domains to build indices of child wellbeing (O’Hare & Gutierrez, 2012; Lamb & Land, 2014; OECD, 2009; Bradshaw & Richardson, 2009). Lamb and Land (2014) provide an overview of several different methodological approaches to producing child well-being indices. O’Hare (2015) also covers many of the key considerations about creating a child well-being index.

78

5 Data Analysis and Tabulation

There are benefits and costs of using an index of child well-being. On the positive side, the concept of overall child well-being is easily understood and often welcomed. Many readers just want an overview, not the details that scholars might be interested in. An overall index helps summarize what is often an overwhelming amount of data for a non-technical audience. Indices of child well-being are widely used, in part, because they effectively communicate with a non-technical audience. However, it should be noted that use of a comprehensive index has also been criticized for four reasons. First, some researchers feel child well-being measures are not yet comprehensive enough or precise enough to adequately measure differences. Second, others feel that theories of child well-being have not been developed enough to justify combining measures into an index that reflects true differences in overall child well-being. Third, some statisticians feel there is no consensus on statistical methods for combining indicators of child well-being to fully capture the important differences among groups. Fourth, some researchers feel there is not sufficient data from enough domains to merit an overall index. Despite these critics, there has been a surge in the use of indices of well-being in the social indicators field in recent years. In my opinion, the benefits or using a comprehensive index of child well-being outweigh the drawbacks. Although there are some legitimate methodological issues in constructing such an index (what indicators or domains to use, weighting of indicators in the index, etc.) the usefulness of an index for communication purposes often outweighs the methodological concerns. Most of these criticisms only have a very minor impact on the outcomes. Ranking methodologies are relatively robust. For example, over the 30-year life of the KIDS COUNT reports in the United States, the lists of indicators and the methodology used to calculate state well-being rankings have changed several times, but the changes have had very little impact on the state rankings.

5.9

The Issue of False Precision

In the context of child indicator reports, there is sometimes an urge to provide data at a very detailed level of precision even when it is unwarranted. It could be unwarranted because the underlying data on which calculations are made contain enough error to make such precision unfounded or it could be unwarranted because the very detailed calculations are unnecessary to communicate the key information to the audience. Presenting very detailed calculations when the accuracy of the underlying data does not merit such a level of detail is called “false precision.” It makes data look precise but that is misleading. If data are available to make detailed calculations, it is difficult for some people to turn down that opportunity. For example, presenting child poverty rates to one-hundredths of a percent is usually unwarranted. I suspect some people feel providing very detailed data provides a level of statistical sophistication or the patina of science.

5.10

The Challenge of Disaggregation of Data

79

There are two issues related to false precision. First, false precision can lead some readers to think there are important differences when there are not. For example, if survey estimates of child poverty (having standard errors of a couple of percentage points), showing one rate as 22.76 percent and another as 22. 91 percent it suggests to some readers there is a meaningful difference when there is none. It would be better to show both rates as 23 percent. Second, providing more digits than needed can deter some readers because it clutters the presentation. For some readers, the more digits provided, the less inviting the report or table will be. For example, if 8.78 percent and 9 percent would provide the same meaning, use the figure with less digits to make reading easier for those who are not comfortable with statistics. Many readers are looking for the big picture not the detail. There is seldom a need to present very detailed data in reports meant for the public. Before presenting detailed data ask yourself if it is really needed and meaningful.

5.10

The Challenge of Disaggregation of Data

Depending on the context, providing data for groups defined by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geographic location, or other key characteristics may be important. Providing data for subgroups of the total is called disaggregation. Appropriate use of disaggregated data can highlight the needs of the most vulnerable children, but the importance of disaggregation depends on the context. There two major considerations when deciding whether to present disaggregated data. First, does a summary measure such as an average mask important differences among subgroups? For example, the 2019 child poverty rate in the United States is 16 percent but that masks the fact that the child poverty for Non-Hispanic White children is 8 percent compared to 26 percent for black children and 21 percent for Hispanic children (United States Census Bureau, 2020). Data sets that fail to collect or report racial, ethnic, income, linguistic data, or data on disabilities may obscure significant differences in outcomes among groups of children. The second consideration is whether disaggregated data are available and/or reliable. If disaggregation produces statistics for small groups, it is important to assess if those data are reliable enough to use. When the sample size is too small to provide data for important groups a report should note that differences may exist and to seek out other evidence where possible to provide a fuller picture. If data for a group one would like to analyze are not available, it is often a good idea to state that explicitly and perhaps call for greater detail in the data in the future. Lobbying for more data is an element of data-based child advocacy (O’Hare, 2015). In addition to statistical considerations there may be social or policies reasons one might want to present disaggregated data (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2016).

80

5 Data Analysis and Tabulation

Sometimes, data for a group (for example a racial minority) are not available at the subnational level but available at the national level. Providing some background with the national data can help readers understand the importance of breaking out data for the subgroup and the critical difference in child well-being for the minority group compared to the majority group. This may be a small point, but there is an important distinction between data collected for a group and data reported for that group. Many times, small groups are included in the data collection but not reported separately, perhaps because their numbers or too small to produce reliable estimates. Advocates for some groups may claim their group is not included in the study, when they really mean their group does not have data reported separately. Saying a group is not included in a study is quite different than saying results are not reported for that group.

5.11

Understanding the Meaning of Numbers and Rates

It is important to understand the distinction between raw numbers and rates. Numbers can be used to communicate the magnitude of a problem, but rates are typically required for making comparisons over time, across locations, and/or among groups. Rates are typically the number of children with some characteristics or outcome (like (being poor) divided by the number of children are risk of having that characteristics or outcome. For example, according to the 2021 KIDS COUNT Data Book there are 1.4 million poor children in California compared to 228,000 in Alabama. But this does not mean the risk of being poor is higher in California than in Alabama. To compare the risk of child poverty in California and Alabama one must use the child poverty rates. About 16 percent of children in California ae poor compared to 21 percent in Alabama. The risk of being a poor child is higher in Alabama than in California. Making sense of changes over time in service data can be particularly problematic. If there is an increase in the number of children receiving a service is that a good thing or a bad thing for child well-being? If the number of children provided government assistance increases (for example getting free or subsidized medical care), increases, it is often not clear if that is a good thing or bad thing for children. The increase may be because there are more needy children (a bad thing), or it may be because a higher percentage of needy children are getting health care (a good thing). By themselves, administrative data seldom make good indicators of child well-being. Providing counts of children with certain needs without information about the number at risk only tells half the story. Creating and using good rates is imperative for a comparative analysis.

References

5.12

81

Outliers

Another kind of measure that is often helpful is one the reflects extreme values or outliers. For example, one might show the number of states or countries that had an infant mortality above a certain level. Flagging these extreme indicator values and the location where they are found can help identify policies and conditions that support good child outcomes. Outliers can be important because it is often useful to identify the factors that result in extreme values.

5.13

Data Limitations

It is important to recognize that most data sources have some kinds of small errors or biases, and it is imperative that those not be hidden. It is important to understand the limitations in the data that is being used so that data can be used appropriately. Staff members of child indicators projects should understand the benefits and limitations of the data being used. Data limitations can also obscure differences among groups of children in ways that may distort usefulness for policymaking. Being unaware of the limitations of the data used in a child indicator project can lead to embarrassing and counter-productive situations. It is often good to know how the producers of data view the strengths and limitations of a data series. Typically, it is unwise to use data in a way that the producers of the data do not approve. If the producers of the data used in an indicator project indicate it is not being used correctly, it undermines the credibility of the project and the organization. In assessing data limitations, staff should make some assessment of how critical the limitations are. If the limitations are serious, they should be highlighted, but if they are minor, they can be ignored or included in a footnote or appendix. Having someone involved in the project who can provide expertise in this area is extremely useful. Another issue is how to communicate the limitations to readers. It requires a balance between telling readers there are limitations in the data without making it sound like the shortcomings suggest the data are unreliable and should not be used. Citing the use of specific data by other credible sources can soften the impact of limitations.

References Blalock, H. M. (1972). Social statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Company. Bradshaw, J., & Richardson, D. (2009). An index of child well-being in Europe. Child Indicators Research, 2(3), 319–351.

82

5 Data Analysis and Tabulation

Child Trends. (2002). Public understanding of standard errors: A report to the KIDS COUNT project of the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Child Trends, Washington, DC. De Veaux, R. D., Velleman, P. F., & Bock, D. E. (2009). Intro stats (3rd ed.). Addison-Wesley. Lamb, V., & Land, K. (2014). Methodologies used in construction of composite child well-being indices (Chapter 95). In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Cassas, I. Frones, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child well-being: Theories, methods, and policies in global context. Springer Publishers. McFedries, P. (2019). Excel data analysis for dummies (4th edn.). https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0 7K48B4FB/ref¼dp_kinw_strp_1 Mohr. L. B. (1990). Understanding significance testing (Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 73), Sage University Paper, Sage Publication. O’Hare, W. P. (2015). A research note on statistical methods used to create indices of child wellbeing. Child Indictors Research, 8(2), 279–298. O’Hare, W. P., & Gutierrez, F. (2012). The use of domains in constructing a comprehensive composite index of child well-being. Child Indicators Research, 5(4), 609–629. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2009). Doing better for children, Chapter 2, Comparative Child Well-Being Across the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France. Simon, J. (2005). EXCEL data analysis. Wiley Publishing. The Anne E. Casey Foundation. (2021). 2021 KIDS COUNT data book. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2016). 2 or 5: By the Numbers using disaggregated data to inform policies and decision-making. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. United States Census Bureau. (2020). Income and poverty in the United States: 2019. In Current population reports (pp. 60–270). United States Census Bureau. Wasserstein, R. I., Schrim, A. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2019). Moving to a world beyond ‘p. 0.05. The American Statistician, 73(Supt 1), 1–19.

Chapter 6

Producing a Report and Disseminating Data

Abstract To maximize the impact of the child indicator data that has been collected and analyzed, it is important to think about how best to make that data available in an article or on a website and this often involves producing material for a public audience. There are important differences in writing for a public audience compared to writing for a technical or scholarly audience. Several key factors in creating a report for a non-technical audience are reviewed in this chapter. The chapter also covers some of the “spinoff” products one might want to consider.

6.1

Introduction

This chapter highlights many of the most important facets or considerations for producing a data-based report for public audience(s). For those who typically produce technical reports and/or write scholarly papers, the factors that must be considered in creating a report for public dissemination (i.e., for a non-technical audience) using child indicators are likely to be new. Successful advocacy using child indictors often involves communicating with non-technical or non-scientific audiences and this requires a different approach than communicating with scholarly peers (Li, 2011). Given the wide variety of child indicator projects in varied socio-political landscapes around the world, there is no universal formula for how a report should be designed/produced or data disseminated. In addition, the resources available to an organization may dictate some of the choices that need to be made. But I believe there are a few key considerations that should always be kept in mind. This chapter also covers some of the “spinoff” products one might want to consider. Once data has been collected and analyzed, producing additional products for specific audiences can provide a big lift in visibility for relatively little additional cost or effort. One of the most important points about producing child well-being publications for a general audience is recognition that expertise in data analysis and communications are both important in creating a high-quality product. While good data are the bedrock of data-based reports on child well-being, good data are often not enough. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 W. O’Hare, A Practitioner’s Guide to Using Child Indicators, SpringerBriefs in Well-Being and Quality of Life Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90291-9_6

83

84

6 Producing a Report and Disseminating Data

Projects will not achieve many of their advocacy goals if data are not presented and disseminated appropriately. The reason thoughtful presentation is such an important topic for data-based child advocates is captured by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2009, page 8), “When good statistics exist, they too often go unnoticed or misunderstood by a broad audience.” In other words, producing good data is not enough to ensure that the data are used or used properly. According to Jack and Tonmyr (2008, p. 51), “Extensive resources are invested in the production of research with the anticipation that relevant findings will be understood and utilized by decision-makers to inform practice and policy,” Without appropriate communication, the findings are not likely to be understood or utilized. In addition to creating a report, thoughts may include consideration for how data could be presented on a website. Depending on the situation, an organization may focus on presentation on a website first and a publication as secondary.

6.2

Understanding the Audience

In producing a report (and auxiliary material like a press release) it is critical to remember who the audience is and how to communicate most effectively with the intended audience. If a report does not effectively communicate the message or key information based on the data, then the overall effort is likely to be ineffective. There are several different audiences for data-based child well-being reports including, • • • • • • • •

Policymakers Child advocates Government officials Statistical agencies Researchers Media Service providers General public

People who regularly work with statistical data are sometimes unaware of the extent to which others are challenged by fundamental statistical concepts or presentations. If an organization is trying to reach a broad segment of the public, it is important not to expect the public to learn more about statistics to understand a report. Speak the language of the audience; do not expect the audience to learn your language. That often means there is an important role for someone to “translate” the statistical research into language that is easily understood. Thus, it is good idea to use relatively simple statistics. Many times, a simple presentation of data is more powerful than a more complex statistical analysis because people are more likely to be convinced by an argument if they understand

6.3 Communication and Child Indicators

85

the statistical analysis. Use of simple table or graphics are often more powerful than complex statistical models. Table 6.1 provides a summary of some key differences between writing for scholarly colleagues and writing for public or non-technical audiences.

6.3

Communication and Child Indicators

Reaching a broad audience is important because publicly elected officials generally respond to the issues raised by the people who elect them—the public. To the extent data-based child advocates can move children’s issues higher on the public agenda by informing the public about child well-being, the more likely publicly elected officials are to seek public policy solutions to problems faced by children The role of public or popular media (newspapers, radio and tv, magazine, etc.) varies around the world, but in many locations the public media play a critical role in getting information to a general audience and lifting topics higher on the public and political agenda. Communicating statistical results to a non-technical audience is not typically taught in social science or statistics graduate schools and there is increasing recognition that statisticians and other trained data analysts, often do not have adequate training in communicating with non-statisticians Starbuck (2013). The description by Berg (2013, p. 18) below is focused on statisticians, but I think it applies to most data analysts and those using statistical data, “Although the acquisition and application of statistical skills is a necessary step in achieving success as a professional statistician, it is not sufficient. One also must develop the ability to influence customers, colleagues, managers, and subordinates. This can be especially problematic when those you are trying to influence, are not statistically savvy and you must convince them of the merits of a particular statistical approach.” The United States Government’s National Survey of Children’s Health (2013) has expressed the importance of mass media as, “Communication of data is essential to engaging all audiences. For many stakeholders, data can be overwhelming and can lead to a lack of engagement or tuning out.” Getting public and policymakers’ attention often means using the mass media. Using child indicator data to raise public awareness often means using the public media or the mass media. Since public officials typically have many groups seeking their attention, getting a message into public communication streams is extremely important for child advocates. It is widely believed that mass media can sway public opinion and political decision-making. While documenting the impact of widespread public news coverage is difficult, a study by Barabas and Jerit (2009) concluded, ”We show how the volume, breadth, and prominence of news media coverage increase the policyspecific knowledge above and beyond common demographic factors.” Their study indicates that news coverage does influence policymakers, at least to the extent that it increases their knowledge. Hopefully, more knowledge leads to better policy

86

6 Producing a Report and Disseminating Data

Table 6.1 Key differences in writing for scholars and writing for the public Issue/Topic Use of Jargon

Writing for a scholarly audience Technical jargon is often used and expected in scholarly reports

Simple and User Friendly

This is not necessary in scholarly writing. It is assumed that readers are already interested in and knowledgeable about the topic

Use easily understood measures

Not necessary in scholarly writing. Scholars can be expected to spend the time needed to understand whatever measures are being used Seldom used in scholarly publications.

Engaging Public Media Producing regular updates

Scholars seldom replicate past work, they build on it.

Localizing information

Names of countries, state, or cities are seldom given. Scholars are more likely to give the characteristics of a location rather than the name of a location because specific locations are not important for generalizing results In scholarly publications this is seldom a high priority. Moreover, the peer review and publication process almost guarantee the data in an article will not be the most recent available.

Timeliness of data

Lead with findings

Detailed methodology

Credibility

Findings are often put at the end of the report after theory, data and methods and analysis have been discussed. Readers of scholarly reports can typically be counted on to read to the end. Scholars are expected to provide a detailed description of their methodology.

Credibility is derived from using good scientific methods

Writing for a non-scholarly audience Technical jargon should be minimized or terms should be clearly explained if used This is critical in writing for the public. One should not assume that the reader is familiar with the topic and/or is automatically interested in it. One has to engage the reader. Critical in writing for the public. If readers have any difficulty understanding the measures they are likely to stop reading. Often used in advocacy publication. . . including a press release, and prepping authors for interviews from reporters. Many advocacy reports are produced regularly to increase visibility and allow monitoring of changes over time. Use of specific places can generate local interest and expand media coverage of a report.

For the public, and particularly for policy makers, having the most recent data is critical. Elected officials who don’t like the findings from a study can easily dismiss them if they are outdated. Key findings are put early in the report and often are in the title. Many readers of advocacy reports may only read the title or first part of the report. Most readers of advocacy reports are not equipped to assess detailed social science methodology. Methodological descriptions should be minimized and/or put in an appendix. Credibility is derived from the credibility of the individual or organizations producing the report and/or the spokesperson(s) recruited to deliver the message. Appearance in population media adds credibility. (continued)

6.3 Communication and Child Indicators

87

Table 6.1 (continued) Issue/Topic Assumptions of Interest in topic

Writing for a scholarly audience Scholarly writing typically assumes readers are already interested in the topic.

Writing for a non-scholarly audience In writing for a public audience one must assume readers don’t necessarily have an interest in the topic and the information must be presented in a way that is designed to kindle interest.

decisions. In talking about the press, Cohen (1963) said, “it may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about.” Getting people to think more about child well-being is a key aspect of the child indicator movement. Many elected officials, at least in the United States, pay close attention to what is covered by in the major newspapers in their region or district. If children’s issues are an increasing part of the news coverage, it often means children will move higher on elected officials’ agendas. There is widespread belief among those who work at the Capitol in Washington DC that getting an issue covered in the popular press (newspapers, etc.) elevates the issue among elected officials (The Annie E Casey Foundation, 2007; Congressional Management Foundation, 2011). In one study that asked congressional aides about what influences a member’s views, 75 percent said “Newspaper Editorial Endorsement on an issue had “a lot” or “some” influence. (Congressional Management Foundation, 2011). However, trying to reach the public with a data-focused message possess a unique set of problems (Leibovitz, 2007). Working with the mass media can be a challenge for many scholars and researcher The way child well-being is communicated by mass media does not always provide clear information. For example, research shows that newspaper stories about children often lack quantitative data (Kunkel et al., 2002; Haaga, 2003). The need for regular fact-based reports on children is underscored by survey evidence which shows the public often has very distorted views of child well-being (Guzman et al., 2009). A survey which asked a representative sample of Americans about several dimensions of child well-being found that there were often large differences between the public’s perception and the official data. Guzman et al. (2009) found, for example, less than half the adults could correctly select the child poverty rate from three alternatives. Moreover, when adults held misperceptions about the real state of child well-being, they tended to accentuate the negative (Guzman et al., 2009; The Public Agenda, 1997). On the other hand, a series of polls found the public was seen to change their position on several public policies related to funding programs for children once they understand the facts (First Focus, 2013). Thus, getting relevant understandable factual information to a broad public audience is critical for many child advocacy groups, and this often requires the use of mass media.

88

6 Producing a Report and Disseminating Data

6.4

Strategic and Opportunistic Communication

There are two words or concepts that are particularly important in using child indicators in the public realm that are seldom heard on academic of scholarly circles. The first term is strategic. Strategy includes calculations of things like timing for the release, connecting the release to a high-profile event, and selecting a good “messenger”. For the Annie E. Casey Foundation (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2003, p. 2), data-based advocacy relies heavily on strategic communication, which they define as, The processes by which data are transformed into information, and then knowledge, knowledge is translated into messages, and messages are tailored and delivered to multiple audiences in a way that effectively equips them to support children and youth in their own realms, and so that young people can advocate and make decisions on their own behalf.

This includes, for example, releasing data about the well-being of children when a new session of the legislature is beginning, and tying some of the indicators to possible policy question that will be covered by the legislative session, can increase the visibility, and impact the data might have. These are aspects of publication that not typically thought of in academic publishing. One group that has a done a good job working with the mass media is Red por Los Derechos de la Infancia in Mexico (Children Rights Network). This organization has produced a publication called La Infancia Cuenta en Mexico (Children Count in Mexico) every year. For the past several years this publication has provided a useful framework for child advocates and has garnered press attention every time it has been released. The good press attention is related to the strategic release events that Red por Los Derechos de la Infancia in Mexico have organized. This includes staging the release event at locations such as a Children’s Museum, including high-level officials and well-known public figures in the release, and working closely with the media prior to release. For the first 15 years of the KIDS COUNT data book release (which started in 1990), the Annie E. Casey Foundation held a release event (press conference) at the National Press Club in Washington DC. This made it easy for journalists to attend. In addition to Foundation staff, the release event often involved prominent people related to the key issue of that year’s report. The second term is opportunistic. By that I mean one should follow events that are being covered in the popular media and be ready to interject information about children when the time is right. Often such opportunities may occur well after a report has been released. Many issues impact children even if they are not seen as a child issue. Drawing attention to the implications for children can help reporters find a novel slant for a story and increase public understanding. For example, if a piece of high-profile legislation is being introduced, be prepared to use the child well-being data collected to explain how the legislation is likely to impact children. If an organization has a communication section, they are often in touch with reporters or know what kinds of stories certain reporters are looking for. In an

6.5 Presenting Data from a Comparative Perspective

89

organization does not have a communication section, individual researchers can reach out and contact reporters directly. Often reports that provide a lot of descriptive child indicators are accompanied with a section that highlights one or more selected indicators or provides a theme for journalists. When researchers see 100 stories in a data-based report, journalists often see none. Therefore, providing some guidance about the most significant data is helpful. Consider persuasive data points that have been uncovered and ways they can be used to encourage needed changes. Think strategically about the narrative the organization wants to portray with the data and ways data can help reinforce that narrative through reports and other communications. Reports that are repeated on a regular basis often include a topical essay to make each year’s report a little different. This model is used by the KIDS COUNT report each year. In the 2021 report, for example, they featured a set of indicators showing the importance of expansion of the child tax credit initiative of the Biden Administration (The Annie E Casey Foundation, 2021). The release of the 2021 KIDS COUNT Data Book was accompanied by an orchestrated effort among child advocacy groups to highlight the benefits of an expansion of the child tax credit which would increase the income of low-income families with children. The United States Interagency Forum report and the La Infancia Cuenta report also use this approach (Red Por Los Derechos de la Infancia, 2011; The United States Interagency Forum, 2011). Two other tools used to reach journalists and policymakers are a press release and an executive summary. A press release alerts media and others to the forthcoming report and often include key findings increasing the likelihood that report will be covered. An executive summary is useful because readers who are interested in the topic but don’t have enough time to read the full report can still get the major points. Both highlight the most important parts of a report and are useful for people who may not have time (or interest) in reading the whole report. In these products, key results of data analysis are provided, but the public or policy-related importance or impact of the results are highlighted.

6.5

Presenting Data from a Comparative Perspective

In the previous chapter several comparative perspectives or frameworks were discussed in terms of analyzing data. Data books often use widely accepted indicators of well-being to provide a comparative perspective on child well-being. But there is a difference between analyzing data from a comparative perspective and presenting that data from a comparative perspective in a way that is easily understandable. A comparative perspective is important because it puts the data into context for readers. For example, if the child obesity rate in a locale is 20 percent, it may not be clear to readers unfamiliar with child obesity measures if 20 percent is relatively good or relatively bad. A comparison to some other benchmark (like the national rate

90

6 Producing a Report and Disseminating Data

or rates from other locales) can help clarify how the outcome in one location compares to other locations. When the child obesity rate in one area is compared to the national rate, it will become clear whether the area is better or worse than the country as a whole. In presenting comparative data, it is important to remember your audience and not get too complicated. For example, it is often better to present data in two separate tables or charts rather than trying to blend two perspectives in one table or one chart. Make it easy for readers to understand the data, so they do not have to work to interpret what is being said or presented. Providing data on geographic differences (such as difference among countries or states) is a widely used approach. Sometimes, it is accompanied by ranking the geographic areas on an overall index or on individual indicators. Ranking is appealing to many readers because it is more understandable than some other statistical presentations. This topic was covered in Chap. 5.

6.6

Paper or Computers?

The primary way data on child well-being was made available to the public thirty years ago was through printed matter. But researchers, analysts, journalists, and others have moved from relying exclusively on printed products to relying more and more on information available on the internet. It is fair to say that as the child indicator movement has developed, forms of dissemination have changed quickly, and new modes of information dissemination are replacing older ones. To some extent, the role that was played by printed products thirty years ago is now being filled by web-based applications (McNutt, 2007). Printed reports are being replaces by blogs, social media, tweets, and other digital media. Over the past few decades, many organizations that work with child indicators have moved from distribution through printed copies, to provision of data online. Making child indicator information easily and readily available on the internet has rapidly increased in importance. Such dissemination includes making PDFs of reports which can be read online and/or downloaded. The changes include some sites which provide access to the data in a report. There are several advantages to presenting or providing data through a website including lower costs, more rapid timeframe for updating indicators, and the possibility to make presentations interactive. The internet also offers an opportunity to provide elementary data analysis tools to users. The cost of making data available through the internet is often much cheaper than printing and disseminating publications. The KIDS COUNT initiative in the United States, which has moved from being solely focused on printed publications when it started in 1990, to having a website that provides the report online. In the earlier 1990s, the Annie E. Casey Foundation printed as many as 60,000 KIDS COUNT Data Book each year. In 2021 they printed about 6,000 Data Books. In addition, the

6.7 Should Reports be Produced Every Year?

91

size of the Data Book was reduced dramatically because some of the data that used to be in the book is not provided on the webpage. The switch from printed publications to a web-based forms of dissemination allowed the KIDS COUNT initiative to not only make more data available, but it also allowed the staff to make data available more quickly. When data are only provided in a printed report which is published once a year one must wait for the next publication to make new data available. But on their website, which contains more than 100 measures of child well-being for all states and many large cities, data can be updated as soon as it becomes available. A description of the online KIDS COUNT Data Center noted (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2011, p. 4), “Advocates, journalists, policymakers, practitioners, and all concerned citizens can find data for planning, preparing reports, crafting policies, or identifying and addressing needs in their community,” This describes the aspiration for how the Annie E. Casey Foundation hopes the data on its website will be used. The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development has developed a website (WIKICHILD) that provides data on children and families from many countries. The Multiple-Indicators Cluster Surveys a has a portal for obtaining background papers on methodology, country reports, dataset for each country, and more. The Child Trends Data Bank is another source of child indicators in the United States. The Data Bank is described as “. . .a one-stop source for the latest national trends and research on over 100 key indicators of child and youth well-being.” (Child Trends, 2011). Printed products and computer-based access are not mutually exclusive and finding the right mix depends on local circumstances and the organizational resources.

6.7

Should Reports be Produced Every Year?

The yearly publication of some reports also highlights a difference between science and public communication perspectives. From a scientific or statistical perspective, the values offered in most child indicator publications (for example child poverty or median family income) typically do not change much from one year to the next, so it is difficult to see the reason for yearly publication. From this perspective, publishing a report every year with the same updated measurements may seem unnecessary, or even wasteful. Among scholars or scientists, once a given analysis is published, the author(s) typically do not feel a need to publish it again with updated statistics. . . in fact, peer-reviewed journals would never accept a slightly revised update of paper that had been published the previous year. However, from a communication/public awareness point of view, publishing a report every year is useful because it keeps the topic in front of the public and leaders. Yearly releases are important in getting public attention, elevating children’s

92

6 Producing a Report and Disseminating Data

issues, and gaining name recognition or branding. Updating a data book each year also helps make sure people are using the most recent data available. To keep the yearly publication “fresher” and to increase the likelihood of press attention, some groups offer a new essay or special analysis each year. Also, some groups produce a reduced copy (with key data elements) every other year to reduce the costs of producing a complete report every year. In my opinion, in a public communication environment, one-time publications seldom move political thought or action. Repeating a publication “message” or topic has a much better chance of moving public opinion or political views. The notion that a repeated message is important is captured in one saying regarding public speaking; “Tell them what you are going to say, say it, then tell them what you said.” Regular publication also allows readers to assess changes more easily over time in the well-being of children and thus promote accountability. Use of a consistent format and consistent set of measures also helps readers become more familiar with data-heavy reports. For those who are not used to reading publications with a lot of statistical data, a consistent presentation and format helps communicate information.

6.8

Working with an Editor

One may have to work with an editor in producing a report but keep in mind the word “editor” means different things to different people. The term copy editing typically applies to working on fundamentals like spelling, grammar, and punctuation. But some editors do more than copy editing. For example, some editors may help organize the report so that it flows better. An editor may also help in “wordsmithing” that is helping find the best words or combinations of words to convey a message. Some editors also check references and may even fact check. If you are going to work with an editor in producing a report, it is a good idea to clarify what one expects the editor to do.

6.9

Graphs and Maps

For many audiences, using graphics, typically in the form of charts, graphs, or figures, can enhance the presentation of tabulations or analysis. There are several publications to help with graphic presentation (Tufte, 2001). Graphs are used for two reasons. First, graphs can be used to highlight the most important findings. Putting a few key data points into a graph or chart can be used to signal that this datapoint is more important than others. Also, graphs can be very useful for communicating results to some readers. Graphs can make a pattern or a trend clear.

6.9 Graphs and Maps

6.9.1

93

Line Graph

Line graphs are typically used to show change over time. Figure 6.1 is a line graph showing changes in Untied States child poverty rates from 2000 to 2019. This kind of data presentations helps readers understand changes over time and provides an understanding of when child poverty rates peaked during a period. It is often useful to remind readers what else was going on economically and politically during a time of substantial increases or decreases in child well-being indicators, However, it is important to be clear if one is saying the two trends are causally related or just correlated. There two different viewpoints on this idea. First, by providing correlations it provdes readers with some ideas about why a child wellbeing measure is increasing or decreasing. Readers often appreciate this suggestions On the other hand, some feel that highlighting corrlations without proof of causation is unwarranted and can be misleading.

6.9.2

Bar Charts

Bar charts are useful for showing differences between groups. Figure 6.2 shows differences in child poverty rates in the U.S by race and Hispanic Origin status. The figure makes it clear that Black children and Hispanic children have higher poverty rates than non-Hispanic white children in the United States.

Fig. 6.1 U.S. child poverty rate from 2000 to 2019. (Souce: U.S. Census Bureau)

94

6 Producing a Report and Disseminating Data

Fig. 6.2 2019 child poverty rates in U.S. by race and hispanic region. (Souce: U.S. Census Bureau) Fig. 6.3 Distribution of U.S. poverty population by age in 2019. (Souce: U.S. Census Bureau)

6.9.3

Pie Charts

Pie charts are good for decomposing a total. Figure 6.3 provides the United States poverty population by age. Bigger slices of the pie mean a bigger share of the total. In this case it is clear the working-age population is a larger share of the poverty population than children or the elderly. Note the pie charts provides a different perspective than rates because rates control for the size of the population. In other words, it is not surprising the working-age population is the larger share of the poverty population because they are the largest share of the overall population.

6.10

Auxiliary Products

6.9.4

95

Maps

Maps can be a very effective tool for conveying key results in an analysis featuring data by geographic areas such as countries, states, provinces, or regions. Mapping results, such as an overall index value or the values for a single statistic like child poverty can capture attention. For mapping, geographic units are commonly sorted into a few categories (using 3, 4 or 5 categories is common) and color-coded maps. Making too many categories can make reading the map more difficult and two few categories may not provide enough information about important differences. Keep in mind that color-coded maps are sometimes copied into black and white, so adding hash marks or other visual markers to color differences can be helpful.

6.10

Auxiliary Products

Once the investment has been made to collect, organize, and tabulate the child wellbeing data, there are several ways in which one can repackage the data to get more attention and visibility with just a little more work. Table 6.2 provides a list of 10 such possibilities. Depending on the context and the resources available, organizations might want to think about extending the reach of their data by producing one or more auxiliary products (Figs. 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6).

96

6 Producing a Report and Disseminating Data

Table 6.2 Alternative mechanisms for disseminating child well-being data Once the investment has been made to collect and tabulate the child indicators, there are several ways, in addition to a data book or report card, that the data can be re-packaged and made available to select audiences. This can enhance dissemination and visibility of indicator reports and to “extend the brand.” Several of these are listed below. (1) Data Wheel—a hard cardboard wheel where one can spin the inner wheel to reveal child well-being indicators for each state or country. (2) Pocket Guide—a 3 by 8 inch foldout that provides data for all states or countries. The pocket guide is much more transportable that a data book or large report. (3) Wall Chart—a 2 feet by 3 feet wall chart with key data on child well-being for all states or countries. Sometimes analysts of advocates will post such a poster on a wall in their office, thus providing more visibility for the project. (4) Location specific data sheets or handouts—one or two pages with key information for each geographic unit used in a report If you are trying to reach audiences in parts of the country, creating a short product with data just for that part of the country can be helpful (5) Release event—an event to highlight the release of a report. Inviting media to a release event can help provide visibility to a data release. Having prominent well-known individuals involved in the release can help attract attention. This mechanism has become less viable with electronic releases becoming the norm. (6) Video News Release—short video clips that can be easily shown on TV prepared in advance that can be released the same data a report is made public. . . good for gaining TV coverage. (7) Local release events in selected locations—linking the main release with staged events in selected localities around the country. (8) E-readers format—As devices such as Nooks and Kindles become more popular, some initiatives are releasing reports in e-reader format. (9) Use of Social Media. . . . Mobile Apps, Facebook, twitter accounts etc. This has become a very common way to try and reach a larger audience.

6.10

Auxiliary Products

Fig. 6.4 Data wheel

97

98

Fig. 6.5 Pocket guide

6 Producing a Report and Disseminating Data

References

99

Fig. 6.6 Data brief

References Barabas, J., & Jerit, J. (2009). Estimating the causal effects of media coverage on policy-specific knowledge. American Journal of Policy Science, 53(1), 73–89. Berg, P. H. (2013, September). Influence: Essential for success as a statistician. AMSTAT News, The Membership Magazine of the American Statistical Association, Issue # 435. Child Trends. (2011). Handout at the October 17, 2011. Meeting of the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics meeting, Washington, DC. Cohen, B. (1963). The press and foreign policy. Princeton University Press. Congressional Management Foundation. (2011). Communicating with congress: Perceptions of citizens advocacy on Capitol Hill. Congressional Management Foundation. First Focus. (2013). Children’s budget 2013, Washington, DC. Guzman, L., Lippman, L., Moore, K. A., & O’Hare, W. P. (2009). Accentuating the negative: The mismatch between public perception of child well-being and official statistics. Child Indicator Research, 2(4), 391–416.

100

6 Producing a Report and Disseminating Data

Haaga, J. (2003). Why didn’t you write what i thought i said? Paper delivered at the Population Association of America Conference, May Jack, S., & Tonmyr, L. (2008). Knowledge transfer and exchange: Disseminating Canadian child maltreatment surveillance findings to decision makers. Child Indicators Research, 1(1), 51–64. Kunkel D., Smith. S., Suding, P., & Biely, E. (2002). Coverages in context: How thoroughly the new media report five key children’s issues. Study Commissioned by the Casey Journalism Center on Children and Families, Phillip Merrill College of Journalism, College Part, MD University of Maryland. Leibovitz, H. (2007). Dissemination lessons learned (Assessing the New Federalism). Urban Institute. Li, J. L (2011). Child indicators: Lost in translation. In Presentation at the International Society for Child Indicators, Conference, York, England. McNutt, J. G. (2007). Adoption of New wave electronic advocacy techniques by nonprofit child advocacy organizations. In M. Cortes & K. Rafter (Eds.), Nonprofits and technology: Emerging research for usable knowledge. Lyceum Books. National Survey of Children’s Health. (2013). Data Resource Center for child and adolescent health. http://childhealthdata.org/action/effective Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2009). Comparative child well-being across the organization for economic cooperation and development. Doing Better for Children, Chapter 2, Paris, France. Red Por Los Derechos de la Infancia. (2011). La Infancia Cuenta. www.infanciacuenta.org Starbuck, R. (2013). Communicating with clients. AMSTAT NEWS, Issue 437, November, pp 25–26. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2003). Data-based advocacy. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2007). Summary of research findings: Awareness, use and perceptions of KIDS COUNT among congressional staff. http://www.aecf.org/ KnowledgeCenter/Publications.aspx?pubguid¼{D92C23CA-7982-47C6-B74A-05464CF090 57} The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2011). 2011 KIDS COUNT Data Book, The Annie E. Casey. http://datacenter.kidscount.org/DataBook/2010/Default.aspx The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2021). 2021 KIDS COUNT Data Book, The Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Public Agenda. (1997). Kids these days: What Americans really think about the next generation. The Public Agenda. The United States Interagency Forum. (2011). America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being Foreword by Katherine Wallman, Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, United States Government Printing Office, Page iii, http://www.childstats.gov Tufte, E. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information (2nd ed.). Graphics Press.

Chapter 7

Examples of Indicator Projects and Reports

Abstract There are a large and growing set of child indicator projects one could point to as examples. In this chapter eight indicator projects are identified and described in some detail. The examples shown here include a mix of projects conducted by government agencies and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). The projects described in this chapter are all successful, well-documented, projects with recurring reports. The chapter is meant to provide readers with a set of diverse examples.

7.1

Introduction

As stated earlier in this publication, using child indicators and data to raise public awareness about the well-being of children is probably the single biggest use of child indicators. A large share of the child indicator-rich publications reflect attempts to reach a broad audience and inspire action to improve the lives of children. Eight of the key projects/reports based on child indicators over the past few decades are reviewed below. The focus is on recurring reports because they have the most impact and visibility. In addition, the fact that the reports have been repeated many times is a sign of a successful child indicator project. It is important to recognize that the examples presented here are just a small sample of a similar reports and are meant to provide readers with a better sense of the kinds of reports that I view as part of the child indicator movement. Over the past two decades several countries have begun producing regularly updated reports on the well-being of children based on child indicators (O’Hare 2012, 2014). Many such reports are also listed in Table 3.1 in Chap. 3. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) lists eight on-going child indicator reports produced by government in rich counties (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2021, Table 1.1). The reports reviewed here are similar in the fact that they all rely heavily on statistical indicators to provide a broad portrait of child well-being and they have all been published on a fairly regular basis in recent years. They often serve two advocacy-related purposes: raising public awareness and making data more easily © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 W. O’Hare, A Practitioner’s Guide to Using Child Indicators, SpringerBriefs in Well-Being and Quality of Life Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90291-9_7

101

102

7 Examples of Indicator Projects and Reports

available. Clearly, it is the intention of most, if not all, of these reports to stimulate some type of action to improve the lives of children.

7.2

UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre Report Cards

As the research centre for UNICEF, Innocenti is uniquely positioned to understand and respond to research questions on the ground, and to feed research into policy and practice—through its programmes of cooperation with more 150 low- and middleincome countries, its links to UNICEF National Committees in 33 high income countries, and as an arm of the world’s leading normative agency that shapes global policies and outcomes for children. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre maintains a small team of researchers, evaluators, knowledge management specialists, communicators, operations, and support staff at its centre in Florence, Italy. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre develops its research agenda in consultation with other parts of UNICEF and with external stakeholders. Innocenti’s Research Centre seeks to inform policy and guide action. The credibility and relevance of findings rests on the quality of data and research as well as its independence. Innocenti’s Research Centre is firmly rooted within the global UNICEF network and fully engaged as an independent research body with leading universities and institutes in all regions of the world. It aims to promote a dynamic, real-time discourse on the generation of knowledge about children. The agenda is selected to support intensified research efforts coordinated across the wider organization where there is demand for a concerted effort to build evidence. Priorities are also driven by critical issues facing children which have been either overlooked or which do not fit neatly into discreet sectors. Current research projects: • Child poverty, equity, and well-being: multi-dimensional deprivation analysis, and the flagship Innocenti Report Card on child well-being in rich countries • Social protection: the impact of cash transfer programmes in sub-Saharan Africa • Child protection: work on the drivers of violence against children, and family and parenting support • Children and the internet: investigating child rights in the digital age • Adolescent well-being: analysis of the structural and social determinants of adolescent well-being across sectors and throughout the life-course • Education: school settings, learning pathways and life skills Emerging areas of focus include migration, gender, and the intersection of humanitarian and development work. They also host a global network of longitudinal studies (GLORI). Using the convening power of UNICEF, the office hosts a range of high-level events, expert working groups, senior research fellows, workshops, and seminars. Events bring together UNICEF staff, academics, policy makers and practitioners.

7.3 The UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS)

103

UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre works through partnerships with academic and policy research institutions as well as think-tanks and NGOs. Strategic communications and research engagement activities ensure that Innocenti research is widely disseminated and translates into practical impacts and policy influence. For the purposes of this book, the key effort from the Innocenti Research Centre is a series of report cards focused on the well-being of children in rich countries. There are now 16 publications in the Report Card series from the Innocenti Research Centre all published since 2000. The first report card was issued in 2010 and the most recent report card (Number 16) was issued in 2020. The reports are available on the Centre’s website at http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/ Most of the report cards focus on measures of comprehensive child well-being among a set of developed countries. Collectively, these reports provide one of best sources of comparative statistical data about the well-being of children in more developed countries. Report Card 7 is a good example of reports in this series of reports. Report Card 7, which provides a holistic evaluation of child well-being in rich countries, is typical of the report cards in this series. Details of Report Card 7 are provided below. Other reports provide slightly different sets of data points and often cover slightly different topics of child well-being. Table 7.1 shows the domains, components, and indicators used in Innocenti Research Centre Report Card 7.

7.3

The UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS)

The UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) initiative, which started in the mid-1990s, is now in the fourth round of surveys focused on measuring the wellbeing of children in less developed countries. In addition to collecting a wealth of survey data for many countries, this initiative has generated an on-going series of publications based on measuring child wellbeing. This information is available on their website as well as on another website where data are made available (http://www.unicef.org/statistics/index_24302.html). Since the mid-1990s, the MICS has enabled many countries to produce statistically sound and internationally comparable estimates of a range of indicators in the areas of health, education, child protection and HIV/AIDS.

MICS does not list the topics as domains, but the list below indicates how MICS clusters topics. The list of topics covered by MICS may be particularly useful for measuring child well-being in less developed countries. Topics of MICS reports are, • Child Disability • Child Health • Child Mortality

104

7 Examples of Indicator Projects and Reports

Table 7.1 Measures used in Innocenti Research Center Report Card # 7 Domain Material Well-Being

Health and Safety

Educational well-Being

Components Relative Income poverty Households without jobs Reported Deprivation

Health at age 0–1

Preventive health services safety School Achievement at age 15

Beyond Basics The transition to employment

Relationships

Family Structure Family relationships

Peer relationships Behaviors and Risks

Health behaviors

Risk behaviors

Indicators Percentage of children living in homes with equivalent income below 50% of national median Percentage of children in families without an employed adult Percentage of children reporting low family affluence Percentage of children reporting few education resources Percentage of children reporting fewer than 10 books in the home Number of infants dying before at 1 per 1,000 births Percentages of infants born with low birth weight (LT 2500 g) Percentage of children age 12 to 23 months immunized against measles, DPR and polio Deaths from accidents and injuries per 100,000 ages 0–19 Average achievement in reading literacy Average achievement in mathematic literacy Average achievement in science literacy Percentage 15–19 remining in education Percentage 15–19 not in education, training or employment Percentage of 15 year-olds expecting to find low-skilled work Percentage of children living in single-parent families Percentage of children n living in step families Percentage of children who report eating the main meal of the day with parents more than once a week Percentages of children who report that parents spend time “just talking” to them Percentage of 11,13 and 15 year-olds who report finding their peers “kind and helpful” Percentages of children who eat breakfast Percent who eat fruit daily Percentage physically active Percentage overweight Percentage of 15 year-olds who smoke Percentages who have been drunk more than twice Percentage who use cannabis Percentages having sex by age 15 Percentages who use condoms Teen fertility rate (continued)

7.4 The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

105

Table 7.1 (continued) Domain

Components Experience if violence

Subjective Well-Being

Health School life Personal wellbeing

Indicators Percentages of 11, 13 and 15 year-olds involved infighting in last 12 months Percentage reporting being bullied in last 12 months Percentage of young people rating their own health no more the “fair” or “poor” Percentage of young people “liking school at lot.” Percentage of children rating themselves above mid-point of “Life satisfaction Skate.” Percentage of children reporting negatively about personal well-being

Source: Innocenti Research Center Report Card 7, Child Poverty in Perspective: “An overview of child well-being in rich countries”

• • • • • • •

Child Nutrition Child Protection Early Childhood Development Education HIV/AIDS Maternal Health Water and Sanitation

7.4

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

OECD has undertaken a large initiative to promote the use of statistical indicators for monitoring social well-being and child indicators have been a very visible part of this initiative. In addition to comprehensive reports on child well-being OECD has established a website where information can be shared and views among scholars can be exchanged (http://www.wikiprogress.org/index.php/Child_well-being). OECD has held a series of international meetings on statistics, knowledge, and power under their “Measuring Progress of Societies” initiative and the topic of child well-being has been reflected in each meeting (Ben-Arieh & Gross-Manos, 2009). The OECD Child Well-being Data Portal (CWBDP) gathers data on child wellbeing and the settings in which children grow up. It provides information on • • • • •

children’s home and family environment, their health and safety, their education and school life, their activities, and their life satisfaction.

106

7 Examples of Indicator Projects and Reports

The website also provides links to information on public policies for children. Information covers children from 0 to 17 years of age, although some information is available only for specific ages. Where possible, information is provided for different age groups, from early childhood to adolescence. The data portal also provides a unique source of information on disparities in child well-being by gender, family status, household income level, and parental background. OCED has issued several key reports on child well-being since 2009 (OECD, 2009, 2015, 2019), In July of 2021, OECD (2021) released the latest in a series of detailed reports on child well-being. In the framework for the 2021 report, they separate current well-being and future well-being. The report focuses on four key dimensions of child well-being which include, (1) (2) (3) (4)

Material outcomes Physical health outcomes Social, emotional, and cultural outcomes Cognitive developmental, and education outcomes

7.5

KIDS COUNT Project

The KIDS COUNT Data Book produced by The Annie E. Casey Foundation in the United States has been published each year since 1990 and has gained visibility and credibility among journalists, researchers, advocates, and policymakers. This was accomplished, in part, because the Foundation used its resources to heavily promote and widely disseminate the publication. An online companion resource, the KIDS COUNT Data Center, is updated on an ongoing basis. The effectiveness of the KIDS COUNT initiative is also related to the fact that The Annie E. Casey Foundation has funded a KIDS COUNT program for each state (as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) since the early 1990s, partnering with state-focused grantees. Over the past 30 years, these state level organizations have produced hundreds of data-driven reports on child well-being in their states under the KIDS COUNT brand. (For a list of state KIDS COUNT organizations see http://www.aecf.org/MajorInitiatives/KIDSCOUNT/ KIDSCOUNTStateNetwork.aspx). The 2011 edition of the KIDS COUNT Data Book (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2011, p. 37) reiterates the primary purpose of KIDS COUNT report, It is our hope that the KIDS COUNT Data Book, and the accompanying KIDS COUNT Data Center, will help raise the visibility of children’s issues on the national agenda and serve as a tool for advocates, policymakers and others to make better decisions. This quote speaks to the Foundation’s desire to see the KIDS COUNT data used to improve child well-being.

Many key audiences such as state legislators and Congressional staff report that they regularly use the data in the KIDS COUNT reports and say that the KIDS COUNT report has had an impact on public policy in America (National Conference of State

7.5 KIDS COUNT Project

107

Table 7.2 Domains and indicators used in the 2021 KIDS COUNT Data Book Domains Economic wellbeing

Indicators

Children in Poverty Children Whose Parents Lack Secure Employment Children Living in Households with a High Housing Cost Burden Teens Not in School and Not Working Education Young Children (ages 3 and 4) not in school Fourth-Graders Not Proficient in Reading Eighth-Graders Not Proficient in Math High School Students Not Graduating on Time Health Low Birth-Weight Babies Children Without Health Insurance Child and Teen Deaths per 100,000 Children and Teens (ages 10–17) Who Are Overweight or Obese Family and community Children in Sign-parent Families Children in Families Where the Households Head Lacks a High School Diploma Children Living in high-poverty areas Teen Births per 1,000 Source: The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2021 KIDS COUNT Data Book, https://www.aecf.org/ resources/2021-kids-count-data-book

Legislators, 2004; The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2007; O’Hare, 2008). More information about the KIDS COUNT program and the most recent version of the annual report are available at www.kidscount.org. Early stages of the KIDS COUNT project are documented by O’Hare (2008). The combination of the yearly national KIDS COUNT Data Book and regular state KIDS COUNT reports has led to the recognition of KIDS COUNT as a “brand.” When audiences hear about a KIDS COUNT report, they have come to expect high-quality data on child well-being presented in a user-friendly manner. The branding has added to the credibility of the KIDS COUNT initiative. As the KIDS COUNT initiative has matured and the landscape has shifted, the primary method of dissemination has transitioned from primarily print to heavy use of the internet. The online KIDS COUNT Data Center, introduced in the late 1990s, now features hundreds of measures of child well-being for the country as well as states, cities, metropolitan areas, and congressional districts. In recent editions of the KIDS COUNT Data Books (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2021) provides state data for four domains with four indicators in each domain. The domains and indicators are shown in Table 7.2.

108

7.6

7 Examples of Indicator Projects and Reports

America’s Children: Key Indicators of Well-Being

In 1994, staff in several United States federal government statistical agencies informally initiated the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. The “Forum,” which now has 22 agency members, was formally established through Executive Order No. 13045, issued by President Clinton in April 1997. The forum’s mission (Wallman, 2011, p. iii) is To develop priorities for collecting enhanced data on children and youth, improve communication of information on the status of children to the policy community and the general public, and produce a more complete data on children at the Federal, state, and local levels.

The Forum is involved in many activities, but the most visible is their annual report called America’s Children: Key Indicators of Well-Being, which has been published yearly since 1997. The 2020 report (United States the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2020, p. 1) explain their Conceptual Framework for Key National Indicators as, The Forum has identified 41 indicators that describe the well-being of children. These indicators span seven domains: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Family and Social Environment, Economic Circumstances, Health Care, Physical Environment and Safety, Behavior, Education, and Health.

The most recent edition as well as past editions of this annual report are available online at http://childstats.gov. The America’s Children Report differs from the KIDS COUNT reports because it only includes national level data rather than state-level data (O’Hare et al., 2013). The main point of the report, according to the press release accompanying the 2011 report (http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/press_release.asp), is expressed as, The report provides statistical information on children and families in a non-technical, easyto-use format to stimulate discussion among data providers, policymakers, and members of the public.

This speaks to the Forum’s interest in getting this information into the hands of a broad audience.

7.7 KIDS COUNT on the Eastern Shore of Virginia

7.7

109

KIDS COUNT on the Eastern Shore of Virginia

Most of the efforts covered in this chapter have been conducted by relatively large organizations. This segment provides information on one small data-based child advocacy effort. In terms of background, the effort described here takes place in the United States on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. The Eastern Shore has a total population of about 45,000 people in two counties. The population of the Eastern Shore is demographically diverse with substantial representation of whites, blacks, and Hispanics. It is economically diverse as well, but with a high child poverty rate. More than a decade ago, an organization called Smart Beginnings Eastern Shore (SBES) began advocating for young children on the Eastern Shore with the special focus on promoting school readiness through public awareness of the importance of early childhood, parent engagement, and coordination and collaboration between child-serving agencies in the region. In 2015, the Leadership Council of SBES started discussing the idea of producing a statistical report on the well-being of children on the Eastern Shore that could be used to launch a yearly conference or forum which would bring together all those interested in the well-being of children on the Eastern Shore. Using a local retired demographer, the report was produced (with support from the state-wide advocacy group Voices for Virginia Children). The report was based mostly on data from United States Census Bureau and State agencies. The key metric in the report was ranking the two counties on the Eastern Shore along with 132 other counties in Virginia based on a comprehensive index of child well-being. That ranking showed the well-being of children on the Eastern Shore was near the bottom of state rankings. The data used in the report are shown in Tables 7.3. The first KIDS COUNT on the Eastern Shore forum was held in 2017. The report was distributed at the event that took place at the local Community College. The report was also posted on the Voices for Virginia children website (O’Hare, 2017). Voices For Virginias Children is a statewide multi-issue child advocacy organization. A second report on the well-being of young children on the Eastern Shore was produced for the 2018 KIDS COUNT Forum. The Forum is an event that child-serving agencies look forward to each year. Poster sessions at the events provide a great opportunity for people to learn what other organizations in the community are doing. In 2020 and 2021, when the pandemic did not allow an in-person meeting, organizers started a series of wellattended online KIDS COUNT events. KIDS COUNT on the Eastern Shore drew heavily on the national and state KIDS COUNT projects in terms of the measures of child well-being to include and the presentation of those measures. Having this kind of model for a small effort is very valuable and minimizes some of the decisions that must be made about what data to collect. For example, KIDS COUNT on the Eastern Shore used many of the child indicators measure used in the national KIDS COUNT Data Book.

110

7 Examples of Indicator Projects and Reports

Table 7.3 Domains and indicators used in report on child well-being on the Eastern Shore of Virginia Economic indicators Percent age 0–17 below poverty Percent age 0–4 below poverty Percent age 5–17 in families below poverty Percent of Age 0–17 under 50% of poverty Percent of Age 0–17 under 200% of poverty Median Household Income Median Income of Families with Children under age 18 in Household Percent of Children living in Household where no one worked in previous 12 months Percent of Occupied Housing Units with Related Children Under age 18 that are owner occupied Education indicators Percent of 3–4 Year Old NOT in School Percent of Kindergarteners whose do not meet PALS-K scores for kindergarten readiness levels Percent of Children NOT meeting 3rd grade Standards of Learning in Reading Percent of 9th Graders who do NOT finish High school in 4 years Percent of students retained K-third Grade Health indicators Infant Mortality Rate Low Birthweight Age 5–17 disabled Percent WITHOUT care in the first trimester of pregnancy teen birth rate age 15–17 teen birth rate age 18–19 Percent of Children age 0 to 18 WITHOUT health Insurance Family and community indicators Percent of Adults (age 25+) WITHOUT a High School Degree Percent of Children living in Single-Parent Families Income Inequality Income Ratio (80th percentile over 20th percentile) Rate of child abuse and neglect (founded number per 1,000 children) Source: Voices for Virginia’s Children, https://vakids.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/YoungKIDS-COUNT-on-the-Eastern-Shore-of-Virginia.pdf

One of the benefits of using the comprehensive statistical report on the well-being of children as a foundation for the forum was that everyone at the conference saw some of their work reflected in the report. Subsequently, data from the report has been used for grant applications and to increase public interest in children in local media. The Forum was repeated three years in a row (and a fourth event was planned prior to the pandemic) with 100 to 150 attendees at each event. (Voices for Virginia’s Children, 2017). After three yearly in-person meetings and a couple of additional statistical reports, the KIDS COUNT event and reports have become branded.

7.8 Kids Count Mexico

111

In short, the data-based reports and forums have raised awareness of children on the Eastern Shore and provided an important opportunity for those working on the issue to exchange ideas and make connections. This effort indicates that child indicators can be used effectively in small places with modest budgets.

7.8

Kids Count Mexico1

Kids Count Mexico is an evidence-based advocacy project implemented by the Mexican Network for the Rights of Children (REDIM, for its acronym in Spanish). The project started in 2005 and has been financially supported by The Annie E. Casey Foundation (2005–2018), Kellogg Foundation (2009–2018), the European Union (2016) and Tableau Foundation (2019–2020). It has provided 16 years of data-based advocacy for children in Mexico. Kids Count Mexico was born out of the need to have a comprehensive system of information on child rights in the country to improve the legislative and political decisions that affect this population. With this aim in mind, REDIM built a system of indicators to monitor eight domains derived from the Convention on the Rights of Children (Red por Los Derechos de la Infancia 2010): • • • • • • • •

demographics, citizenship, education, economy, health, habitat, security, and legislative.

REDIM built an information system which now comprises three major components: First, they present the official data in order to disseminate it in the form of interactive visualizations on the situation of child rights. Then they analyze this information in a thematic essay that is published every year with the purpose of strengthening our advocacy strategies. Finally, they present the essays and visualizations to key agents such as the media, children, and adolescents through diverse advocacy strategies, such as direct messages, interviews, book presentations, and workshops. This model has evolved over the years and one of the major changes can be observed in the way children and adolescents have participated actively in the project. In the beginning, we held conferences and workshops with the aim of

1

The summary of KIDS COUNT in Mexico was provided by Fernando Salas, Data Analysts, Mexican Network for the Rights of Children (Red por los Derechos de le Infancia en Mexico— REDIM).

112

7 Examples of Indicator Projects and Reports

opening up spaces for children to express their opinions. Then we started including these expressions in our annual publications, and by 2020, a group of children and adolescents wrote a child-friendly version of Kids Count Mexico. Another significant change can be observed in the different formats in which the statistical content has been disseminated over the years. Initially, data was published in printed booklets. Over the years, the statistics were incorporated into the webpage, and by 2019 they were converted into visualizations the public could interact with directly from their cell phones at infanciacuenta.org. Thanks to this steady stream of information, REDIM has been able to influence the public agenda over the medium and long term, and this, in turn, has translated into profound and lasting results in the protection of the rights of children. Proof of this has been the most recent campaign to promote the protection of disappeared children in Mexico. After constantly monitoring and analyzing this situation, REDIM obtained a hearing at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). After this hearing, the Mexican State pledged to incorporate a specific section on children and adolescents in the General Law to prevent and sanction the disappearances of persons. Following this sequence of events, in 2017 the new law on the disappearances of persons included a chapter on underaged persons. REDIM replicated this success by participating at a subsequent IACHR hearing that resulted in the Mexican State’s commitment to creating a Special Search Protocol for children and adolescents. Since 2020, REDIM has assisted the Mexican State in drafting this protocol, which has enabled us to include the outcomes of our analysis and insights in the document. However, the impact of REDIMs activity has not been restricted to the protection of disappeared children and adolescents. Kids Count Mexico has been key in promoting the General Law concerning the protection of child rights passed in 2014. Our advocacy strategies were also essential during the drafting process of the implementing regulations of this law, which included overseeing the establishment of a National System for the Protection of Children and Adolescents (SIPINNA, for its acronym in Spanish). Kids Count Mexico has also been a central figure in the promotion of the inclusion of children and adolescent rights in other laws, such as the General Law on Education, the Law on the Justice System for Adolescents, the General Law on Disappearances, and the General Law on Victims. In addition, Kids Count Mexico has been promoted by diverse authorities, such as the House of Senators and some State Ministries at the federal and local levels. This has enabled REDIM to engage in dialogue with international agents, such as the Committee on the Rights of Children (CRC), the UN Human Rights Council (OHCHR), the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the European Union (EU). In summary, in 16 years, Kids Count Mexico has transcended its role of providing data on children to assist in identifying progress and challenges in guaranteeing the rights of children in Mexico using indicators. The impact on the lives of children and adolescents has demonstrated that this project has worked as a transformative tool which enables children and adolescents to know and exercise their rights. These results have allowed us to share our model in Brazil, Paraguay, Nicaragua, and

7.9 The Field of Child Indicators Studies in South Korea

113

Chile, while elaborating local versions of Kids Count Mexico for seven different states in Mexico.

7.9

The Field of Child Indicators Studies in South Korea2

It is in the last 15 years when the field of child indicators has become flourished. The South Korean Government began the first ‘Study of Comprehensive Child Wellbeing’ in 2008. The study was led by the Institute of Social Welfare at Seoul National University (PI: Dr. Bong Joo Lee, professor at Seoul National University). It was the national survey study of a representative sample of about 7,000 children aged 0 to 18. The survey included items on family socio-economic characteristics, family life, physical and emotional health, school life, academic achievement, safety, child abuse and neglect, and cognitive development. The results of the study were used for South Korean Government to plan long-term children’s policy and to evaluate the effort to improve well-being of children. The national child indicators study was mandated by law. The law specified the Government should do the study every five years as an effort to plan, monitor, and evaluate the national children’s policy. The second national study was done in 2013 with a sample of about 4,000 children. The second national survey included several items on subjective well-being including happiness, life satisfaction, and childhood deprivation. The most recent study was done in 2018 (Yoo et al., 2019). A recent revision of the child welfare law now mandates the national child indicators done every three years instead of 5 years. The results of the national child indicators studies have been used extensively for government policy planning and evaluation, child advocacy movement, and academic studies. While the national child indicators study focused more on objective child wellbeing indicators, a major study of subjective indicators was initiated by a major child welfare NGO in South Korea (Lee et al., 2021). The Save the Children of Korea began ‘Korea Children’s Quality of Life’ studies in 2012. The study was led by the Institute of Social Welfare at Seoul National University (PI: Dr. Bong Joo Lee, professor at Seoul National University). The survey included a nationally representative sample of about 9,000 children of 8-, 10-, and 12-year-olds. The study included indicators of both child development and contexts. The child development part included indicators on 5 domains: health, social well-being, emotional wellbeing, cognitive well-being, and flourishing. The context part included 4 domains: family context, school context, community context, and child rights recognition. The study has been done every five years. The most recent study was done in 2019. One of the unique features of the study is to rank children’s well-being status among 17 geographical regions using the composite index of children’s well-being

2

This description was provided by Dr. Bong Joo Lee, Professor of Social Welfare, Seoul National University.

114

7 Examples of Indicator Projects and Reports

in South Korea. The index included 8 domains (health, subjective well-being, relation, materials, risk and safety, home environment, and flourishing) with 46 indicators. The release of the study results with rankings captured a huge attention from media, national government, and local governments. The study was also used in comparative international studies of children’s subjective well-being (Children’s Worlds at https://isciweb.org/). A more recent study of child indictors focuses on children’s rights. The first Korea Children’s Rights Index study was done in 2016 by Good Neighbors, a major international child welfare NGO in South Korea (Lee & Shin, 2016). The study was based on a nationally representative sample of about 9,000 children of 9-, 11-, and 13-year-olds. The study included 3 major domains: contexts, experiences of children’s rights, and child development. The experiences of children’s rights domain included indicators on four basic children’s rights: survival, protection, development, and participation. The study also draws much attention from mass media, central government, and local governments. .

7.10

Quebec, Canada3

On April 18, 2016, after several years of development, the Lucie and André Chagnon Foundation launched the Observatoire des tout-petits or Early Childhood Observatory. The mission of the Early Childhood Observatory is to communicate the current state of knowledge in order to promote informed decision-making on the subject of early childhood in Québec. Their goal is to ensure that every young child living in the province has access to conditions that will enable them to develop their full potential, regardless of where they were born or where they are growing up. Their mandate consists in: • compiling the most reliable data on the well-being and development of children between the ages of 0 and 5 • analyzing these data and disseminating them in accessible language in order to raise the awareness of our various target audiences (citizens, key influencers, and decision-makers) • creating opportunities for public dialogue on possible solutions

3

This description was provided by Fannie Dagenais, Director, and Marilou Denault, Principal Advisor, Communications and Public Affairs, Early Child Hood Observatory.

7.10

Quebec, Canada

115

All our actions are aimed at advancing informed decision-making on early childhood issues in Quebec. To fulfill its mission, the Observatory closely monitors developments in early childhood issues. To do this, they created and continually update a scoreboard of the most reliable and relevant data on the development and well-being of very young children in Quebec and on the environments in which they are growing up. Placed in context, these data serve as the basis of a second function exclusively intended to inform public opinion on the most important issues related to the development and welfare of Quebec’s youngest children. Informing is the Observatory’s greatest challenge, as it entails combining rigorous data with creative communication strategies to attract the attention and raise the awareness of its target audiences: individual citizens, key influencers, and political decision-makers. Through its actions, the Observatory strives to spark reflection and dialogue among various social actors on the situation of the very young in Quebec.

7.10.1 Our Target Audiences The goal of the Observatory’s project is the official adoption of measures and public policies to ensure the well-being and development of the very young. Our main target audience therefore consists of political decision-makers at both the provincial and municipal levels. Other actions are intended to influence decisionmakers indirectly, by way of our other two target audiences: citizens (since decisionmakers are very sensitive to public opinion) and key influencers, which include media, municipal councillors/political advisors, Umbrella organizations, Community organizations, Health/education communities, governmental actors, citizen groups, etc. Some of these powers of influence, such as the media, can also influence citizens.

7.10.2 How They Work All of the Observatory’s publications go through a process that can be divided into three main steps: • Documentation • Awareness raising • Dialogue Once the theme of our publication has been chosen, they mandate a team of researchers to produce a contextualized scientific analysis based on the answers to our three key questions. Indeed, the content of reports prepared by the Observatory generally focus on finding the answers to three questions:

116

7 Examples of Indicator Projects and Reports

• What? What is the current status of the situation? How has it evolved over the past ten years? How does the situation in Quebec compare with that in other Canadian provinces? Other countries? • So what? Why should we be concerned? What is it about this situation that demands our attention? • Now what? What can we do as a society? What can we learn from the scientific literature? What kind of solutions have been implemented in other places around the world? The Observatory’s report and derived tools are prepared based on this analysis. Since the analysis is written in scientific language, our job is to “translate” it into something more accessible to ensure it is engaging and easily understandable by our key target groups: decision-makers and key influencers. The Observatory team (with its expertise in both knowledge transfer and scientific communication) acts as an intermediary between these two worlds. We recognize the concerns of both our scientific partners and our advertising agencies and have discussions with each group aimed at finding a compromise that both are comfortable with. To maximize the distribution of the tools we develop, they count on the cooperation of a network of mobilized partners. Although this step demands a lot of time and energy, the benefits are more than worth the effort. To mobilize partners and give them a sense of belonging to the project, they have to be involved or, at the very least, informed before the information is made available to the general public. It is easier to mobilize partners if they have played a role in developing content or if they recognize the expertise of the people involved. It is therefore important to carefully choose the experts who will collaborate in developing and reviewing the content of each publication. This group should include not just experts on the subject, but also representatives of our target audiences. Before the public launch, we do an awareness tour of our partners, decision-makers, and elected officials. At the time of the public launch, we use various strategies to distribute the conclusions of our report: • • • •

Public relations campaign Publicity campaign Content marketing strategy Participation of our partners met during the awareness tour, who distribute the information throughout their networks

It is their hope that all these actions will culminate in opportunities for dialogue in the public space and encourage public statements of position by our partners and cconversations on the Internet and social media platforms, with the ultimate goal being a commitment from elected officials.

7.10

Quebec, Canada

117

7.10.3 Our Publications Since it was launched in April 2016, the Early Childhood Observatory has published several types of reports and publications: Our special reports: • • • • •

Child development in kindergarten Violence and maltreatment: Are Quebec’s youngest children safe from harm? Balancing family life and work in Quebec | Results of a population survey Early childhood: The quality of educational childcare services in Quebec Access to health care for pregnant women and young children in migrant families

Our annual portraits: • What kind of environments are Québec’s youngest children growing up in? 2016 Portrait • How are Québec’s youngest children faring? 2017 Portrait • What kind of environments are Québec’s youngest children growing up in? 2019 Portrait • What is Québec doing to support young children and their families? 2021 Portrait Our series • COVID-19: How is the pandemic affecting children and their families? • Preventing Child Maltreatment • How can we encourage father involvement through our public policies? The annuals portraits are like a snapshot of our scorecard that we intend to publish on a yearly basis. The portraits contain information on several indicators related to various issues. The portraits do not include any analysis per se; our objective is to provide a status report on early childhood in Quebec. The Portraits provide more than 60 data, divided into 4 spheres. The domains and indicators are shown in Table 7.3. They use special reports to examine a specific subject in depth, based on analyses by research specialists on the subject. We attempt to provide answers to the following questions: 1. What? What is current status of the situation in question? 2. So what? Why should we be concerned or encouraged by the available data? 3. Now what? What can be done to improve the situation? What practices have already been evaluated? For each of these publications, we always create targeted tools specifically for decision-makers and key influencers, such as brochure presenting the highlights of the main report, information videos, visuals for presentations or use on social media, animation clips, etc.

118

7 Examples of Indicator Projects and Reports

As for our series, they are made up of a series of articles covering the same subject from several angles. These series are regularly improved, following current events and new scientific studies.

7.10.4 Biggest Achievement Their greatest accomplishment is undoubtedly the adoption of the bill that provided access to free health care for all children in migrant families living in the Canadian province of Quebec, regardless of their immigration status or that of their parents. This bill was passed by the National Assembly 20 months after the publication of our report entitled Access to health care for pregnant women and young children in migrant families. None of this would have been possible without the precious collaboration of our partners. Indeed, numerous organizations were involved in the initiative: President and representatives of Doctors of the World Canada, researchers specialized in this area, lawyer working with these families, Directors of pediatrics in Québec’s medical faculties and representatives of influential organizations that support the recommended policy changes (Table 7.4). To learn more about this project: Lagarde, F., Cyr, A., & Dagenais, F. (2020, March 20). A practical guide for rallying stakeholders through advocacy. The Philanthropist. https://thephilanthropist.ca/2020/03/a-practical-guide-for-rallyingstakeholders-through-advocacy/

7.10

Quebec, Canada

119

Table 7.4 List of indicators from the early childhood observatory portraits Domains Children

Indicators Birthing conditions Premature birth Low birthweight Multiple pregnancy Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) Social competence Language and cognitive development Fine and global motor slills Communication skills and general knowledge Disability or social maladjustment Emotional maturity Physical health and well-being Asthma Accidental injury Epilepsy Disability Infectious diseases Excess weight and obesity Mental health Infantile mortality Juvenile mortality Stillbirth

Family Mother's age at birth Immigration status Language of the parents Single-parent family Employment Siblings Parents education level Family structure Food insecurity Poverty Disability or chronic illness of the parent Parental stress Alcohol use during pregnancy Tobacco use during pregnancy Access to maternity leave Physical activity Breastfeeding Immunization (continued)

120

7 Examples of Indicator Projects and Reports

Table 7.4 (continued) Domains

Indicators Recreational screen time Parental alcohol use Parental drug use Parental attitudes towards corporal punishment Violent parenting behaviors Neglectful parenting behaviors Exposure to domestic violence Pratices that promote literacy Alerts

Living environments Breastfeeding support services Pregnancy services Visit to the women followed in the SIPPE Social support Use of professionnals Family doctors and pediatrician Dental care Educational daycare attendance Kindergarden 4 years Early childhood education sercives Moving Housing Neighborhood Crosscutting issues Coronavirus Perinality Family-work conciliation Violence and abuse

References Ben-Arieh, A., & Gross-Manos, D. (2009). Taxonomy for child well-being indicators. Presentation at the 3rd Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Forum on “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy: Charting Progress, Building Visions, and Improving Life,” Busan Korea, October 27–30. Lee, B., & Shin, W. (2016). Korea children’s rights index. Good Neighbors. Lee, B., Yoo, M., & Yoo, J. (2021). A report on Korean children’s quality of life: The fifth study. Save the Children and Institute of Social Welfare at Seoul National University. National Conference of State Legislators. (2004). State legislators’ perceptions of KIDS COUNT. National Conference of States Legislators, Denver, CO.

References

121

O’Hare, W. P. (2008). Measuring the impact of child indicators. Child Indicator Research, 1 (4), 387–396, Springer. O’Hare, W. P. (2012). Development of the child indicator movement in the United States. Child Development Perspectives, 6(1), 79–84. O’Hare, W. P. (2014). Data-Based child advocacy: Using statistical indicators to improve the lives of children. Springer Publishers, Data-Based Child Advocacy | SpringerLink. O’Hare, W. P. (2017). KIDS COUNT on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, Voices for Virginia’s Children. https://vakids.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Young-KIDS-COUNT-on-the-East ern-Shore-of-Virginia.pdf O’Hare, W. P., Riche, M. F., & Lippman, L. (2013). Development of the United States FEDERAL Interagency Forum on child and family statistics. In Presentation at the 4th International Society for Child Indicators Conference, Seoul, Korea. http://isci.chapinhall.org/wp-content/ uploads/2013/06/P1_OHare_et_al.pdf Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2009). Comparative child well-being across the organization for economic cooperation and development, Doing Better for Children, Chapter 2, Paris, France. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2015). How’s life: Measuring wellbeing, Paris, France. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/how-s-life-2015/how-s-life-forchildren_how_life-2015-8-en Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2019). OECD child well-being data portal, Paris, France. https://www.oecd.org/els/family/child-well-being/data/ Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2021). Doing better for children, Chapter 2, Comparative child well-being across the organization for economic cooperation and development, Paris, France. Red Por Los Derechos de la Infancia. (2010). La Infancia Cuenta, Red Por Los Derechos de la Infancia. Mexico City, Mexico. www.infanciacuenta.org The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2005a). County officials' perceptions and use of KIDS COUNT. http://www.aecf.org/KnowledgeCenter/Publications.aspx?pubguid¼{24D4E23BA2E1-442888A1-85B3B0AB15B1} The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2005b). Business leaders' perceptions of KIDS COUNT. http:// www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/da3622h1256.pdf The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2005c). Summary of research findings: State legislative leaders' perceptions of KIDS COUNT. http://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/da3622h1261.pdf The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2007). Summary of research findings: Awareness, use and perceptions of KIDS COUNT among congressional staff. http://www.aecf.org/ KnowledgeCenter/Publications.aspx?pubguid¼{D92C23CA7982-47C6-B74A-05464CF090 57} The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2011). 2011, KIDS COUNT data book. The Annie E. Casey, Baltimore, MD. http://datacenter.kidscount.org/DataBook/2010/Default.aspx United States the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2020). https://www. childstats.gov/ Voices for Virginias Children. (2017). Blog on Eastern Shore forum. https://vakids.org/our-news/ blog/kids-count-on-virginias-eastern-shore Wallman, K. K. (2011). Foreword to America’s children: Key national indicators of well-being, 2011 (p. iii). Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, United States Government Printing Office. http://childstats.gov Yoo, J., Yoo, M., & Lee, B. (2019). Comprehensive child well-being study 2018. Ministry of Health and Welfare and Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs.