David Parker, MPA, MPH, PhD Deputy Director UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre

1. International Society for Child IndicatorsInaugural Conference, June 26-28, 2007Chicago, USAChildren and the Policy Agenda: Government Responses to the Innocenti Report Card David Parker, MPA, MPH, PhD Deputy Director UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre

2. BACKGROUND • UNICEF and child indicators • The Innocenti Research Centre • UNICEF and rich countries • Academic partnerships in research • Innocenti Report Cards

3. THE INNOCENTI REPORT CARDS • Focus on rich countries • Rankings using league tables • Academic/technical underpinning • Written for lay audience, readable format • Background papers for in-depth analysis • Communication strategy

4. REPORT CARDCOMMUNICATION STRATEGY • Partnership with UNICEF Offices, National Committees, academics, others • Joint planning of launch and dissemination • Information kits – focus on strategic audiences, developed with close involvement of the research area • Advance distribution of PDFs and hard copies • Translation into French, Spanish & Italian; subsequently to Korean, Portuguese and Russian • Interviews - newspaper, TV, radio • Link with IRC website – research area and media centre • Coordination in followup

5. LAUNCH OF THEREPORT CARD • Embargo until 14 February 10am • Launched on 14 February in OECD Countries, mainlaunch in Berlin. • UNICEF German National Committee organized international media launch with the IRC Director and Prof. Hans Betram, author of the German country case study. • Launch the following day at the European Commission, with Isabelle Engsted-Maquet, Secretary of the Indicators Sub-Group of the EU Social Protection Committee, and Anne-Marie Brooks, Office of the Minister for Children, Ireland. • Simultaneous launches in other countries in Europe and beyond, incl. Australia, Denmark, Finland, Italy, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain and the UK.

6. MEDIA COVERAGE – OVERALL • Extensive coverage, in print and web services • Virtually global coverage – all continents, all major media services • Second print run of hard copies • Approx 40,000 downloads from IRC website in first month • Strong coverage in editorial columns, blogs

7. News Headlines from the Report Card

8. THE UNITED KINGDOM - CONTEXT • Public attention to “happiness”(vs economic growth and material attainment) • Inquiry into the state of childhood (R. Layard) • Concern about the state of youth – gang violence • Time of national self-reflection – leadership (PM) transition • Child poverty as a policy target, recent assessments

9. UK – LAUNCHING AND NATIONAL RESPONSE • Last in overall ranking of CWB • BBC broke media embargo, gave intensive coveragewith interviews, debates, commentary and repeatedattention - “Are we failing our children”? • Initial Government reaction – defensive, incl. data out of date • Support of findings by experts, incl. the Children’s Commissioner of England (A. Aynsley) • Criticism of the RC among some media – relative poverty issue • Support by NGOs (looking to society, not only government) • Criticism by opposition particies, 2 statements by PM Blair • Debates in all legislative branches of British government • Role in additional budget allocation against child poverty? • Ditchley Park conference

10. GERMANY • UNICEF National Committee supported the preparationof the study • National case study prepared, as done also for RC6 • Held EU Presidency at time of launch • Middle ranking in CWB (headlined as “merely mediocre”) • 70 journalists at launch/press conference • Est. 1000 media articles, reaching 120m readers & viewers • Politicians supported the report; strong national debate • National case study author is an adviser to the Ministry of Family • NGOs and parliamentarians used launch occasion to discuss children’s rights and movement to advance protection of children’s rights nationally

11. U.S.A. • Not an active launch process – UNICEF focuson work in developing countries • Story picked up in US media, national coverage for 2+ weeks • Most critical media reception – questioning low US ranking, relevance of inequality measure • Did not become a political issue at national level • But strong local coverage, focus of debate and issue coverage • Continues to arise - Op-Ed columns

12. COVERAGE ELSEWHERE –Shaping National Debates • Netherlands, Nordic countries – high rankingsspurred media coverage • Poland – higher ranking than US/UK • Greece – explanations, commentary • Hungary – relatively low ranking • Italy - + family relations, - educational rankings • Others – focus on rankings, methodology, individual component scores

14. SOME OTHER GOVERNMENT RESPONSES AND FOLLOW-UP • France and US – questioned some indicators • Canada – used to promote idea of a Children’s Charter • European Parliament – launch followup; statements by issued by Socialist and Conservative groups • EU/EC – support to existing movement toward multi-dimensional approach; attention to child poverty and social exclusion (Bradshaw index) • Various: more complete and up to date data available

15. ACADEMIC REACTIONS • Excluded dimensions in the analysis • More nuance in poverty measures • How to differentiate within countries (particularly large countries, minority groups) • To weight or not to weight? • General appreciation of data availability constraints • Overall support – with calls to refine the multidimensional approach

16. ELEMENTS IN NATIONAL RESPONSE MESSAGE “Packaging” AGENTS (media, other actors) “Resonance” “Connectivity” CONTEXT

17. ISSUES ARISING: MESSAGE • Stresses the multidimensional nature of CWB • Appeal: indicators deal with feelings and relationships • The RC shows “what it is like being a child” (J. Unwin) • Parents, children and the public can relate to individual dimensions; quotable, discussable • Highlight weak link between GDP/capita and CWB ranking • Decomposable – presentation stresses individual dimensions of CWB • “All countries can do better” (UNICEF) vs focus on rankings – winners and losers • Relative income poverty – an issue in RC6, carried over to RC7- Ideological to some – the importance of inequality- Is poverty meaningful when minimum needs are met?

18. ISSUES ARISING: MEDIA • Diverse interests and approaches • Not possible to have anticipated the demand • Media ‘tipping point’ reached early: BBC (though brokeembargo) set momentum and tone of coverage around the world • Unusual for a report to have such coverage, esp. if not ‘exclusive’ • Active debate in media – but little questioning of validity or methods • Confusion noted in interpretation of RC statistics:- relative vs absolute nature of country scores- ranges and scaling of graphics- interpreting relative income poverty

19. ISSUES ARISING: OTHER ACTORS, including Governments • UNICEF – credible, impartial, known locally • Academic base – consultations; Bradshaw et al; Bertram • UNICEF National Committees – press conferences, press releases, forums – 13+ were actively involved • Role of NGOs – resonated with their concerns, thoughtful commentary • A higher technical bar working in with governments than working with media – and a different bar than in working with academia • Consult in advance with governments?

20. ISSUES ARISING: CONTEXT • In many countries, effectiveness arose from links topre-existing national debates on CWB, family, etc • Data issues important: completeness, up-to-dateness(recognition of govt engagement) • Complementarity – international comparison vis a vis national (multi-year, subnational, etc) studies • At what point does context determine the relevance of particular CWB indicators? (implications for global comparability) • Multiple layers of debate: Children in current politics >> children and the “state of the nation” • Using indicators to stimulate new national debates on child and social well-being • Future IRC work on child well-being?

22. Innocenti Report Card No. 7Child Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Well-being in Rich CountriesThank You www.unicef-irc.org