UNICEF
Innocenti Report Card 14
Children in the Developed World

Building the FutureChildren and the Sustainable
Development Goals in Rich Countries

Innocenti Report Card 14 was written by Chris Brazier.
The UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti would like to acknowledge thegenerous support for Report Card 14 provided by the Government of Italy.
Any part of this Innocenti Report Card may be freely reproduced using thefollowing reference:
UNICEF Office of Research (2017). ‘Building the Future: Children and theSustainable Development Goals in Rich Countries’, Innocenti Report Card
14, UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti, Florence.
The Innocenti Report Card series is designed to monitor and compare theperformance of economically advanced countries in securing the rights of
their children.
In 1988 the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) established a research
centre to support its advocacy for children worldwide and to identify andresearch current and future areas of UNICEF’s work. The prime objectives of
the Office of Research – Innocenti are to improve international
understanding of issues relating to children’s rights, to help facilitate full
implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, supporting
advocacy worldwide. The Office aims to set out a comprehensive
framework for research and knowledge within the organization, in support ofits global programmes and policies. Through strengthening research
partnerships with leading academic institutions and development networks
in both the North and the South, the Office seeks to leverage additional
resources and influence in support of efforts towards policy reform in favourof children.
Publications produced by the Office are contributions to a global debate on
children and may not necessarily reflect UNICEF policies or approaches. The
views expressed are those of the authors.
The Office of Research – Innocenti receives financial support from theGovernment of Italy, while funding for specific projects is also provided byother governments, international institutions and private sources, including
UNICEF National Committees.

Cover photo © Shutterstock©United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), June 2017
ISBN: 978-88-6522-050-4
eISBN: 978-92-1-060790-2
ISSN: 2519-108X

UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti
Piazza SS. Annunziata, 1250122 Florence, Italy
Tel: +39 055 2033 0
Fax: +39 055 2033 220
florence@unicef.org
www.unicef-irc.org@UNICEFInnocenti
facebook.com/UnicefOfficeofResearchInnocenti

Innocenti Report Card 14
Children in the Developed World

Building the FutureChildren and the Sustainable
Development Goals in Rich Countries

I N T R O D U C T I O N–

B U I L D I N G

T H E

F U T U R E

Report Card 14
Introduction

The Sustainable Development Goals have set
ambitious targets that apply to rich countries aswell as poor. The most telling sign of a nation’s
progress towards meeting those goals will be
how well it meets the needs of its children.
This Report Card offers anassessment of child well-being in
the context of sustainable
development across 41 countries of
the European Union (EU) and theOrganisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development(OECD). This group includes both
high- and middle-income economies,
but here we refer to them all as‘high-income countries’ – or ‘richcountries’, for convenience. The
concept of child well-being is rooted
in the Convention on the Rights of
the Child (CRC) but the Agenda for
Sustainable Development adds new
dimensions. Progress across allthese dimensions will be vital tochildren, and advanced economies
will therefore need to monitor thesituation of children and young
people both nationally and globally.
The Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs) agreed by the international
community in 2015 represent an
ambitious effort to set a global
agenda for development that is both
equitable and sustainable, in social,economic and environmental terms.
The earlier Millennium Development

2

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

Goals (MDGs) prioritized the
reduction of poverty, as well as
progress in related social indicators.
The 17 goals of the SDGs add to thisa series of outcomes associated withinequality, economic development,
the environment and climate change,
as well as peace and security. In
contrast to the MDGs, whichprimarily applied to low- and middleincome countries, the ambitious
agenda of the SDGs is of necessity
universal; it thus applies to richcountries, as well as poor.
The stronger focus of the SDGs on
equitable development and on
leaving no one behind also demands
attention to inequalities along
multiple dimensions – of income andwealth, health and educational
opportunity, as well as voice andpolitical participation – both within
and between countries. Addressing
rising inequality and its related
problems requires a focus not juston the conditions of the poorest, butalso on the consequences of wealthaccumulation by the richest. As
countries seek to meet the SDGs, so
the changing political landscape will

C A R D

1 4

require new approaches to ensure
inclusive and sustainable outcomes.
Long-term, inclusive and sustainablesocial goals are best met throughattention to the needs of children.
Ensuring the well-being and realizing
the rights of all children (including
migrants and refugees) is not only acommitment made by those statesthat have signed the CRC, but isalso an essential condition forachieving long-term development
goals. Every high-income country
invests in its children: healthy,
educated children are better able tofulfil their potential and contribute tosociety. By contrast, problems ofchild development often carrythrough into adulthood, with theresulting social costs accruing to thenext generation, too. Indeed,
achieving the SDGs is about
ensuring that future generations
have the opportunities enjoyed by
the present generation: successful
outcomes for today’s children willbuild the foundations for the wellbeing of our societies tomorrow.
Commitments to the SDGs made bygovernments now need to be

I N T R O D U C T I O Ntranslated into programmes andpublic investments that can deliveron this wide-ranging set of goals
and their 169 accompanying targets.
While many goals requirecommitment at the global or
multilateral action level if they are to
be achieved (particularly those
associated with climate change andthe global economy), they also
demand national action. If countries
are to be held to account for theirprogress towards these goals,
appropriate indicators for monitoringthat progress are necessary. UNICEF
has long been at the forefront of
global efforts to monitor life
outcomes and social progress forchildren, and it now plays a leadingrole in monitoring child-related SDG
indicators (see Box 2: UNICEF’s
global role in SDG monitoring,
page 6).
Many of the SDG indicators
proposed by the global community
are most appropriate for lowerincome contexts. Report Card 14
proposes an adapted set ofindicators to assess countries’
performance against the promise of“leaving no one behind” whennational circumstances, ambitions
and existing levels of social progress
are already well advanced (see Box
on the right: How have Report Card
14 indicators been selected?).
Specifically, this report seeks tobring the SDG targets for children in
high-income countries intomeaningful operation (while staying
true to the ambitions of the global
agenda) and to establish a point of
departure for reviewing the SDG
framework in these contexts. It
focuses on those goals and targets
with most direct relevance to thewell-being of children in high-income
settings. Where appropriate, it
adapts the agreed SDG indicator, thebetter to reflect the problems facing
children in such countries (see Table
1 pages 4-5).
Although limited by the lack ofcomparable data in some domains,
this report compares 41 countries
across 25 indicators. As in other
Report Cards, countries are ranked
on their achievements in well-being
for children according to theselected indicators. The Report Cardcannot provide an in-depth analysisof the reasons behind differences,–

B U I L D I N G

T H E

F U T U R E

nor of the policy options available
for making progress on selectedindicators. Nonetheless, byillustrating variation along key
dimensions of child well-being
related to the SDGs – from ending
poverty to promoting peaceful andinclusive societies – it suggests
areas where policy efforts or public
investment may be targeted to
improve outcomes, and reveals
where data inadequacies still need
to be addressed.

Box 1 How have Report Card 14
indicators been selected?
Indicators for monitoring child-relevant SDGs in high-income countries
were selected using the criteria listed below.
Relevance: Does the indicator directly concern child well-being in
high-income countries?
Data availability and quality: Are high-quality data with adequate
coverage available? Do they meet necessary standards regarding
representativeness, comparability, accuracy and frequency ofcollection?
Communicability: Is the indicator itself easily explained, conceptuallyclear, and do the reported figures clearly convey the extent ofprogress by country on a given target?
Policy attainability: Is progress on the indicator realistic, within thetime frame of the SDGs?
Alignment with global indicators: Is the indicator a good match tothe proposed global indicator? Does it reflect the spirit and intent of
the corresponding SDG goal and target?
Extensive consultations with experts at meetings of the Report Card
Advisory Board – composed of academics, independent experts,
UNICEF national committee members and communications experts –also informed the selection of indicators and established theirconceptual relevance.
Source: Bruckauf, Z. and Cook, S. (2017). ‘Child-Centred Approach to the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in High-Income Countries: Conceptualissues and monitoring approaches’, Innocenti Working Paper 2017-06, UNICEF
Office of Research – Innocenti, Florence.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

3

I N T R O D U C T I O N–

B U I L D I N G

T H E

F U T U R E

Table 1: Mapping Report Card 14 indicators to global goals, targets and indicators
Goal

1

Target (by 2030 unless specified)
End poverty in all its forms everywhere(page 10)

1.2 Reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and childrenof all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national
definitions
1.3 Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems andmeasures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial
coverage of the poor and the vulnerable

2

2.1 End hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poorand people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious
and sufficient food all year roundEnd hunger, achieve food security
and improved nutrition (page 14)

2.2 End all forms of malnutrition

3

3.2 End preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years ofage

Ensure healthy lives and promote
well-being (page 18)

3.4 Promote mental health and well-being
3.5 Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse,including harmful use of alcohol
3.7 Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-careservices

44.1 Ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality
primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective
learning outcomes

Ensure inclusive and equitable
quality education for all (page 24)

4.2 Ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood
development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready forprimary education

5

Achieve gender equality andempower all girls (page 29)

5.1 End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls
everywhere
5.2 Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the
public and private spheres

8

Promote full and productive employment
and decent work for all (page 33)

10 Reduce inequality within and among
countries (page 36)

8.5 Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all
women and men
8.6 By 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in
employment, education or training
10.1 Progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom
40% of the population
10.2 Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusionof all, irrespective of economic or other status10.3 Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome,including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices andpromoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard

11 Make cities inclusive, safe, resilientand sustainable (page 41)

12 Ensure sustainable production and11.6 Reduce the adverse per-capita environmental impact of cities,
including by paying special attention to air quality

consumption patterns (page 43)

12.8 Ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information andawareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony withnature16 Promote peaceful and inclusive societies16.1 Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates
everywhere

for sustainable development (page 45)

16.2 End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violenceagainst and torture of children

4

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

I N T R O D U C T I O N–

B U I L D I N G

T H E

F U T U R E

Report Card 14 indicator

Relationship to SDG global indicators

Relative child poverty (60% of the median household income)

Official SDG indicator which uses 60% of the median for cross-country
comparability

Proportion of children living in multidimensional poverty

Based on UNICEF MODA methodology, which uses 7 child-specificdimensions of poverty for cross-country comparability

Reduction in the rate of child poverty due to social transfers

Adapts the official SDG indicator for better country coverageChildren under 15 living with a respondent who is food insecure (%)

Official SDG measure of food insecurity applied to households with children
under 15

Obesity rates among adolescents aged 11-15

Obesity is a form of malnutrition, and is highly relevant for high-income
countries. Differs from the official SDG indicator

Neonatal mortality rate

Official SDG indicator

Suicides of adolescents aged 15-19 per 100,000 population

Official SDG indicator applied to relevant age group

11-15-year-olds reporting 2 or more psychological symptoms more thanonce a week (%)

Indicator chosen for its relevance for high-income countries and links tosuicidal behaviour. No matching global indicatorChildren aged 11-15 who reported having been drunk in the previous
month (%)

Drunkenness is a proxy of harmful use of alcohol among children and young
people. Differs from the official SDG indicator

Number of births per 1,000 females aged 15-19

Official SDG indicator applied to the relevant adolescent population

15-year-old students achieving baseline proficiency across reading,mathematics and science (%)

Official SDG indicator covering young people at the end of secondary
education, adapted to reduce subject-specific bias

Participation rate in organized learning (one year before official primary
entry age)

Official SDG indicator

Share of adult respondents agreeing "university education is more
important for a boy than for a girl”

Measure of values and attitudes towards equal gender opportunities forchildren. No matching global indicator

Gender difference in girls' and boys' share of daily participation inhousework by age

Proxy of intergenerational transfer of norms as regards gender roles. No
matching global indicator

Women aged 18-29 who reported having experienced sexual violence
before age 15 (%)

Differs from the global indicator in age group and recall period due to limited
availability of cross-national data

Children living in jobless households (%)

New indicator showing the proportion of children impacted byunemployment/inactivity of household members

Youth aged 15-19 not in education, employment or training (%)

Official SDG indicator, but with more child-specific age coverage (15-19
rather than 15-24)

Palma Ratio: ratio of income share held by top 10% of households withchildren to bottom 40%

Not an official SDG indicator, but a standard indicator of inequality, adapted
to reflect children's experience

Impact of socio-economic status on students' performance across 3
subjects

Not an official SDG indicator, but an equal-opportunity measure regularly
reported by PISA

Gap between household income of child at 50th percentile (median)and child at 10th percentile, reported as % of median

Not an official SDG indicator, but consistently used by UNICEF Report Cards
to measure how far behind the poorest children are being allowed to fallfrom 'average' standards in society

Annual average PM2.5 concentrations in urban areas, weighted byproportion of child population (0-19) living in urban areas

Official SDG indicator but weighted to reflect the proportion of children living
in cities

15-year-old students familiar with 5 or more environmental issues (%)

Not an official indicator but reflects the SDG focus on education forsustainable development (including climate-change education)

Deaths of children aged 0-19 by intentional assault per 100,000

Official SDG indicator adapted for children aged 0-19

Children aged 11 to 15 who have experienced bullying at least twice amonth in the past month (%)

Bullying as a form of physical and psychological violence corresponds to theofficial indicator but focuses on children

Women aged 18-29 who reported having experienced physical violence
before age 15 (%)

Differs from the global indicator in age group and recall period due to limited
availability in cross-national data

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

5

I N T R O D U C T I O N–

B U I L D I N G

T H E

F U T U R E

Box 2 UNICEF’s global rolein SDG monitoring

For the past 70 years, UNICEF has played a leading role in calling for
more and better data on the situation of children worldwide. In recent
decades, the organization has established surveys and extensive
cross-national databases of indicators relating to the well-being ofchildren, including the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS)
programme.
Today, the SDGs place an unprecedented demand on national
statistical systems to generate the information required to monitor
official indicators. UNICEF, as custodian of ten of the global SDG
indicators and co-custodian of a further seven, supports national andinternational partners in meeting the data demands of the SDGs.
UNICEF is the sole custodian of indicators in the areas of stunting,malnutrition, infant mortality, neonatal mortality, skilled birthattendants, developmental trajectories of children under 5, childmarriage, female genital mutilation, physical punishment, and sexual
violence (by age 18).
For each SDG indicator, custodians like UNICEF lead the developmentof global data standards and contribute to national statistical capacity
building, so as to facilitate the compilation and verification of national
data. Once compiled by the custodian, SDG indicators are submitted
to the global SDG database (managed by the UN Statistics Division),along with an interpretation of the data and trends for the annual SDG
progress reports.
Beyond its specific custodian role, UNICEF will work closely during
the SDG period with other international agencies (such as the
UNESCO Institute of Statistics’ Global Alliance to Monitor Learning) to
support the production of other child-related global SDG indicators,
and with national governments to collect, analyse and use other childrelated data.
This Report Card is an example of UNICEF’s data work outside its
custodian role. It focuses on higher-income countries and provides
proxy measures relevant to these countries that are aligned with
official targets under each goal.

6

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

I N T R O D U C T I O N–

B U I L D I N G

T H E

F U T U R E

Report Card 14
Summary league table

The summary league table on
pages 8-9 shows how some richcountries do better than others
across nine social-progress goals
for children. At first glance, theleague table reads well for thosecountries accustomed to appearing
at the top of recent comparisons ofhuman and child development – theNordic countries, Germany and
Switzerland – and less well for
lower-income countries of thegroup, such as Romania, Bulgaria
and Chile.
However, a more detailed lookuncovers some key considerations.
First, the indicators that underlie
the table reveal room for
improvement across the board: allcountries rank in the mid- or
bottom-third on at least two of thegoals. A closer look behind theheadline measures shows that the

majority of rich countries are goingbackwards on key indicators in thegoals of reduced inequalities(Palma ratio, income gaps), good
health and well-being (childhood
obesity rates) and quality education(learning outcomes).
Second, although countries such as
Bulgaria and Romania have lower
incomes per capita than othercountries in the industrialized
world, the presence of countries
such as New Zealand and theUnited States in the bottom
reaches of this league table is proof
that high national income alone isno guarantee of a good record insustaining child well-being.
Third, the overall results of the
League Table are driven byconsistency across the traditional
goals of reduction of poverty,
deprivation and inequality, advancesin education, health andemployment, areas where nationalsocial policies on children andfamilies are arguably the strongest;
but those goals are not strongly
associated with the newly definedsocial-progress goals ofenvironmental sustainability,
responsible consumption andproduction, and peace.
The results therefore highlight the
new challenges set by the SDGs.
And, unlike the traditional goals thatpreceded them, these new goals
are subject to a range ofsupranational influences – such as
globalization of markets andeconomic shocks, pollution,
advances in information flows,
instability and migration. They
therefore demand the attention of
all countries, in collaboration, no
matter how rich or how poor.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

7

I N T R O D U C T I O N–

B U I L D I N G

T H E

F U T U R E

League Table – Country performance across nine child-relevant goals
CountryNopovertyZerohungerGood health andwell-being

Qualityeducation

Decent workand economic
growthNorway

1

4

5

9

5

Germany

8

8

4

7

6

Denmark

4

2

21

5

10

Sweden

6

9

13

16

7

Finland

2

15

16

1

15

Iceland

3

17

2

27

18

Switzerland

5

3

12

11

2

5

10

3

12

Republic of Korea
Slovenia

11

27

11

23

9

Netherlands

7

6

6

17

8

Ireland

9

31

22

13

37

Japan

23

1

8

10

1

United Kingdom

16

34

15

20

31

Luxembourg

19

12

14

25

3

Austria

10

10

9

26

24

Spain

28

26

3

12

36

Estonia

18

20

26

21

14

Portugal

30

32

1

24

26

France

15

7

17

14

20

Czech Republic

17

16

25

22

13

Australia

12

28

23

39

23

Croatia

20

14

24

36

35

Poland

22

24

32

31

4

Italy

31

23

18

19

30

Canada

32

37

29

8

11

Belgium

14

11

19

6

28

Cyprus

13

30

34

21

Latvia

27

21

27

18

16

Malta

24

39

28

2

29

Slovakia

21

19

34

35

19

Greece

29

35

20

33

32

Hungary

26

22

31

30

33

Lithuania

25

25

33

29

27

18

38

15

34

13

7

28

22

40

37

41

New ZealandIsrael36

TurkeyUnited States

33

36

36

32

17

Mexico

34

41

30

4

40

Romania

37

33

35

40

25

Bulgaria

35

38

39

38

39

29

40

37

38

Chile

Higher8

AverageLower

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

insufficient dataC A R D

1 4

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Sustainable
cities andcommunities

Responsible
consumption
and production

2

2

13

9

24

3

20

19

10

11

6

21

5

4

5

11

29

1

8

27

1

7

27

10

F U T U R E

30

31

7

22

23

2

13

34

33

14

8

1

8

9

32

33

36

8

6

14

9

16

15

31

28

19

13

18

30

28

28

16

16

4

29

4

4

35

27

7

1

27

34

23

25

21

31

26

24

6

17

3

18

18

18

11

14

11

23

17

10

20

20

30

15

2

14

19

6

37

19

36

32

32

5

22

The league table summarizes
the overall findings of thisReport Card. Countries arelisted in order of their average
performance across nine
Sustainable Development
Goals. Goal 5 (Gender) is also
included in the Report Card,but there were too many gaps
in the available data for the
results to be incorporated into
this composite table. Before
goals with multiple indicators
are ranked, each indicator
has been normalized using az-scores method and averaged
using equal weights.1
Each country’s rank withina particular goal is shown,ranging from 1 for the highest
performer to 41 for the lowest.

36
12

38

21

32

24

10

29

26

36

28

17

3

30

21

23

17

5

31

33

T H E

15

12

25

B U I L D I N GPeace, justice andstrong institutions

Reducedinequalities

16

–

12

26

9

35

33

39

37

34

25

22

29

3

22

35

13

20

40

41

15

38

12

37

24

40

25

7

34

37

35

26

39

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

9

G O A L

1

–

E N D

P O V E R T Y

I N

A L L

I T S

F O R M S

E V E R Y W H E R E

GOAL 1
End poverty in all its forms everywhere» An average of one child in five in high-income countries lives in poverty, though there is wide variation – from one
in ten in Denmark, Iceland and Norway to one in three in Israel and Romania.

» Measuring children’s multidimensional poverty produces an even broader range of national results, with
Switzerland and Romania at opposite extremes.

» Social transfers have proven to be very effective tools in reducing child poverty.
Figure G1 – End poverty
Average country performance across three indicators: child income poverty (0–17 years of age), multidimensional
poverty (1–15 years) and effectiveness of social transfers (0–17 years)
NorwayFinland
IcelandDenmark
Switzerland
SwedenNetherlands
Germany
Ireland
Austria
Slovenia
Australia
CyprusBelgium
FranceUnited Kingdom
Czech Republic
Estonia
Luxembourg
Croatia
Slovakia
PolandJapan
Malta
Lithuania
Hungary
LatviaSpain
GreecePortugal
Italy
CanadaUnited States
MexicoBulgaria
IsraelRomania
75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

Note: Chile, Republic of Korea, New Zealand and Turkey are excluded from the calculation of Goal 1 due to insufficient data (each country reports
on only one of the three indicators for this goal).

This chart – and the others at the head of each goal section in this Report Card – is a composite of the indicators in thesection. Read 100 as the average country performance for the goal, and 10 points as a standard deviation from thisoverall average. A greater than 5-point difference from 100, or half a standard deviation, can be interpreted as higher orlower than average (for a sample of around 30 cases, half a standard deviation is equivalent to a 99-per-cent confidence
interval). Countries with a difference of 10 points or more from the average can be considered as ‘high performing’ or‘low performing’, while those differing by 20 points or more can be considered ‘leaders’ or ‘laggards’.

1 0

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

G O A L

1

–

E N D

P O V E R T Y

I N

A L L

I T S

F O R M S

E V E R Y W H E R E

Figure 1.1 An average of one in five children in rich countries lives in relative income poverty
Percentage of children aged 0–17 living in a household with income lower than 60 per cent of the median, 2014
and 2008
40
35

Per cent

30
25
20

Country average 2014: 21.0%

15

5

De

nm
a
Ice rk
lan
No d
rwa
Re
y
pub
F
lic inland
of
Kor
ea
Ne Cyprus
Cze therl
an
ch
Re ds
pub
lic
Sl
Sw oveni
a
itze
rla
Sw nd
e
Ge denrm
Au any
stra
li
Fra a
nce
Jap
a
Au n
stri
Irel a
a
Be nd
lgiu
m
Un
ited Slova
Kin kiagdom
Ne Eston
wZ
i
eal a
an
Cro d
a
Can tiaada
Pol
Lith and
uan
ia
Ma
lta
Lat
Hu vianga
ryLuxIem taly
bou
rg
Ch
ile
Gre
ece
Un Portu
ited
ga
Sta l
tes
Sp
a
Me in
xic
o
Bu
lga
ri
Tur a
key
Isra
e
Ro
ma l
nia

0

9.2
10.0
10.2
10.9
11.5
12.8
13.7
14.7
14.8
14.8
15.1
15.1
17.5
17.7
18.2
18.2
18.3
18.8
19.2
19.7
19.7
19.8
21.1
22.2
22.3
23.5
24.1
24.3
25.0
25.1
25.4
25.5
25.5
25.6
29.4
30.5
31.6
31.7
31.8
36.1
39.3

10

Below average

AverageAbove average

2008

Note: The relative child poverty rate shows the proportion of each nation’s children living in a household where disposable income is less than
60% of the national median (after taking taxes and benefits into account and adjusting for family size and composition using the OECD modified
equivalence scale).
Sources: European Union countries and Iceland, Norway and Switzerland – European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC);
Australia – Household, Income and Labour Dynamics (HILDA); Canada – Canadian Income Survey (CIS); Chile – La Encuesta de Caracterización
Socioeconómica Nacional (CASEN); Israel – Household Expenditure Survey (from Luxembourg Income Study); Japan – Ministry of Health, Labourand Welfare’s Comprehensive Survey of Living Conditions; Mexico – El Módulo de Condiciones Socioeconómicas de la Encuesta Nacional deIngresos y Gastos de los Hogares (MCS-ENIGH); New Zealand – Household Economic Survey (estimates taken from Perry, B (2016). ‘Household
Incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship, 1982 to 2015’, Ministry of Social Development, Wellington); Turkey –Income and Living Conditions Survey; United States – Current Population Survey 2013, Annual Social and Economic Supplement (from
Luxembourg Income Study).

Goal 1 of the SDGs calls for an end
to poverty in all its dimensions. The
standard measure of poverty isbased on income, and SDG
indicator 1.2.1 aims to measure theproportion of people living below
the national poverty line – including
the share of children. Living inpoverty during childhood can dolifelong damage, with proveneffects on health, nutrition, brain
development and educational
attainment.2 These effects canevolve into large earnings
differences in adulthood.3
This Report Card uses a relative
measure of monetary poverty. It

calculates the national medianincome of all persons – the midpoint that sees equal numbers ofindividuals above and below the line
– and then establishes a percentageof this as a poverty threshold. Figure
1.1 presents child poverty rates
across a broad range of high-income
countries, showing the proportion ofeach nation’s children who live inhouseholds with incomes of lessthan 60 per cent of the median.
A broad average of one child in fivein 41 high-income countries lives inpoverty. However, the record ofindividual countries is so divergent
that children cannot be considered

to have a common experience justbecause they are born into the richworld. Denmark has the bestrecord on relative poverty, but even
there 9.2 per cent of children are
below the poverty line. All seven of
the countries where the proportionof children living in poverty isaround one in seven are in Europe.
Israel and Romania have the worst
records on relative poverty – here
more than one child in three isconsidered poor. However, Bulgaria,
Mexico, Spain, Turkey and theUnited States4 also have childpoverty rates substantially above
the rich-world average.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

1 1

G O A L

1

–

E N D

P O V E R T Y

I N

A L L

I T S

F O R M S

E V E R Y W H E R E

Figure 1.2 Finland, Iceland and Norway are most effective in reducing child poverty
Percentage reduction in the rate of child poverty due to social transfers, 2014 and 2008
80
70
60

Per cent

50
Country average 2014: 37.5%

40
30
20

8

10

12

18

18

18

19

22

24

24

24

26

27

31

33

36

40

40

43

43

44

45

46

48

50

50

52

53

53

54

55

58

61

64

65

66

Fin
lan
Ice d
lan
No d
rwa
y
De
nm
ark
Irel
and
Sw
Un
ede
ited
n
Kin
gdo
Sw
m
itze
rlan
d
Cyp
rus
Au
s
Ge tria
rm
a
Au ny
stra
lia
Fra
nce
Slo
ven
ia
Hu
nga
r
y
Be
lgiu
Ne
m
t
h
e
Cze
rlan
ch
Re ds
Lux publi
c
em
bou
rg
Cro
at
Slo iavak
Lith ia
uan
i
Est a
oni
a
Lat
via
Ma
lta
Pol
and
Ita
Por ly
tug
al
Sp
a
Bu in
lga
ria
Jap
Un
an
ited
Sta
tes
Gre
ec
Can e
a
Ro da
ma
nia
Isra
e
Me l
xic
o

0

6

10

Below average

AverageAbove average

2008

Note: Reduction in child poverty is measured as the proportional difference between child poverty rates before and after social transfers.
Child poverty rates are measured using income thresholds at 60 per cent of the median household income of the total population, before and after
social transfers.
Sources: As for Figure 1.1.

Intervening to reducechild poverty
If child poverty rates were entirely
dependent on household incomes
derived from the market, they would
be much higher across the board.
Instead, governments intervene
through benefits and taxes to redress
inequalities. Social transfers can beeffective in reducing the incidence ofrelative child poverty, as Figure 1.2
reveals.
How effective can social transfers
be? Across high-income countries,
they are estimated to have a fairly
large capacity to reduce pre-transfer
child poverty. On average, socialtransfers in high-income countries
reduce child poverty rates by almost
40 per cent. In 11 of these countries,
social transfers more than halve pre-1 2

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

transfer child poverty; and in themost successful cases of Finland,
Iceland and Norway, they reduce thepre-transfer child poverty rates by up
to two thirds.
This impressive capacity to redress
child poverty should not be taken for
granted. It is known to depend on
multiple factors, from the size oftransfers and their targeting, to theinitial levels of pre-transfer childpoverty. Social transfers have a much
more modest child poverty reduction
effect in several countries analysed,
reducing the pre-transfer childpoverty rates by 10 per cent or less insome cases (Romania, Israel and
Mexico).
These estimates need to be usedwith caution, however. Countries
have different child poverty levels to

C A R D

1 4

start with, and so reducing highlevels of child poverty with a single
policy may prove difficult. The role oftaxes and other social programmes is
not considered here. The evidence
does suggest strongly, however, thatsocial transfers have a true potential
to reduce child poverty effectively.

Measuring other dimensionsof poverty
Poverty encompasses more than thelack of income. The SDGs specifically
call for a reduction of at least half in“the proportion of men, women andchildren living in poverty in all its
dimensions according to national
definitions”. High-income countries
have made a commitment to monitor
multidimensional child poverty, andthere are various methodologies fordoing so.

G O A L

1

–

E N D

P O V E R T Y

I N

A L L

I T S

F O R M S

E V E R Y W H E R E

Figure 1.3 One European child in three is deprived in two or more ways
Multidimensional child poverty (two or more dimensions), 2014100

Per cent

80

60

40 Country average 2014: 34.7%

85

77

58

53

51

47

46

45

44

40

39

38

36

35

34

31

31

26

24

24

23

23

21

21

18

18

16

13

12

Sw

itze

rlan
d
Fin
l
a
nd
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Sw
ede
n
De
nm
ark
Ice
lan
d
Ge
rm
any
Be
lgiu
m
Au
stri
a
Irel
and
Lux
em
bou
rg
Est
oni
a
Slo
ven
ia
Sp
ain
Fra
Un
nce
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Ma
lta
Pol
Cze
and
ch
Re
pub
lic
Gre
ece
Cyp
rus
Lith
uan
ia
Por
tug
al
Lat
via
Cro
atia
Ital
y
Slo
vak
ia
Hu
nga
ry
Bu
lga
ria
Ro
ma
nia

0

11

20

Below average

AverageAbove average

2009

Note: Material deprivation is measured as children who are deprived of 2 or more of the following: nutrition, clothing, educational resources,
leisure activities, social activities, information access, or housing. Data is for European countries only. Norway is excluded due to missing data.
The country average is unweighted. Missing countries: Australia, Canada, Chile, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Turkey,
and the United States.
Source: Chzhen, Y., Bruckauf, Z. and Toczydlowska, E. (2017). ‘Sustainable Development Goal 1.2: Multidimensional child poverty in the European
Union’, Innocenti Working Paper 2017-07, UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti, Florence.

In 2009, Mexico introduced an
official national measure ofmultidimensional poverty. In addition
to income, it assesses deprivation in
relation to education, healthcare,social security, housing, basic
services and food. In 2014,
54 per cent of children under 18 lived
in multidimensional poverty in
Mexico.5 As in many countries,
children are at higher risk of poverty
than the population as a whole.

based on 2014 data for 28 European
Union countries, plus Iceland andSwitzerland. It considers sevendimensions of child poverty that arerooted in the CRC: nutrition, clothing,educational resources, leisureactivities, social activities, information
access and quality of housing.
Children who lack access to at least
two of these seven dimensions are
considered to be in ‘multidimensionalchild poverty’.6

In a separate initiative, UNICEF hasdeveloped the Multiple Overlapping
Deprivation Analysis (MODA) tool tostudy multidimensional deprivation
among children. It is based on childrights, as established in theConvention on the Rights of theChild. This Report Card uses MODA
for a cross-country comparison,

While over 40 lower-income countries
have carried out national MODA
studies, Iceland was the first highincome country to do so. In 2015,
UNICEF collaborated with Statistics
Iceland to perform a MODA analysisof data collected in 2009 and 2014.7
The results indicated that children’smaterial deprivation had more thandoubled between 2009 and 2014,
with a tripling in the number ofchildren considered to be severely
deprived.8
The variation in the multidimensionalchild poverty rate is vast: from
11 per cent in Switzerland to85 per cent in Romania. According tothis measure, less than one child infive is poor in the Nordic countries,
the Netherlands and Switzerland. By
contrast, at least one child in every
two is poor in two or moredimensions in the Central European
countries of Bulgaria, Hungary,
Romania and Slovakia, as well as in
Italy. Ten countries havemultidimensional child poverty rates
of between 33 per cent and50 per cent. These include Greece,
Poland and the United Kingdom.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

1 3

G O A L

2

–

E N D

H U N G E R ,A C H I E V E

F O O DS E C U R I T Y

A N D

I M P R O V E D

N U T R I T I O N

GOAL 2End hunger, achieve food security and improved
nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture» Given the ample food resources available, no level of food insecurity among children is acceptable; and yet in
high-income countries, one child in eight is food insecure.

» Rates of food insecurity among children vary widely across countries, from 1 in 70 in Japan to one in three in
Mexico and Turkey.

» Obesity is also a form of malnutrition, and rates are increasing in all but a handful of countries.
» Good nutrition is vital from birth, and breastfeeding is key to that, though most mothers in high-income countries
stop breastfeeding before the recommended minimum of six months.
Figure G2 – End hunger
Average country performance across two indicators: food insecurity (0–14 years of age), rates of overweight andobese children (11–15 years)
Japan
Denmark
Switzerland
NorwayRepublic of Korea
Netherlands
FranceGermany
SwedenAustria
Belgium
Luxembourg
IsraelCroatia
FinlandCzech Republic
Iceland
New Zealand
Slovakia
Estonia
LatviaHungary
Italy
PolandLithuania
Spain
Slovenia
Australia
Chile
CyprusIreland
Portugal
Romania
United Kingdom
GreeceUnited States
CanadaBulgaria
Malta
TurkeyMexico70

1 4

I N N O C E N T I

7580

R E P O R T

85

C A R D

1 4

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

G O A L

2

–

E N D

H U N G E R ,A C H I E V E

F O O DS E C U R I T Y

A N D

I M P R O V E D

N U T R I T I O N

Figure 2.1 Food insecurity is high in some of the world’s richest countries
Percentage share of children below the age of 15 living with a respondent who is food insecure, 2014/15
40
35
30

Per cent

25
20
15

Country average 2014: 12.7%

5

Re
pu

Jap
an
S
blic wede
n
of
Kor
e
Cro a
Ge atia
Sw rman
y
itze
rla
No nd
rwa
y
Lux Franc
em
e
bou
rg
Isra
Au el
str
Fin ia
lan
Ice d
lan
De
d
Ne nma
rk
the
rlan
ds
Cze
ch
I
Re talypub
Be liclgiu
mMa
Slo ltaNe
w Z vakia
eal
an
Est d
oni
a
Hu
nga
r
Can y
ada
Sp
Slo ain
ven
ia
Lat
via
Pol
an
Gre d
Au ece
stra
lia
Ch
ile
Cyp
ru
Irel sandUn
ited Portuga
K
Un ingd lited om
Sta
Lith tesua
Bu nialga
Ro ria
ma
ni
Tur a
key
Me
xic
o

0

1.4
4.0
4.8
4.9
4.9
5.0
5.1
6.0
7.2
7.4
7.7
7.7
8.4
8.5
8.8
8.8
8.9
9.7
10.5
10.8
10.9
11.1
11.8
11.9
12.0
12.7
12.9
14.2
15.7
16.0
17.0
17.6
17.9
18.2
19.5
19.6
21.5
25.8
26.3
33.4
34.9

10

Below average

AverageAbove average

Note: Food insecurity is measured by the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES), which was created by the Voices of the Hungry project at the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and is incorporated into the official SDG indicator framework. Data come from Gallup
World Poll Surveys, which fielded the FIES, from 2014 and 2015. The FIES country averages have been recalculated to reflect the share of children
living in food-insecure households.
Source: Pereira, A., Handa, S. and Holmqvist, G. (2017). Prevalence and Correlates of Food Insecurity among Children across the Globe, Innocenti
Working Paper 2017-09, UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti, Florence.

Food security is an official measureof SDG Goal 2 on hunger andnutrition. Food insecurity is definedas lack of secure access to
sufficient, safe and nutritious foodthat can ensure normal growth anddevelopment, as well as an active
and healthy lifestyle. Whenmeasured by this standard, somecountries are doing much better
than others in terms of meeting theneeds of their citizens, as Figure
2.1 reveals. This reports theprevalence of moderate or severe
food insecurity among children
under the age of 15.
The average for this group ofcountries is 12.7 per cent, but there
is striking variation. No level of foodinsecurity is acceptable, even if it

affects only 1 child in 20, as in
Croatia, Germany, Japan, Republicof Korea, Sweden and Switzerland.
Yet one child in three suffers foodinsecurity in Mexico and Turkey,
one in four in Bulgaria and Romania
and around one in five in Lithuania,
the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates. Although the generalavailability of food is not a problem
in any of these countries, too manyfamilies struggle to satisfy theirchildren’s nutritional needs.

Obesity as a form ofmalnutrition
Target 2.2 of the SDGs is to end allforms of malnutrition by 2030. The
main focus is on ending stunting
and wasting in very young children,
but there is a specific reference tothe nutritional needs of adolescent
girls, and the indicators trackoverweight as well as underweight.
Obesity in children is also a form ofmalnutrition, and is a pressing
challenge in high-income settings.
Children are increasingly
consuming too much unhealthy
food and soft drinks with a highsugar content, while at the sametime they are not exercisingenough. Obesity has been linked tomultiple health conditions inchildhood, to lower self-esteem,
and to a heightened risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes inadulthood.9
The Health Behaviour in Schoolaged Children (HBSC) survey

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

1 5

G O A L

2

–

E N D

H U N G E R ,A C H I E V E

F O O DS E C U R I T Y

A N D

I M P R O V E D

N U T R I T I O N

Figure 2.2 Rates of obesity have increased in most high-income countries
Percentage of 11–15-year-olds who are obese or overweight, 2014/15
3530

Per cent

25
20
Country average 2014: 15.2%

15
10

17.5
y 18.0
Por
tug
al
18.1
Bu
lga
ria
18.4
Gre
ece
20.9
Can
ada
25.0
Ma
lta
27.4

Ital

17.3

ia

Slo

ven

16.2

Sp

ain

16.1

ry

nga

Hu

15.3

atia

15.3

nd

Cro

15.2

nd

Fin
la

Pol
a

15.0

d

Ice

lan

14.7

ia

Ne

De

Lat
v

14.6

14.5

14.4

14.3

14.2

13.8

13.3

13.1

12.6

11.8

11.7

10.4

10.2

0

10.0

8.3

nm
ark
the
rlan
ds
Sw
itze
rlan
d
No
rwa
y
Fra
nce
Lith
uan
ia
Be
lgiu
m
Ge
rm
any
Au
stri
a
Sw
ede
Lux
n
em
bou
rg
Isra
el
Est
oni
a
Ro
ma
nia
Slo
vak
Cze
ia
ch
Re
pub
lic

5

Below average

AverageAbove average

2010

2006

Note: Data for Ireland and the United Kingdom have been excluded because of high non-response rates (over 50 per cent of children sampled).
The United States did not take part in the HBSC study in 2014/15. Belgian estimates are based on population weights for regional samples(excluding the Brussels region). The country average is unweighted. Missing countries: Australia, Chile, Cyprus, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, New
Zealand, Republic of Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Source: HBSC, various waves.

collects data from children on theirheight and weight, and uses theseto calculate their body mass index.
On this basis, Figure 2.2 shows the
proportion of children aged 11–15
who are obese or overweight in 30
countries, mostly in Europe.
An average of one child in seven inthese countries is overweight orobese, and there is lower variationon this indicator than on mostothers, with all but four countries
having child obesity rates ofbetween 10 and 20 per cent. The
healthiest country in this respect is
Denmark, where the rate has fallen
in recent years from already low
levels. At the other end of the scale
are Malta and Canada, where one
child in four is consideredoverweight.

1 6

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

It is a cause for concern that in 22of the 30 countries surveyed, theproportion of children of this age
who were overweight was higher in2014 than in 2006. The sharpest
increases in incidence over thisperiod occurred in Latvia, Lithuania
and Slovakia.
Although Mexico is not included in
the HBSC survey, it reports a very
high proportion of overweight orobese children: 33 per cent ofchildren aged 5–11 and 36 per centof those aged 12–19.10

C A R D

1 4

G O A L

2

–

E N D

H U N G E R ,A C H I E V E

F O O DS E C U R I T Y

A N D

I M P R O V E D

N U T R I T I O N

Box 3 Breastfeeding in high-income countries
Although there is a wealth of evidence thatbreastfeeding contributes to children’s development
in cognitive and general health terms,i specifictargets for breastfeeding have not been set as partof the Sustainable Development Goals.
Nevertheless, breastfeeding is critical to providing
the required nutrition for newborn and infantdevelopment, and can contribute to other SDG goals
related to nutrition, health and education. The World
Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF recommend
exclusive breastfeeding for six months. Given thiscontext, it is worth comparing breastfeeding rates inhigh-income countries, especially as this is one of
the few positive health indicators on which richcountries tend to lag behind poorer ones.ii
The table below is drawn from a global review ofbreastfeeding rates published in early 2016.

Although some of the data are relatively old and do
not refer to exclusive breastfeeding, the results
indicate that the proportion of mothers who haveever breastfed is high in all the rich countries
included, with only France and Ireland reporting
rates of below 75 per cent. By the time the infant is
6 months old, between a third and a half of mothers
who had started breastfeeding no longer continue,
and in countries such as Canada, Greece and theUnited Kingdom the falling-off is more substantial.
Rates continue to fall up to 12 months, by which
point there is a marked difference in practice
between countries: in Japan and Turkey the majorityof mothers continue to breastfeed, while in
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom rates fallto 3 per cent or lower. More recent data for Mexico
show 46 per cent of children are still being breastfed
at the age of 12–15 months.iii

Estimates by time and prevalence
Country

Reference year

Ever breastfed

At 6 months

At 12 months

Australia

2010

92

56

30

Austria

2006

93

42

16

Canada2011/12

89

30

9

Chile

2011/12

95

41

21

Czech Republic

2005

96

42

16

Denmark

2013

–

13

3

Finland

2010

92

58

34

France2012/1363

23

9Germany

2009/12

82

50

23

Greece2007/08

88

22

6

Ireland

2012

55

–

2

Italy

2013

86

46

19

Japan

2009

95

63

60

Mexico

2012

–

–

44

Netherlands

2006/08–

32

11

New Zealand

2006

–

60

44

Norway

2013

95

71

35

Republic of Korea

2012

88

61

46

Spain

2011

77

47

23

Sweden

2010

98

52

16

Switzerland

2003

94

62

28

Turkey

2008

–

–

74

United Kingdom

2005/10

81

34

0.5

United States

2011

79

49

27

Note: Breastfeeding rates are not exclusive breastfeeding rates. Data in bold are extrapolated – see source for methodology.
Source: Victora, C.G. et al. (2016). ‘Breastfeeding in the 21st Century: Epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong effect’, The Lancet, vol. 387, no.
10017, pp. 475–490.
iOECD (2011). Doing Better for Families, OECD Publishing, Paris; Victora, C.G. et al. (2016). ‘Breastfeeding in the 21st Century:
Epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong effect’, The Lancet, vol. 387, no. 10017, pp. 475–490.
ii Victora, C.G. et al. (2016). ‘Breastfeeding in the 21st Century: Epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong effect’,

The Lancet, vol. 387, no. 10017, pp. 475–490.
iii National Institute of Public Health-UNICEF (2017). MICS Mexico, 2015. https://www.unicef.org/mexico/spanish/ENIM_KFR.pdf

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

1 7

G O A L

3–

E N S U R E

H E A L T H Y

L I V E S

A N D

P R O M O T E

W E L L - B E I N GGOAL 3
Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being
for all at all ages
» The rates of neonatal mortality, adolescent suicide, drunkenness and teenage births in high-income countries are
all falling, though the gaps between the best and the worst performers on each of these indicators remain wide.

» National averages conceal variation in outcomes that reflect socio-economic, gender or other disparities that
affect child health.

» The majority of countries surveyed saw an increase in adolescent self-reporting of mental health issues between
2010 and 2014. One adolescent in four reports experiencing two or more psychological symptoms more thanonce a week.
Figure G3 – Ensure health
Average country performance across five indicators: neonatal mortality (< 4 weeks of age), suicide rates (0–19
years), mental health symptoms (11–15 years), drunkenness (11–15 years) and teenage fertility rates (15–19 years)
Portugal
IcelandSpain
Germany
NorwayNetherlands
IsraelJapan
Austria
Republic of Korea
Slovenia
Switzerland
SwedenLuxembourg
United Kingdom
FinlandFrance
Italy
Belgium
GreeceDenmark
Ireland
Australia
Croatia
Czech Republic
Estonia
LatviaMalta
CanadaMexicoHungary
PolandLithuania
Slovakia
Romania
United States
TurkeyNew Zealand
Bulgaria
Chile
65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

Note: Cyprus is excluded from the calculation of Goal 3 on account of insufficient data (reporting on only two of the five indicators for this goal).
Two data points for Mexico have been excluded from the calculation of the results for Goal 3: neonatal mortality rates (2015) and number of births
per 1,000 females aged 15-19 (2015). Inclusion of these outliers would result in Mexico’s ranking falling to 40th place.

1 8

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

G O A L

3–

E N S U R E

H E A L T H Y

L I V E S

A N D

P R O M O T E

W E L L - B E I N G

Figure 3.1 Over the past decade, most rich countries have reported notable falls in neonatal mortality rates
Deaths in the first 28 days of life, per 1,000 live births
12

8
6

8.0

7.3

5.6

5.2

4.0

3.6

3.3

3.1

3.1

3.1

2.9

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.5

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.0

1.8

1.8

1.6
1.7

1.6

1.5

Jap
an
Slo
ven
Sw ia
ede
n
Fin
Cze
lan
ch
d
Re
pub
lic
Re
Ice
pub
lan
lic
d
of
Lux Kore
a
em
bou
r
No g
rwa
y
Ital
y
Isra
Por el
tug
al
Sp
ain
Be
lgiu
m
Est
oni
a
Ge
rm
any
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Au
stri
a
Au
stra
lia
Fra
n
Lith ceuaniaUnited Greec
e
Kin
gdo
m
Lat
via
Hu
nga
ry
Pol
and
De
nm
Ne
w Z arkeal
anSw
itze d
rlan
d
Slo
vak
ia
Un Canad
ited
a
Sta
tes
Ch
i
Bu le
lga
ria
Tur
ke
Me y
xic
o

0

1.4

2

Country average 2015: 2.8 per 1000
0.9

4

1.3

Deaths per 1000 live births

10

2015

2010

2005

Note: Neonatal mortality has no minimum threshold of gestation period or birthweight. Data for 2015 is 2015 or nearest available year. Break inseries: France (2009). No data for Ireland in 2015, France or Turkey in 2005. The country average is unweighted. Missing countries: Croatia, Cyprus,
Malta and Romania.
Source: OECD Health database, 2016. Data for Bulgaria are from the WHO World Health Statistics 2016.

A focus on children is fundamental
to the attainment of Goal 3 of theSDGs, not just because it refers tohealth and well-being “at all ages”,
but also because health problems inchildhood can have a lasting impact
throughout life. The firstprerequisite is to ensure that as
many children as possible survive
the first year of life.

Newborn deaths are falling
The neonatal mortality rate – which
tracks deaths in the first four weeks
of life – is an official SDG indicator
under Target 3.2. All high-income
countries have already reduced theirneonatal mortality rates to below
the global target of 12 deaths per
1,000 live births, although averages
may hide stark variations between
different social groups. Given thatneonatal mortality continues to fallin the highest-performing nations,Figure 3.1 suggests that there is stillroom for improvement in the rest.
However, national differences in theregistration of premature and lowbirthweight babies mean thatinternational rankings of neonatal
mortality need careful interpretation.11
In 2015, an average of 2.8 children
per 1,000 were dying in the first fourweeks of life across these 36 OECD
countries. Japan has set a new
historic benchmark by achieving aneonatal mortality rate of under one,at just 0.9 per 1,000, despite thehighest percentage of low-weightbirths in the OECD.12 The
improvement in the second-ranked
nation, Slovenia, has been
spectacular in recent years:
between 2005 and 2015 it morethan halved its neonatal death rate.

At the other end of the scale, thefour OECD countries from theAmericas, along with Bulgaria andTurkey, are above the rich-world
average and still have a significant
way to go to meet the standardsof their highest-achieving peers.
However, while Chile seems tohave made no progress on thisindicator since 2005, Mexico has
shown a marked improvement,
reducing its rate by almost aquarter over that period. Other
nations that have made significant
strides since 2005 are Latvia,
which has halved its mortality
rate, followed by Estonia, Lithuania,
the Netherlands and Poland.

Suicide: leading cause of deathamong the young
In high-income countries in 2012,
suicide was the leading cause of

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

1 9

G O A L

3–

E N S U R E

H E A L T H Y

L I V E S

A N D

P R O M O T E

W E L L - B E I N G

Figure 3.2 Adolescent suicide rates vary widely between high-income countries
Suicide rates of adolescents aged 15–19 per 100,000 population, based on the latest available data (2009–2013)

16
14
12
10
8

Country average 2012/13: 6.1

6

15.6

13.3

11.3

10.3

10.3

9.0

8.5

7.9

7.7

7.6

7.5

7.4

7.3

6.9

6.8

6.7

6.6

6.6

6.1

5.8

5.5

5.0

4.8

4.2

4.2

4.0

4.0

3.7

3.6

3.0

2.5

2.4

2.2

2.0

Por
t

Ital

uga

l (2
01
y (2 2)
011
Sp
ain
)
(20
Cyp
12)
rus
(2
Tur
key 011)
(
Un
201
Isr
ited
2)
Kin ael (2
012
gdo
)
m
Ma (2012
lta)
De
nm (201
3)a
Bu rk (20
lga
1
Lux
1)
em ria (2
011
bou
)
rg
Ge
(2
Ne rmany 012)
therlan (2012
ds
)
(2
Fra
nce 012)
(20
Cro
10
a
Hu tia (20 )
nga
12)
ry
Ro
ma (2012
nia
)
(20
A
11)
Sw ustriaitze(rlan 2013)
d (2Cze Sweden 012)chRe
pub (2012)l
No ic (20
rwa
12)
y
Au
stra (2012
Be lia (20 )
lgiu
10)
m(
Me
201
xic
1)
o
Jap (2012
an
)
(20
L
Un
12)
ited atvia
Re
(20
pub
Sta
11)
tes
lic
of
(
Kor 2012
ea
)
(2
Pol
and 012)(2Can
ad 012)
Est a (201
oni
0)
a(
Ch 2011
)
ile
(2
Irel
and 012)
(20
Fin
11)
la
Lith nd (2
012
uan
Ne
)
wZ
ia (
2
eal
and 012)
(20
10)

0

1.9

2

3.7

4

1.7

Suicide rates per 100,000 population18

2012/13

2009

2006

Note: The country average is unweighted. Figures are three-year averages around the year in brackets. Earlier estimates are averages for the three
years preceding. Data are missing for Greece. Most recent data for Iceland (c2008, 5.4), Slovakia (c2008, 2.5) and Slovenia (c2009, 7.6). Missing
countries: Greece, Iceland, Slovakia and Slovenia. [c=around]
Source: WHO mortality database, 2016.

death among young people aged
between 15 and 19 of both sexes,
accounting for 17.6 per cent of
all deaths.
Figure 3.2 reflects the suicide rate
for adolescents aged 15–19 across
37 OECD and EU countries.
The rate is lowest, at 1.7 per
100,000, in Portugal, and tends tobe low in southern European
countries. The highest rate, of 15.6
per 100,000 – nine times higher
than in Portugal – is to be found in
New Zealand, although in Canada,
Chile, Estonia, Finland, Ireland andLithuania teenage suicides are also
well above the international average.
Across the board, boys are more
likely to die by suicide than girls –2 0

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

three times more likely, on average,
though there is a fivefold differencein the Central and Eastern European
countries of the Czech Republic,
Latvia, Poland and Slovakia. Thisgender gap runs the opposite way
from the survey of self-confessed
mental health symptoms. Girls
actually attempt suicide around
twice as often as boys, thoughgenerally the methods chosen areless lethal.13
Adolescent suicide rates have fallen
in the majority of countries in recent
years. The biggest improvements
have come in two of the nations
with the highest suicide rates: Chileand Lithuania. In six countries, thesuicide rate has risen, with marked
increases for boys in Luxembourg

C A R D

1 4

and Slovenia significantly
outweighing a decline in girls’
deaths. In a handful of countries –Cyprus, Finland, Malta, theNetherlands, New Zealand and theUnited States – the opposite trend
can be observed, with the suicide
rate for girls increasing, while thatfor boys has been declining.

Adolescent mental health: agrowing concern
Most of the SDG health targets thatare relevant for high-income
countries relate to older children
and adolescents, rather than infants
and younger children. Mental healthand well-being (Target 3.4) is one ofthese. Objective and comparable
international data on young people’s
mental health are not available –G O A L

3–

E N S U R E

H E A L T H Y

L I V E S

A N D

P R O M O T E

W E L L - B E I N G

Figure 3.3 Adolescent mental health issues are becoming more common
Percentage of adolescents reporting two or more psychological symptoms (feeling low, feeling irritable, feelingnervous, having sleeping difficulties) more than once a week
40
35
30

Per cent

25 Country average 2014: 23.1%
20
15

nd 17.1
ain
18.0
De
nm
Un
ited
ark
18.6
Kin
gdo
Ne
m 19.9therlan
ds 20.7
Sw
itze
rlan
d 20.9Belgiu
m 21.1
Cro
atia
21.4
Slo
ven
ia 21.9
Can
ada
22.0
Ice
lan
d 22.5
Irel
and
22.6
Hu
nga
ry 22.9
Est
oni
a 22.9Lithuania 23.1
Lat
via
24.9
Sw
ede
n
26.4
Ro
ma
nia
26.6
Slo
Cze
vak
ia 27.3
ch
Re
pub
Lux
lic 27.4
embourg 27.9
Fra
nce
27.9
Gre
ece
27.9
Pol
and
28.3
Ma
lta 28.4
Bu
lga
ria 32.5
Ital
y 36.5FinlaBelow averageSpl 15.0y 15.4

rwa

uga

No

Por
t

Au

Ge

rm

any

0

stri

14.2

5

a 14.7

10

AverageAbove average

2010

2006

Note: Estimates for Belgium and the United Kingdom are based on population weights for regional samples (excluding the Brussels region for
Belgium, and Northern Ireland in the case of the United Kingdom). The country average is unweighted. Missing countries: Australia, Chile, Cyprus,
Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Turkey and the United States.
Source: HBSC Study, various waves.

reliable measurement of thefull range of neuropsychiatricconditions affecting adolescentswould require more comprehensive
transnational surveys than exist
at present.
However, the HBSC survey
does provide a non-clinical,
self-reported measure ofadolescent mental health. Everyfour years, schoolchildren aged
11–15 in a range of countries are
asked how often they experienceeach of four symptoms: feelinglow, irritability, feeling nervous
and sleeping difficulties.
The results from 31 high-income
countries in 2014 are shown in
Figure 3.3.

There should always be an elementof caution around interpreting selfreported statistics, but an averageof around one adolescent in four
(23 per cent) reports experiencing
two or more psychologicalsymptoms more than once a week.
This ranges from the lowest
incidence of 14 per cent in Germany
to the highest of 36 per cent in Italy.
As in past surveys, girls are much
more likely to report symptoms
related to their mental health thanare boys, with the gap widening as
they become older.
The survey provides evidence thatreporting of mental health issues ison the rise in many high-income
countries: 15 of the 31 countries
surveyed saw a rise of more than

2 percentage points in self-reported
symptoms between 2010 and 2014,
with particularly large increases in
Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
Slovenia and Sweden.
A few countries, however, haveseen a reduction in the reportingof adolescent mental healthsymptoms. The positive resultsin Greece, Romania and Spain
continue a longer-term trend,
despite the recent economiccrisis – between 2006 and 2014,
the self-reported prevalence rate
has declined in those countries
by 7, 6 and 5 percentage
points, respectively.
There is a manifest need forstandardized, international data on

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

2 1

G O A L

3–

E N S U R E

H E A L T H Y

L I V E S

A N D

P R O M O T E

W E L L - B E I N G

Figure 3.4 Adolescent drunkenness has declined markedly since 2010
Percentage aged 11–15 who reported having been drunk in the previous month25

Per cent

20

15

10 Country average 2013/14: 6.9%

Ice
lan
d 1.7
Por
tug
al 4.0
Fra
nce
4.3
Ital
y 4.4
Sw
ede
Ne
n 4.4
the
rlan
ds 4.5
Sw
itze
rlan
d 4.5
Irel
and
Lux
4.8
em
bou
rg 5.3
Sp
ain
5.4
Gre
ece
5.8
Lat
via
6.4
Au
stri
a 7.0
Ge
rm
any
7.0
Ma
Un
ited
lta 7.1
Kin
gdo
m 7.2
Can
ada
7.2
Be
lgiu
m 7.2
Est
oni
a 7.4
Pol
and
7.5
Slo
ven
ia 7.8Slovakia 8.0
Ro
ma
Cze
nia
ch
8.0
Re
pub
lic 8.7
Lithuania 9.4Hunga
ry 10.5
Cro
atia
10.6
De
nm
ark
12.7
Bu
lga
ria 12.8

50Below average

AverageAbove average

2010

Note: 2014 data for Finland, Israel and Norway are excluded on account of high missing values. The 2010 data for Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland,
France, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Turkey are excluded on account of high missing values. Estimates for Belgium and the United
Kingdom are based on population weights for regional samples (excluding the Brussels region for Belgium, and Northern Ireland in the case of theUnited Kingdom). The country average is unweighted. Missing countries: Australia, Chile, Cyprus, Finland, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand,
Norway, Republic of Korea, Turkey and the United States.
Source: HSBC study, various waves.

adolescent mental health in highincome countries – as well as for
positive initiatives that can help
determine future policy to beshared. If left untreated, mental
health disorders that emerge priorto adulthood impose a ten-foldgreater health cost than those thatemerge later in life.14

Adolescent drunkenness is
becoming less common
Target 3.5 of the SDGs aims to“strengthen the prevention andtreatment of substance abuse,including … harmful use of alcohol”.
Although the official indicatorrelated to this focuses on adults,
drinking by children is a matter ofpublic concern in many high-income

2 2

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

countries – and drunkenness
among younger teenagers canconstitute “harmful use”, not least
because of the association withmedically treated injuries.15 The
HBSC survey provides data for alarge group of industrializedcountries.

incidence, Iceland. It is notable that
9 of the 11 countries with thehighest rates are in Central andEastern Europe. In contrast,
southern European nations
generally have rates of adolescentdrunkenness that are below
average.

Figure 3.4 shows the percentage ofschoolchildren aged between 11
and 15 in each country whoreported having been drunk in theprevious 30 days.

It is also striking that, in all thecountries with data for both years,
the incidence of adolescentdrunkenness declined between
2010 and 2014. In some countries,
the improvement was dramatic: in
Ireland, Spain and the United
Kingdom the rate more than halved.
Nevertheless, it remains important
to develop and maintain policies
that guard against harmful drinking
by adolescents.

There is substantial variation
between countries. In Bulgaria andDenmark in 2014, 13 per cent ofchildren had been drunk within thelast month – seven times the figure
for the country with the lowest

C A R D

1 4

G O A L

3–

E N S U R E

H E A L T H Y

L I V E S

A N D

P R O M O T E

W E L L - B E I N G

Figure 3.5 The teenage birth rate is falling in all high-income countries
Number of births per 1,000 females aged 15–19

Births per 1000 females aged 15-19

80
70
60
50
40
30
20

Country average 2015: 13.3%

10

Re
pu

blic

Sw

of
Ko
itze rearlandS
Ne loveniatherla
De nds
nm
ark
Jap
a
Cyp n
rus
Ice
lan
d
S
Lux wede
em
n
bou
r
g
No
rwa
y
Ita
Fin lyl
Ge and
rm
an
Au y
stri
Gre a
e
Be ce
lgiu
m
Sp
ain
Fra
nc
Cro e
atia
Isr
Por ael
tug
al
Cze
C
ch anadaRe
publ
Irel ic
Lith anduan
Est iaon
Pol ia
and
Lat
via
A
Un
ited ustra
Kin liagdomMa
Hu ltangary
Un Slova
ited
kia
S
Ne
w Z tates
eal
an
Tur d
Ro keyma
Bu nialga
ria
Ch
Me ile
xic
o

1.6
2.8
3.6
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.9
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.9
5.9
6.4
6.4
6.8
7.2
8.1
8.3
8.8
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.7
10.1
10.4
12.4
13.1
13.3
13.8
13.9
16.4
17.7
19.9
21.2
23.3
26.8
34.0
36.8
47.5
62.2

0

2015

2010

2005

Note: The country average is unweighted.
Source: OECD Family database, 2016 for Romania and Slovenia, and World Development Indicators 2016 for other countries.

Teenage birth rates are
falling fast
Adolescent birth rates havedeclined rapidly in many highincome countries in recent
decades. The issue remains ofsignificant concern, however, on
account of the high individual andsocial costs associated withteenage pregnancies and births.
Very young mothers face higher
mortality risks and birthcomplications, in addition to thelikely adverse impact on their own
economic opportunities. Preventing
early pregnancies can therefore
improve the life chances and healthprospects of two generations ofchildren.

Figure 3.5 tracks changes between
2005 and 2015 in the number ofbirths per 1,000 women aged 15–19
living in 41 high-income countries.
The lowest teenage birth rate isfound in the Republic of Korea, with
1.6 per 1,000, while five othercountries – Denmark, Japan, theNetherlands, Slovenia andSwitzerland – also have a rate of fouror under per 1,000. The highest rates
occur in the Latin American countriesof Chile and Mexico. The difference
between high-income countries on
this indicator is vast. Even leaving
aside the countries with the highest
rates, the adolescent birth rate in
New Zealand and the United States
is more than 13 times that in the
Republic of Korea.

Without exception, all countries
show a decline in the teenage birthrate between 2005 and 2015. The
progress has been particularlymarked in Iceland, which reduced
its rate by 63.5 per cent over that
period, but ten other countries
reduced their rates by over
40 per cent: Austria, Estonia,
Germany, Ireland, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Portugal, Switzerland,
the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates. In contrast, there has beenminimal recent progress in Slovakia
and Sweden, while the slow rate of
improvement in Bulgaria, Chile andRomania is of particular concern,
given the scale of the problem inthose countries.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

2 3

G O A L

4–

E N S U R E

I N C L U S I V E

A N D

E Q U I T A B L E

Q U A L I T Y

E D U C A T I O N

F O R

A L L

GOAL 4
Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education andpromote lifelong learning opportunities for all» Measures of basic competency in reading, mathematics and science literacy show that even in the bestperforming countries, one 15-year-old in five does not reach the level of basic competency.

» About 19 out of every 20 children have access to some kind of organized preschool provision one year before thestart of formal schooling. However, both the quantity and the quality of such services for children from the age of
3 vary substantially across countries.

Figure G4 – Inclusive education
Average country performance across two indicators: rates of children achieving baseline learning proficiency(15 years of age) and participation rates in the preschool year (age 3–6)
FinlandMalta
Republic of Korea
MexicoDenmark
Belgium
Germany
CanadaNorwayJapan
Switzerland
Spain
IrelandFranceNew ZealandSwedenNetherlands
Latvia
Italy
United Kingdom
Estonia
Czech Republic
Slovenia
Portugal
Luxembourg
Austria
IcelandIsraelLithuania
Hungary
PolandUnited States
GreeceCyprusSlovakia
Croatia
Chile
Bulgaria
Australia
Romania
Turkey
65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

Note: The data point for Turkey (2013/14) for participation rate in organized learning (one year before official age for entering primary school) is an
outlier; the data point is therefore excluded from the calculation of the results for Goal 4. Inclusion of those data would result in no change to theranking of Turkey on Goal 4.

2 4

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

G O A L

4–

E N S U R E

I N C L U S I V E

A N D

E Q U I T A B L E

Q U A L I T Y

E D U C A T I O N

F O R

A L L

Figure 4.1 Even in the highest-performing nations, around one child in five does not achieve baseline
educational standards
Percentage of 15-year-olds achieving baseline competency in reading, mathematics and science
100
90
80

Country average 2015: 68.6%

Per cent

70
60
50
40
30

40.7

45.5

47.0

48.0

56.7

59.2

59.5

62.6

63.8

64.6

65.2

65.2

66.4

66.6

69.4

69.7

70.0

70.3

70.8

71.0

71.6

71.7

71.7

71.9

72.6

73.3

74.6

74.9

75.5

75.7

76.7

77.2

77.9

79.3

80.8

81.4

Est

oni
a
Jap
an
Fin
lan
Can d
ada
Re
Ir
pub
lic elandofKo
De reanm
a
Slo rk
ven
ia
Pol
and
Ge
Ne rman
y
the
rlan
ds
No
Sw rway
itze
rlan
d
B
Ne elgiu
wZ
m
eal
and
Sp
Au ain
stra
lia
Un
Lat
ited
v
ia
Kin
gdo
Por m
tug
a
Cze Swe l
den
ch
Re
pub
lic
Fra
nce
Au
stri
a
Un
ited Italy
Sta
te
Ice s
Lux
la
em nd
bo
Lith urg
uan
ia
Hu
nga
ry
Cro
atia
Isra
Slo el
vak
i
Gre a
e
Bu ce
lga
ria
Ch
ile
Ro
ma
nia
Tur
key

0

82.4

10

83.1

20

Below average

AverageAbove average

2012

2006

Note: Data for 2015 and 2012 are compared to 2006 data, as this was the last time that science literacy was the main focus of the PISA tests; 2009
data are available for the majority of countries; 2006 results for the United States are not reported because of lack of data availability in reading.
Malta did not participate in PISA rounds 2006 and 2012. Data for Mexico are excluded due to low rates of enrolment. At the time of the PISA 2015
survey more than one in four Mexican students between the ages of 15-17 were out of school (26.7 per cent); children from the lowest income
quintile make up almost half (45 per cent) of non-attendees in this age group, see UNICEF (2016). ‘Niños y niñas fuera de la Escuela en México’,https://www.unicef.org/mexico/spanish/UNICEF_NFE_MEX.pdf. Some 35.9 per cent of the Mexican sample reached baseline educational standards
in 2015. The country average is unweighted. Missing countries: Cyprus, Malta and Mexico.
Source: OECD PISA survey, various waves.

Investing in children’s education is
key to any child-focused vision of
the Sustainable Development
Goals. Failure to achieve basic skills
in core subjects at each educational
level imposes a high cost on
individual children and on society
through school dropout, lower
productivity and wages, and higher
unemployment and inactivity.
Achieving universal proficiency infundamental skills ensures a fairer
chance in life for all children andyoung people.

Falling short of universal
competency at the end of
secondary school
The Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA) is atriennial survey that aims to evaluate
national education systems by
testing the skills and knowledge of
15-year-old students. Figure 4.1
compares 39 industrialized countries
on the proportion of their children
achieving at least minimum
proficiency (Level 2 or higher) inreading, mathematics and sciencein 2015. It is striking that no country,
no matter how wealthy or how longestablished its education system,
approaches universal competency inreading, mathematics and scienceamong its 15-year-olds.
The highest proportions – over
80 per cent – are achieved in
Canada, Estonia, Finland and Japan.

The only other countries with morethan 75 per cent of 15-year-olds
attaining the basic level acrossthree subjects are Denmark,Germany, Ireland, Poland, Republicof Korea and Slovenia. This is adiverse group of countries, but theirnational educational approaches
are evidently more successful thanothers in ensuring baseline
competency (proficiency Level 2 orhigher) – though still far fromuniversal.
At the other end of the spectrum,
less than half of the 15-year-olds
tested in Bulgaria, Chile, Romania
and Turkey achieved the requisite
minimum standard.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

2 5

G O A L

4–

E N S U R E

I N C L U S I V E

A N D

E Q U I T A B L E

Q U A L I T Y

E D U C A T I O N

F O R

A L L

Box 4 Measuring quality in earlychildhood education and care

SDG Target 4.2 emphasizes the importance of accessto high-quality early childhood education and care
(ECEC) as a means of achieving equity and transforming
lives through education. At the heart of this ambition is
the message that access to ECEC alone is insufficientto achieve positive child outcomes, and that ECEC
must also be of high quality. As a result, meeting Target
4.2 means developing methods to accurately measureand monitor quality standards in ECEC.i
As a minimum, measures of ECEC quality shouldcapture: (a) the system design and organization(structure) of services, including accreditation, staff–
child ratios, and health and safety regulations; (b)practice within ECEC settings (process), includinginteractions and relationships, the role of play, and theintegration of care and education; and (c) childoutcomes, including the child’s social, emotional,
mental, physical skills and benefits to family andcommunity.
For cross-national monitoring efforts, key considerations
include:

»

»

2 6

Monitoring ECEC quality in different contexts.
ECEC services in high-income countries vary
widely in terms of decentralization, curriculum andfunding structure. This means that a ‘one-size-fitsall’ solution to measuring quality and monitoringstandards is unlikely to be found.
The interplay between home environment andformal care. Quality ECEC settings are responsive

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

to the dynamic nature of children’s lives. The
child’s home learning environment and her/his
interaction with formal settings influences childoutcomes, and measures should be sensitive to
this.

»

What it means to be ‘ready for primaryeducation’ or ‘developmentally on track’. Quality
ECEC settings foster child development andrecognize children as active learners and capable
explorers of their environment. The concept of‘school readiness’, however, can be problematic if
it shifts the focus too far from how children learn
through play – vital in developing soft skills, suchas self-regulation and attentiveness – towards amore school-like pedagogy, emphasizing thedevelopment of ‘basic skills’ and literacy
outcomes.

Each country can ensure that the question of quality ishigh on the policy agenda by collecting data at the childlevel, identifying risks and barriers to positive childdevelopment, and ensuring that the system can
respond to the needs of both child and family. Suchefforts will link improvements in the quality of ECEC topolicy measures and enhance equity in access.
i
Bruckauf, Z. and Hayes, N. (2017). ‘Quality of Childcare and
Pre-Primary Education: How do we measure it?’ Innocenti
Research Brief 2017-13, UNICEF Office of Research –Innocenti, Florence.

G O A L

4–

E N S U R E

I N C L U S I V E

A N D

E Q U I T A B L E

Q U A L I T Y

E D U C A T I O N

F O R

A L L

Figure 4.2a More than nine out of ten children participate in organized preschool learning
Percentage participating in organized learning (one year before official age for entering primary school)100

Per cent

80

60

40

72.7

80.3

89.3

89.7

90.3

91.1

91.4

92.3

93.1

93.8

94.9

95.0

95.0

95.7

96.0

96.2

96.2

96.4

96.5

96.7

97.1

97.9

98.0

98.4

98.7

98.8

98.8

98.9

99.0

99.1

99.2

99.3

99.8

99.8

99.8

99.9

Ma

lta
Isra
el
Be
lgiu
m
Fin
lan
d
Fra
nce
Sp
ai
Me n
xic
Sw
o
itze
rlan
d
De
nm
ark
Re
pub Norw
lic
ay
of
Kor
ea
Ne
w Z Italy
eal
and
Sw
ede
Lux
n
em
bou
rg
Ice
lan
d
Lat
Lith viauaniaUnited Canad
a
Kin
gdo
m
I
Ne reland
the
rlan
ds
Por
tug
al
Jap
a
n
Hu
nga
ry
Ch
il
Gre e
ece
Slo
ven
ia
Bu
lga
ria
Cyp
rus
E
st
Un
ited onia
Sta
tes
Ro
ma
ni
Cro a
atia
Pol
a
Au nd
stra
lia
Tur
key

0

99.9

20

Country average 2014: 95.3%

2013/14

2010

2005

Note: Most recent data are for 2010 for Croatia, Estonia, Iceland and Switzerland. Data for Canada refer to adjusted net enrolment rate, one year
before the official primary entry age, both sexes (per cent). Missing countries: Austria, Czech Republic, Germany and Slovakia.
Source: SDG Indicators Global Database (UNESCO, OECD and EUROSTAT Surveys of Formal Education).

With the exception of Chile, these
are also the countries with thelowest per-capita national income inthe sample. However, it is evident
that some countries make much
more effective use than others of
the resources they have available:
the highest-performing nation of allon this measure, Estonia, has a percapita national income less thanhalf that of the four other countries
in the top five.
Some of the weakest-performing
nations are among those that madethe greatest progress on thisindicator in the nine years following
2006: Bulgaria, Israel and Romania
all showed substantial improvementof around 12 percentage points,
while Chile also improved; there

was little evidence of positivechange on this indicator in Mexicoand Turkey.

Almost all children have somepreschool provision
Target 4.2 of the SDGs aims to“ensure that all girls and boys haveaccess to quality early childhood
development, care and pre-primaryeducation so that they are readyfor primary education”. Early
childhood development is a driving
force for sustainable development
in all societies,16 and throughpublic investment in early careand education initiatives, a goodstart in life can benefit not only
millions of children today, but also
their communities and societies
in the future.

A growing body of evidence attests
to the long-term benefits of highquality preschool education andcare for children aged 3–5,
highlighting positive outcomes interms of education, health, jobs andreduced criminal behaviour.
Specifically, participation in suchpreschool programmes decreases
the likelihood of low educational
performance at the age of 15.
These effects seem to beparticularly positive for children
from disadvantaged backgrounds.17
Figure 4.2a indicates that almost all
children in high-income countries
are benefiting from some level oforganized learning one year before
they start school.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

2 7

G O A L

4–

E N S U R E

I N C L U S I V E

A N D

E Q U I T A B L E

Q U A L I T Y

E D U C A T I O N

F O R

A L L

Figure 4.2b Formal childcare attendance from 3 years is less prevalent in some countries
Percentage of children from 3 years to minimum compulsory school age attending centre-based services for atleast one hour a week
100
Country average 2014: 81.6%

Per cent

80

60

40

40

43

52

65

68

70

72

74

75

76

79

80

80

81

86

86

87

89

89

89

90

90

91

91

93

94

95

95

96

98

99

Ice

lan
d
Ma
lta
Be
lgiu
m
Fra
nce
De
nm
ark
Sw
ede
n
Est
oni
a
Sp
ain
Ital
y
No
rwa
y
Slo
ven
ia
Jap
an*
Ge
rm
any
Irel
and
Por
tug
Ne
al
the
rlan
ds
Au
stri
a
Hu
nga
ry
Fin
lan
d
Cyp
rus
Lith
uan
ia
Lat
Cze
v
ch
ia
Re
pub
lic
Slo
vak
Lux
ia
em
bou
rg
Bu
Un
lga
ited
ria
Kin
gdo
m
Sw
itze
rlan
d
Gre
ece
Ro
ma
nia
Pol
and
Cro
atia

0

99

20

Below average

AverageAbove average

2010

2005

Note: Missing countries: Australia, Canada, Chile, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Turkey, the United States.
*Confidence intervals for Japan are not available, this country is categorized as a higher performer based on the grouping of nearest comparators.
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC). Data for Japan from 2013 Comprehensive Survey of Living Standards, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.

On average, 95 per cent of children
across these countries benefit fromformal preschool provision,
although this measure does notaccount for hours used or thequality of provision (see Box 4:
Measuring quality in early childhood
education and care, page 26).
Despite recent increases in bothcountries, the rates in Australia andTurkey remain substantially lower:
between two and three out of every
ten children do not participate inpre-primary education.

produces a greater variety ofnational results, as Figure 4.2bshows. While nearly all children
over age 3 take part in centre-basedlearning or care for at least one
hour a week in Belgium, Icelandand Malta, less than half do so in
Croatia and Poland.

However, the data above cover only
the year before primary school,
which begins much later in somecountries than in others. Expanding
the age coverage to include all
children from the age of 3 onwards

2 8

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

G O A L

5–

A C H I E V E

G E N D E R

E Q U A L I T Y

A N D

E M P O W E R

A L L

G I R L S

GOAL 5
Achieve gender equality and empower all
women and girls» Around one woman in 16 in high-income countries reports having been sexually abused by an adult before theage of 15.

» Assumptions about gender roles communicated during childhood play a part in reproducing gender inequalities
later in life.

» In all countries with data, more girls than boys report daily participation in housework.
» On average, 14 per cent of adults in sample countries felt that higher education was more important for boys
than for girls, though there was a wide range of opinion – from 3 per cent supporting that idea in Sweden to
32 per cent in Turkey.

Few of the globally agreed
indicators included under Goal 5
have comparable child-focusedindicators that reflect genderinequalities in childhood. For otherindicators, there is a lack ofcomparable cross-country data.
Consequently, no composite tablehas been constructed from theindicators included under Goal 5.
Sustainable Development Goal 5
focuses on eliminating
discrimination on the basis ofgender, and on ending violenceagainst girls and women. In manyhigh-income countries, significant
progress has been made incombating overt discrimination on
the grounds of sex – sometimes
through legislation and sometimes
through changing social norms.
Indeed, for many child-levelindicators, such as education
outcomes, girls frequently

outperform boys. However, thisdoes not yet translate into equalityof outcomes in later life.

Gender equality requires an
end to violence against girls
Experience of any form of violencein childhood can inflict lifelong
damage – in both girls and boys (asrecognized by Goal 16). Goal 5
focuses specifically on genderequality, and thus prioritizes theending of all forms of violenceagainst women and girls, including
physical, sexual or psychologicalviolence. Figure 5.1 presents datafrom a 2012 survey undertaken by
the European Union Agency for
Fundamental Rights. The survey
asked women aged 18–29 whether
they had suffered sexual violencefrom an adult before the age of 15.
In surveys on subjects such as
sexual violence, some level ofunder-reporting is to be expected.

Unwillingness to report acts ofsexual violence can result from,among other factors, the traumaof recalling the experience, fearof blame or the stigma attachedto such violence. Differences inresults across countries may thus
in part reflect social climates thatare more or less conducive towomen speaking openly aboutsuch experiences. What is clear isthat sexual violence is experienced
by girls in all countries andappears widespread. Bringing theprevalence of the problem topublic notice is itself a step
towards countering such abuseand empowering girls. It should
be noted that sexual violence isalso perpetrated against boys; todate, however, limited data are
available on violence against boys
or on the differential experienceof girls and boys.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

2 9

G O A L

5–

A C H I E V E

G E N D E R

E Q U A L I T Y

A N D

E M P O W E R

A L L

G I R L S

Figure 5.1 Sexual violence by adults affects 6 per cent of European girls under the age of 15
Percentage of women aged 18–29 who reported having experienced sexual violence before the age of 151412

Per cent

108
6Country average 2014: 6.3%

4

1.9

nd 1.9
Gre
Cze
ece
ch
2.0
Re
pub
lic 2.0
Portug
al 2.6Slovakia 4.4Lithuania 4.6Slovenia 4.6
Au
stri
a 4.6
Hu
nga
ry 4.7
Lat
via
4.9
Cyp
rus
5.1
Ge
rm
any
5.2
Bu
lga
ria 6.0Ma
lta 6.1
Irel
and
6.2
Ital
y 6.6
Fin
lan
d 6.8
Sw
ede
n 8.2
Be
lgiu
m 8.4
De
nm
ark
9.7
Est
oni
a 9.8
Sp
ain
Ne
10.3
the
rlan
ds 11.1
Fra
Un
nce
ited
12.0
Kin
gdo
m 12.3Luxembourg 13.0

atia

Pol
a

Ro
m

Cro

ani

0

a 1.1

2

Below average

AverageAbove average

Note: Sexual violence was defined as: forced intercourse; unwelcome touching of breasts or genitals; being forced to pose naked; or the adultexposing their genitals. Missing countries: Australia, Canada, Chile, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea,
Switzerland, Turkey and the United States.
Source: FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, gender-based violence against women survey dataset, 2012.

Figure 5.2 Attitudes that reinforce gender inequality remain entrenched
Percentage of adult respondents agreeing that “university education is more important for a boy than for a girl”,
2010–201440
35
30

Per cent

25
20
15 Country average: 13.9%
10
5

of
blic

Tur
key 34.4
29.6

a 27.224.1
Kor
eo 22.219.2
xic

a 24.6
17.1
ani

Ro
m

ile 27.8
12.6
Ch

an 17.1
15.4
Jap

a 18.4
13.7
oni
Est

any 19.9
11.6
rm

Ge

nd 14.8
9.4

rus 19.2
9.0
Cyp

Me

Re
pu

Female respondentPolaain 11.8
11.5
Sp

ia 12.2
5.0
Slo

ven

7.4
5.7

Sta
ited

Un

eal
Ne
wZ

tes

7.4
3.7

rlan
Ne
the

Male respondent

and

7.0
2.6

stra
lia
Au

ds

5.0
3.1

n
Sw

ede

3.9
1.4

0

Note: Data refer to the current official release version v2016-01-01 of the World Values Survey. Respondents agree or strongly agree with thestatement. Circle on bars = male/female average.
Source: World Values Survey, 2010–2014.

3 0

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

G O A L

5–

Societal attitudes contribute tounequal outcomes for girls andboys
Gender differences persist in many
areas of life in rich, as well as inpoor countries. In most richcountries, women still lag wellbehind men when it comes to pay,
to holding managerial positions andto political representation at boththe local and the national level. In
terms of wage gaps, for example,
on average across the OECD,
women earn 15.5 per cent less thanmen;18 meanwhile, they hold only
27.9 per cent of seats in national
parliaments.19
Yet in terms of their attainment at
school and university, girls andA C H I E V E

G E N D E R

E Q U A L I T Y

A N D

E M P O W E R

A L L

G I R L S

young women consistently
outperform their male peers inhigh-income countries. As of 2013,55 per cent of all students in OECD
countries who graduated from ageneral secondary education
programme were girls and58 per cent of graduates with abachelor’s degree were women20 –but this is still not translating into
an advantage in the labour market.

notwithstanding the overall
progress made towards genderequality in high-income countries
over recent decades. For example,
the view that university education ismore important for boys than forgirls is still widely held in many
countries by both men and women,
as a study of 17 countries
conducted as part of the World
Values Survey revealed (Figure 5.2).

The gender gap in adult life istherefore not closely tracked byindicators of opportunity or
performance during childhood:instead, other factors play into thelater disadvantage of women.
These include gender norms andexpectations of gender roles thatpersist in most societies,

Wide variation is displayed here interms of social attitudes to gender.
The proportion of respondents whovalue male education over female isas high as one in five in Chile,
Romania and Mexico, is over one infour in the Republic of Korea, and isalmost one in three in Turkey.

Figure 5.3 Girls do more housework than boys at ages 8 and 12
Percentage point difference in girls’ and boys’ share of daily participation in housework by age, 2013/14
18
16
14
12
10
8
6

ited

Pol
a

nd

9.5

15.7

5.9

15.6

Kin

gdo

m

rwa 13.9
y
6.3
No

Un

Re
pub
Difference at age 8

12.3

12.2

a
oni
Est

Tur
key 9.2
13.7

8.7

6.7

nd

10.7

ani 6.2
a

Fin
la

of
lic

Ro
m

Kor
6.1
ea
0.3

5.9

5.3

lta
Ma

9.2

3.4

any 4.8
Ge
rm

Sp
ai

n

0

3.4

2

6.3
Isra
el
5.1

4

Difference at age 12

Note: In some countries, only one region or administrative area was sampled, as follows: Poland – Wielkopolska region; Spain – Catalonia; Turkey– Istanbul; United Kingdom – England.
Source: Children’s Worlds, the International Survey of Children’s Well-Being (ISCWeB).

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

3 1

G O A L

5–

A C H I E V E

G E N D E R

Such attitudes are likely to translate
into differential educational
opportunities and thus to unequal
gender outcomes in adult life.

Girls do more housework
Another factor inhibiting genderequality in adult life is women’s
disproportionate responsibility for
unpaid care and domestic work. In
most cultures, the assumption thatsuch work within the household isprimarily the responsibility ofwomen is learned early in life, as
children are socialized by example
and by expectation both within andbeyond the family home. The
International Survey of Children’s
Well-Being collects data based onchildren’s subjective perceptions of
their own lives. Children aged 8, 10
and 12 were asked: “How often do
you usually spend time helping
around the house when you are notin school?” The results appear in
Figure 5.3.
In the 12 high-income countries
included in the survey, about
52 per cent of children aged 8 said
that they helped with housework

3 2

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

E Q U A L I T Y

A N D

E M P O W E R

every day, while only 11 per centindicated that they did so rarely ornever. In all countries, more girls
than boys report participating inhousework on a daily basis, whileboys predominate among those
who say that they never or rarely
help. The gender difference isconsistent across all countries andall three ages. Although Mexico
was not covered by the survey,
national data for 2013 indicate thatin the age group 10 to 13,
74 per cent of girls are involved inhousehold work, compared with
64 per cent of boys.21
The nature of children’s housework
varies, depending on the socioeconomic and cultural context, andchildren’s contributions tohousehold chores are by no means
necessarily negative. However, theclear gap between boys’ and girls’
participation at the age of 8 does
seem indicative of the kind ofgender stereotyping that is
reproduced within families and thatcan reinforce gender inequalities
over the long term.

C A R D

1 4

A L L

G I R L S

G O A L

8–

P R O M O T E

F U L LA N D

P R O D U C T I V E

E M P L O Y M E N T

A N D

D E C E N T

W O R K

F O R

A L L

GOAL 8Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainableeconomic growth, full and productive employment
and decent work for all» An average of 1 young person in 13 in the countries surveyed is not in employment, education or training (NEET)– and the proportion is much larger in southern Europe and Latin America. Jobs for young people can redress
this lack of opportunities and improve the inclusion of young people.

» Around one child in ten lives in a household where no adult is employed; this rises to almost one child in five in
Ireland.

Figure G8 – Inclusive economic growth
Average country performance across two indicators: youth inactivity (NEET) rates (15–19 years) and children
living in jobless households (0–17 years of age)Japan
Switzerland
Luxembourg
PolandNorwayGermany
SwedenNetherlands
Slovenia
Denmark
CanadaRepublic of Korea
Czech Republic
Estonia
Finland
LatviaUnited States
Iceland
Slovakia
FranceCyprusIsraelAustralia
Austria
Romania
Portugal
Lithuania
Belgium
Malta
Italy
United Kingdom
GreeceHungary
New Zealand
Croatia
Spain
IrelandChile
Bulgaria
Mexico
70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

Note: The data point for Turkey for the proportion of youth (aged 15–19) not in employment, education or training in 2014 is an outlier, and so is
excluded from the calculation of the results for Goal 8. The inclusion of the outlier would result in Turkey ranking 41st on Goal 8.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

3 3

G O A L

8–

P R O M O T E

F U L LA N D

P R O D U C T I V E

E M P L O Y M E N T

A N D

D E C E N T

W O R K

F O R

A L L

Figure 8.1 Among young people aged 15-19 around 1 in 13 is not in school or work
Percentage of youth (aged 15–19) not in employment, education or training (NEET rate)
40
35
30

Per cent

25
20
15
10

Country average 2014: 7.1%

5

Lux Japa
n 2.0
em
bou
r
g
G
2.4
Cze
e
ch rmany 2.9
Repu
De blic 3.2
nm
ark
3.5
N
Ne orwa
the
y 3.5
rlan
ds 3.6Lat
via 3.8
Pola
Sw nd 4.0
ede
n 4.3
Slo
Sw venia
itze
4.6
rla
Be nd 4.7
lgiu
m 5.4
Fin
lan
Ice d 5.5laSlo nd 5.5vak
Por ia 5.7
tu
Hu gal 6.1
nga
Est ry 6.8
oni
a 7.0
C
a
Ne
w Z nada 7.1
ealaAu nd 7.1
stral
Au ia 7.2
Un
ited stria 7.2
Sta
te
Re
pub
Cyp s 7.6
licr
us 7.6ofKor
ea 7.7Israel 7.8Un
ited FranKin ce 7.9
gdo
m 8.4
Irel
a
Ro nd 9.1
man
Gre ia 10.4
ece
10.5
Ma
lta 10.8
Ital
y 11.2Spa
Cro in 12.1
atia
12.5
Ch
Bu ile 12.7
lgar
Me ia 14.1
xic
o 15.3Tur
key 21.0

0

2014

2010

2005

Note: According to the International Labour Organization definition, students in work-study programmes are considered to be both in educationand employed, irrespective of their labour market status. Reported 2014 data for Republic of Korea and Chile refer to 2013; reported 2010 data for
Chile refer to 2009. Missing country: Lithuania.
Source: OECD Family Database, 2016. Data for Japan: Statistics Bureau, Labour Force Survey 2015.

Any strategy for achieving
sustainable economic development
has to include opportunities foryoung people to engage inproductive employment that will
provide them with a decent
livelihood. A key measure of acountry’s success in delivering suchopportunities is the proportion ofyoung people not in employment,
education or training (NEET). HighNEET rates are unhealthy – not justfor the young people themselves,
but also for society as a whole.
Young people not in education or inwork are not developing their skills
or their confidence, and may be at
higher risk of social isolation,

3 4

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

involvement in risky behaviour andpoor mental and physical health.22
The official SDG indicator (8.6.1) isthe share of youth aged 15–24 notin employment, education ortraining. Since the focus in thisreport is on children, Figure 8.1
reports on the situation ofadolescents aged 15–19.
Around 1 in 13 of this age group in
high-income countries is NEET. In
general, the highest rates occur insouthern Europe and Latin America,
and the lowest in Northern andCentral Europe. Turkey’s young
people are worst affected, with 1 in
5 in this category.

C A R D

1 4

NEET rates have fallen in mostcountries over the past decade. In
some, the improvement has been
spectacular: Israel reduced its
NEET rate by more than two thirds
between 2005 and 2014, bringing it
down to the international average.
Cyprus has cut its rate by morethan half, and Turkey has also mademassive strides, though it still has
the highest rate among all OECD
countries.
However, there has been asignificant worsening of thesituation in some other countries,
with NEET rates doubling between
2005 and 2014 in both Ireland andPoland. Estonia, France and theG O A L

8–

P R O M O T E

F U L LA N D

P R O D U C T I V E

E M P L O Y M E N T

A N D

D E C E N T

W O R K

F O R

A L L

Figure 8.2 Around one child in ten lives in a household where no one works for pay
Percentage of children under 18 in jobless households (based on self-defined economic status of adults)
25

Per cent

20

15

10 Country average 2014: 9.0%

18.8

16.0

16.0

14.3

14.0

14.0

13.4

12.9

11.6

11.6

10.4

10.3

10.1

9.8

9.7

9.4

9.0

8.5

8.2

8.2

8.1

7.9

7.8

6.8

6.4

6.3

6.1

6.0

6.0

5.8

5.6

5.5

4.2

4.2

4.0

2.9

Jap
an
Re Switz
pub
erla
lic
nd
of
Kor
e
Can a
ada
Pol
an
No d
rwa
y
Sw
ed
Ro en
Lux maniaembUnited ourg
Sta
te
Est s
oni
a
Slo
ve
Ne
the nia
rlan
ds
Ge
rm
any
Fra
nce
De
nm
ar
Fin k
lan
d
Cyp
rus
Isra
el
Ice
lan
d
Slo
vak
ia
Au
stri
a
It
Lith aly
uan
ia
Cze
M
alta
ch
Re
pub
lic
Lat
via
Por
tug
a
Gre l
ece
Be
lgiu
m
Un
ited Croat
ia
Kin
gdo
m
Bu
lga
ria
Sp
Ne
w Z ain
eal
a
Hu nd
nga
ry
Irel
and

0

2.1

5

Below average

AverageAbove average

Note: Reported 2014 data for Republic of Korea and New Zealand refer to 2015; for USA they refer to 2013; and for Israel and Japan – to 2012.
Mexico’s data are excluded on account of high rates of informality in the labour market. Missing countries: Australia, Chile and Turkey.
Source: See Figure 1.1.

United States have also seen their
NEET rates rise, albeit on a moremodest scale.
Another key indicator related toGoal 8 is adult unemployment.
Growing up in a household where
no adult works has been linked to agreater risk of experiencing income
poverty,23 and poorer child wellbeing outcomes in areas oflearning, bullying, and notably being
NEET.24 Figure 8.2 shows the
proportion of children living inhouseholds where nobody has apaid job.

Ireland. Around one child in seven
lives in a jobless household in
Bulgaria, Hungary, New Zealand,
Spain and the United Kingdom.

The results range from 2 per cent ofchildren in Japan to 19 per cent in

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

3 5

G O A L

1 0–

R E D U C E

I N E Q U A L I T Y

W I T H I N

A N D

A M O N GC O U N T R I E S

GOAL 10
Reduce inequality within and among countries» Considerable inequalities remain in high-income countries. In two thirds of countries, the entire bottom
40 per cent of households with children have less income than the top 10 per cent.

» In most countries, the incomes of the poorest 10 per cent of the population have fallen further behind those at
the median since 2008.

» These inequalities are at their most extreme in Bulgaria and Mexico, and at their least severe in Iceland andNorway.

» Economic disadvantage undermines equal opportunities: in every country studied, 15-year-olds from better-off
families achieve substantially better educational results than their less-advantaged peers.
Figure G10 – Reduce inequality
Average country performance across three indicators: Palma ratio (0–17 years of age), ‘bottom-end’ inequality(0–17 years) and impact of socio-economic status on student performance (15 years)
Iceland
NorwayDenmark
Finland
CyprusUnited Kingdom
Switzerland
IrelandGermany
Slovenia
SwedenNetherlands
Austria
CanadaLuxembourg
Republic of Korea
Australia
Croatia
Belgium
Italy
Malta
TurkeyPolandSlovakia
LatviaNew ZealandPortugal
Spain
Estonia
Hungary
Czech Republic
Japan
Lithuania
FranceUnited States
GreeceChile
Romania
IsraelBulgaria
Mexico
75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

Note: One data point for Mexico is an outlier and has been excluded from the calculation of the results for Goal 10 (2014, Palma ratio based onhouseholds with children). The inclusion of the outlier would result in no change for Mexico.

3 6

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

125

G O A L

1 0–

R E D U C E

I N E Q U A L I T Y

W I T H I N

A N D

A M O N GC O U N T R I E S

Figure 10.1 In most countries, the income share of the top 10 per cent exceeds that of the bottom 40 per centPalma ratio based on households with children, 2014 and 2008
3.0
2.5

Palma Ratio

2.0

1.5
Country average 2014: 1.17
1.0

Ice
la
No nd
rwa
y
Sw
ede
Fin n
lan
Re
pub Slov d
eni
lic
a
o
Ne f Kore
the
a
rlan
Be ds
lgiu
Au m
s
De tria
nm
ar
Fra k
nce
S
Cze
l
ch ovakiaRepu
Ge blic
rm
an
Cyp y
ru
Cro s
atia
Ma
lta
Jap
Hu an
Sw ngaryit
Lux zerlan
em
d
bou
rg
Un
ited Irela
Kin nd
gdo
Can m
A ada
Ne ustra
wZ
li
eal a
and
Pol
and
Ital
Est y
o
Por niatugaSp lLith ainua
Ro niamania
UnLited atvia
Sta
te
Gre s
ece
Bu
lga
ria
Isra
e
Tur l
key
Ch
Me ile
xic
o

0.0

0.70
0.74
0.76
0.81
0.82
0.83
0.83
0.85
0.86
0.86
0.94
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.02
1.05
1.06
1.06
1.07
1.10
1.12
1.12
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.35
1.36
1.46
1.50
1.56
1.61
1.64
1.64
1.73
1.77
1.89
2.21
2.80

0.5

2014

2008

Note: The Palma ratio is the ratio of the income share of the top 10 per cent and the bottom 40 per cent of the population in an income distribution.
A value of 1.0 indicates that the income of the top 10 per cent is the same as that of the bottom 40 per cent. Values above 1.0 show that the shareof the top 10 per cent is bigger, and values below 1.0 indicate that it is smaller. Values below 1.0 therefore suggest lower levels of inequality.
Source: See Figure 1.1.

Income inequality affects children
in many ways. Recent evidence
suggests that children growing up
in countries with less equality tend
to have worse outcomes in
education, health and life
satisfaction.25 Moreover, incountries with higher income
inequality, children’s family income
plays a larger role in determining
their access to educational
opportunities and resources.
One of the key SDG indicators on
inequality uses the Palma ratio,
which measures the income shareof the bottom 40 per cent of the
population relative to the top
10 per cent. Figure 10.1 looks at
this relationship for householdswith children in 41 high-income
countries. This is a child-focused
adaptation of the Palma ratio,
where a value of 1.0 indicates thatthe income share of the top
10 per cent of the population is
the same as that of the bottom
40 per cent. A value of less than
1.0 indicates that the bottom
40 per cent receives a bigger
share of income than the richest
10 per cent; conversely a value
greater than 1.0 indicates that thebottom 40 per cent receives asmaller share.
The lowest ratio is found in Iceland,
where there has been a marked
narrowing of the gap between the
top 10 per cent and the bottom
40 per cent of households withchildren since the financial crash of
2008. The consequent reduction in
the income of the richest group hastaken Iceland’s Palma ratio tobelow even the other Nordic
countries of Finland, Norway andSweden. Other countries where thegap between the richest and poorest
segments of the population has
narrowed are the Netherlands,
Portugal, Romania and the United
Kingdom, whereas it has widened
significantly in Australia, Estonia,
Greece, Hungary, Slovakia and Spain.
The highest levels of inequality bythis measure are to be found in
Latin America, in Chile and Mexico,
though inequality is also well above
the international average in
Bulgaria, Greece, Israel, Latvia,
Turkey and the United States.

Taking account of the poorest
10 per centIn the spirit of the SDGs, whichseek to leave no one behind, thisreport includes an additional
indicator that focuses on thepoorest children. In Report Cards 9
and 13, UNICEF tracked how far

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

3 7

G O A L

1 0–

R E D U C E

I N E Q U A L I T Y

W I T H I N

A N D

A M O N GC O U N T R I E S

Figure 10.2 In most countries, the poorest 10 per cent of households with children have fallen further behindthe median income since 2008
Relative income gap between median income and that of the bottom 10 per cent of households with children,
2014 and 2008
80
70
60

Per cent

50

Country average 2014: 51.2%

40
30
20

Ice
la
No nd
Sw rwayitzerl
De andnma
Fin rkland
N Aus
Un ether tria
itedla
Kin nds
gdo
m
Ge
rm
any
Irel
an
Fr d
L
Re uxem ancepub
lic bourg
of
Kor
e
Cyp a
r
u
s
Cze Austrch
Re aliapub
licS
Ne wed
wZ
en
eal
and
Ma
Slo ltave
Be nia
lgiu
Hu m
nga
Can ry
ad
Pol a
and
Ch
Slo ilevak
Cro iaLith atia
uan
i
Tur a
Un
ited key
Sta
tes
Lat
via
Jap
an
Ital
Est y
o
Por niatug
Gre al
ece
Isra
e
Sp l
a
Me in
x
Ro icoma
Bu nia
lga
ria

0

34.2
37.1
38.5
38.6
39.0
41.9
42.3
42.3
43.0
44.0
44.1
44.6
44.6
44.9
45.2
45.7
46.6
46.7
49.2
49.2
49.5
50.6
51.6
52.2
52.8
53.7
53.7
56.6
56.8
58.9
59.7
59.8
60.3
61.1
62.4
63.2
64.6
65.0
65.7
67.4
71.1

10

Below average

AverageAbove average

2008

Note: Relative income gap (‘bottom-end inequality’) is measured as the gap between household income of a child at the 50th percentile (themedian) and that of a child at the 10th percentile, reported as a percentage of the median. Data for Chile are for 2015.
Sources: See Figure 1.1.

behind the median income thebottom 10 per cent of householdswith children were falling. Figure10.2 shows the position of suchhouseholds in 2014, as well aschanges since 2008.
In this and the previous indicator,
Iceland leads the way. A childfrom a family in the 10th percentile
in Iceland is closer to the national
median than the equivalent childin any other country. The strong
improvement in their relative
position since 2008 is not,however, because the incomesof the poorest 10 per cent ofhouseholds have risen (in fact,
they have shrunk); rather it is

3 8

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

because median income has
declined even more.26

children, in addition to focusing
on the bottom 40 per cent.

In 23 of the countries for which
there are data, the poorest children
were even further behind the
median income in 2014 than they
were in 2008. There is particularcause for concern in Estonia,
Greece, Hungary, Italy, Portugal,
Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain,
where the poorest 10 per cent ofchildren are in a substantiallyworse position. In Portugal, this is
despite the fact that the Palma
ratio improved between 2008 and2014. This goes to show theimportance of tracking the positionof the poorest 10 per cent of

Socio-economic backgroundaffects achievement

C A R D

1 4

The adverse impacts of inequalityof opportunity can last a lifetime.
One way in which this plays out isthrough the impact of socioeconomic status on students’
educational achievement. Evidence
suggests that children’s family
backgrounds cause their paths todiverge early in life, even before
they start school.27
The Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA) has
developed a broad measure ofG O A L

1 0–

R E D U C E

I N E Q U A L I T Y

W I T H I N

A N D

A M O N GC O U N T R I E S

Figure 10.3 Socio-economic advantage leads to better school results in all 39 countries studied
The score-point difference in reading, mathematics and science associated with a one-unit increase in the ESCS
index
60

Score point difference

50
40

Country average 2014: 38.1

30
20

56.3

52.1

47.1

46.4

46.3

45.7

44.4

43.7

43.6

42.3

42.1

42.0

41.8

41.6

41.4

39.7

39.4

38.8

38.5

38.5

38.4

37.9

37.7

36.4

35.5

35.3

35.0

33.3

32.9

32.0

31.9

31.8

31.4

31.1

30.5

29.9

27.4

26.6

Tur
key
Sp
ain
Lat
v
Ice ia
lan
Por d
tug
al
Un
ited Italy
Sta
tes
Ch
i
Est leo
De nianm
aCan rk
ada
Gre
ec
No e
rwa
y
L
Un
ited ithuan
ia
Kin
gdo
m
Irel
a
Ro nd
ma
ni
Cro a
atia
Pol
a
Slo ndve
Ge nia
rm
an
Fin y
lan
Sw
d
itz
Lux erlan
d
em
bou
rg
Isra
e
Jap l
Sw an
ed
Slo en
vak
ia
Au
stra
l
i
a
B
Ne ulgari
the
a
rlan
ds
Ma
lta
Ne Austr
wZ
i
eal a
a
Be nd
lgiu
m
Re
pub Hungar
lic
Cze of K yoch
Re rea
pub
li
Fra c
nce

0

20.6

10

Below average

AverageAbove average

2012

2006

Note: All values are statistically significant. US 2006 data are not available, as there are no data on reading. Data for Mexico are excluded due tolow rates of enrolment. At the time of the PISA 2015 survey more than one in four Mexican students between the ages of 15-17 were out of school(26.7 per cent); children from the lowest income quintile make up almost half (45 per cent) of non-attendees in this age group, see UNICEF (2016).
‘Niños y niñas fuera de la Escuela en México’, https://www.unicef.org/mexico/spanish/UNICEF_NFE_MEX.pdf. Socio-economic advantage led to a
19.8 score-point difference in Mexico in 2015. Data on the ESCS index are missing for Austria in the 2012 round. Missing countries: Cyprus and
Mexico.
Source: OECD PISA survey, various waves.

socio-economic background – theeconomic, social and cultural status(ESCS) index. It is derived from fiveindices: parental education,
occupational status of parents,
family wealth, cultural possessions(art objects and classical literature)and educational resources. Figure10.3 shows the association between
a one-unit increase in the ESCS
index and students’ results acrossthe three subjects of reading,mathematics and science. A higher
value indicates that socio-economic
background has a greater impact on
students’ achievement.

The results are both remarkable andconsistent. Students aged 15 fromadvantaged backgrounds in socioeconomic terms achieved better
results in the three core subjects in2015 than their less-advantaged
peers across all 39 industrializedcountries studied. On average
across the OECD countries, theperformance difference associatedwith a one-unit increase in the PISAESCS index is equivalent to morethan one year of schooling.
The biggest impact of all is found inFrance, where a one-unit increase in
the ESCS index is associated withan average improvement across thethree subjects of 56 score points,

the equivalent of almost two years’
schooling.
At the other end of the range,
Turkey is the country where socioeconomic background has least
influence on school results – in part
because there was a smaller
variation in academic performance.
The influence of socio-economic
background on educational
performance is persistent overtime. However, between 2006 and2015, big improvements in equity
were made in Chile, Germany andTurkey, while France, Finland andparticularly the Republic of Korea
moved in a more inequitabledirection.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

3 9

G O A L

1 0–

R E D U C E

I N E Q U A L I T Y

W I T H I N

A N D

A M O N GC O U N T R I E S

Box 5 Looking through the migration
lens: including every childWithin Goal 10 on reducing inequality, Target 10.7 aims
to “facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible
migration and mobility of people, including through theimplementation of planned and well-managed
migration policies”.
Around 50 million of the world’s children have been
uprooted, either across borders or within their own
countries. One refugee in every two is a child. In
Europe, one asylum application in four is from a minor.
These children may be migrants, refugees, internallydisplaced or stateless. First and foremost, however,they are children – no matter where they come from or
who they are. States have a shared responsibility and alegal obligation to protect displaced children. The
extent to which displaced children are protected fromabuse and deprivation depends on how well migration
is managed, on how migrant children are integrated
into society and on their access to necessary services.
In the European context, national responses to therecent inflow of children seeking sanctuary in Europe
were swift, using whatever resources wereimmediately available. While significant attention has
been given to children on the move, the sheer number
and scale of the increasing influx of children has
resulted in enormous stress on European sociopolitical and economic systems. Despite the ratificationof relevant international treaties and many examples ofgood practice in individual countries, there are chronic
deficiencies in all European Union members’ migration,asylum and child-rights structures, systems andservices that impede their ability to provide supportand services for children in need. Access to services
varies and shifts according to children’s asylum status
and/or place in the migration process, and somegroups – such as unaccompanied minors – tend to beprioritized over others.
UNICEF’s study ‘Children on the Move’ (2016) offers an
overview of the policy and practice environment
affecting refugee and migrant children across Europe.
The review covers the legal entitlements of various
categories of children on the move: asylum seekers,
unaccompanied minors, undocumented migrants,
refugees or those subject to return proceedings.
Access to education, health and social services arebasic entitlements that should be provided to all
children on the move, irrespective of their legal status.

Basic education is a fundamental right guaranteed to
all children. Despite this, ‘Children on the Move’demonstrates that the quality, type and amount ofeducation varies according to the legal status of thechild, rather than according to her/his actual
educational needs. Similarly, according tointernational law and the CRC, children in the
migration pathway should have access to appropriate
healthcare; yet in practice, entitlement to general
healthcare services is quite restricted. Access tosocial assistance is also restricted for migrantchildren, as all EU Member States require a valid
residence permit before social security payments canbe made. This policy automatically disadvantages
undocumented and irregular migrants.
The table below highlights some of the most severe
instances of lack of legal entitlements for migrant
and refugee children in European countries. Practicalobstacles, combined with limited support measures,mean that these children are frequently
disadvantaged, leaving them at risk of poverty.
Undocumented migrant children excluded fromschooling
Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania
No specific maternity-care provision for migrants
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland
and Slovakia
Undocumented migrant children only entitled toemergency healthcare
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Lithuania, Luxembourg and
Slovakia
Source: UNICEF CEE/CIS (2016). ‘Children on the Move’ is an
ongoing study of legal entitlements for migrant children.
Developed from data provided in Byrne, K. (2016, on file withauthors) ‘Law, Policy and Practice Affecting Refugee andMigrant Children in Europe’.

In order to meet SDG Target 10.7, which guarantees
safe, regular and responsible migration for every
child, it is necessary to break the link between
entitlements and legal status for children on themove, and to provide services on the basis of theirrights and needs. Protection of Europe’s borders andprotection of children are not mutually exclusive.

Source for this box: Toczydlowska, E. and D’Costa, B. (2017). ‘Migration and Inequality: Making policies inclusive for every child’,
Innocenti Research Brief 2017-14, UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti, Florence; UNICEF CEE/CIS (2016). ‘Children on theMove’, an ongoing study of legal entitlements for migrant children. Developed from data provided in Byrne, K. (2016, on file withauthors) ‘Law, Policy and Practice Affecting Refugee and Migrant Children in Europe’.

4 0

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

G O A L

1 1–

M A K EC I T I E S

I N C L U S I V E ,S A F E ,R E S I L I E N T

A N D

S U S T A I N A B L E

GOAL 11Make cities and human settlements inclusive,
safe, resilient and sustainable» Half of all high-income countries studied fail to meet the safe levels for urban air quality established by the World
Health Organization; children are especially vulnerable to such pollution.

» The average level of urban air-pollution concentration for the group of countries studied exceeds the safety
threshold.

Figure G11 – Make cities safe
Average country performance on one indicator: annual average concentrations of fine particle pollution (PM2.5µ)in urban areas, weighted by proportion of child population living in urban areas (0–19 years of age)
Ireland
NorwayAustralia
Estonia
FinlandSwedenPortugal
Iceland
New Zealand
Slovakia
Croatia
Romania
United States
United Kingdom
MexicoSpain
PolandAustria
CanadaDenmark
Hungary
CyprusFranceGermany
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Switzerland
GreeceTurkeyItaly
Luxembourg
Malta
Japan
Netherlands
Chile
Belgium
Israel
65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

Note: Missing countries: Latvia, Lithuania, Republic of Korea and Slovenia. The data point (2013) for Korea for annual average PM2.5
concentrations in urban areas, weighted for child population, is an outlier and has been excluded from the calculation of the results for Goal 11.
The inclusion of the outlier would result in the Republic of Korea ranking 38th on Goal 11.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D1 4

4 1

G O A L

1 1–

M A K EC I T I E S

I N C L U S I V E ,S A F E ,R E S I L I E N T

A N D

S U S T A I N A B L E

Figure 11.1 Children’s health is threatened by high levels of air pollution
Annual average PM2.5µ concentrations per cubic metre for 2013, 2010 and 2005 in urban areas, weighted byproportion of child population (0–19) living in urban areas
30

PM2.5 concentrations

25
20
15
10

Country average 2013: 10.7

24.8

23.5

18.1

16.4

14.9

14.8

13.4

13.2

12.7

12.3

12.3

12.1

11.8

11.7

11.4

11.1

10.7

10.7

10.0

9.7

9.5

9.3

9.2

9.0

8.9

8.8

8.3

7.9

7.9

7.4

6.8

6.2

6.2

5.9

5.8

5.3

4.8

Irel
an
No d
rwa
y
Au
stra
lia
Est
oni
Fin a
lan
d
Sw
ed
Por entugal
Ne Icelan
wZ
d
eal
and
Slo
vak
i
Cro a
a
Ro tiama
Unni
Un ted S ia
ited
tate
s
Kin
gdo
m
Me
xic
o
Sp
ain
Pol
an
Au d
stri
Can a
ada
De
nm
ark
Hu
nga
r
Cyp y
rus
Fra
nce
Ge
rm
an
Cze Bulg y
aria
ch
Re
pub
Sw
itze lic
rlan
Gre d
ece
Tur
key
Lux
Ital
y
em
bou
rg
Ma
lta
Ne Japa
n
the
rlan
ds
Ch
Be ile
lgiu
m
Re
pub
lic Israel
of
Kor
ea

0

4.8

5

2013

2010

2005

Note: Data are weighted to account for the child population (aged 0–19) living in urban settings, according to the most recent United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) figures, the population for 2013 is the average of the 2010 and the 2015 reports (data reported every five years).
Urbanization rates on average across the country groups were 73.8 per cent in 2005, 74.9 per cent in 2010 and 75.4 per cent in 2013. Data for Latvia
in 2010 were 7.9, and for 2005 – 8.0. For Lithuania data for 2010 were 9.1, and for 2005 – 9.5. Data for 2013 missing for both Latvia and Lithuania.
Missing countries: Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia.
Source: Brauer et al. (2016). ‘Ambient Air Pollution Exposure Estimation for the Global Burden of Disease 2013’, Environmental Science andTechnology, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 79–88; UNDP (2017). ‘Urban and Rural Population by Age and Sex, 1980–2015’. Available at: nin.tl/UNDP2017

Making cities sustainable and safefor human habitation will involve
reducing the levels of air pollutionthat currently afflict the inhabitants ofmany urban areas.
Children are particularly susceptible
to air pollution, because they breathein more air per unit of body weight
than adults. Their lungs are especiallyvulnerable to damage from suchpollution both while developing in thewomb and during the first years oflife, while studies indicate thatultrafine particles can do permanent
damage to children’s brain tissue.28
In addition, nearly 600,000 children
under the age of 5 die annually from
diseases caused or exacerbated by
the effects of air pollution globally.29
Outdoor play and exercise can domore harm than good in heavily
polluted environments.

4 2

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

The official SDG indicator formonitoring air pollution is 11.6.2,
which measures annual mean levelsof fine particulate matter in cities.
Figure 11.1 shows the annual
average levels of air pollution in 38
OECD and EU countries, measured
in concentrations of PM2.5µ. This isparticulate matter with a diameter ofless than 2.5 microns – so fine that it
is able not only to penetrate inside
the lungs, but also to enter the
bloodstream, causing a variety ofhealth problems.30 The data havebeen weighted to take account of the
proportion of children in each country
living in urban areas.
The World Health Organization has
established a safe level of air qualityof below 10 micrograms of PM2.5
per cubic metre. Of the 38 countries
included in the sample, nearly half do

C A R D

1 4

not meet this standard, while theinternational average is just over thesafe level. Levels of air pollution weremore than twice the safe level in theurban areas of Israel and theRepublic of Korea. Children in Belgian
cities faced the highest levels of air
pollution in Europe.
One source of encouragement is thatair quality improved between 2005
and 2013 in almost all the highincome countries studied: theexceptions were Denmark, Iceland
and New Zealand, where there was
no improvement, and Canada andTurkey, where there was adeterioration. The biggest
improvements over this period wereseen in Malta, Mexico and Spain,with the United States also making
significant progress.

G O A L

1 2–

E N S U R E

S U S T A I N A B L E

P R O D U C T I O N

A N D

C O N S U M P T I O N

P A T T E R N S

GOAL 12
Ensure sustainable consumption andproduction patterns» Young people in high-income countries are largely aware of today’s environmental challenges: an average of
62 per cent of 15-year-olds are familiar with at least five of a set of seven key environmental issues.

» Young people are most aware of air pollution and the extinction of plants and animals, and least familiar withgenetically modified organisms and nuclear waste.

Figure G12 – Ensure sustainable consumption
Average country performance on one indicator: students familiar with five or more environmental issues (15 yearsof age)PortugalSlovenia
TurkeyEstonia
Lithuania
CanadaBulgaria
IrelandUnited Kingdom
PolandFinland
LatviaNorwayCroatia
Italy
Spain
GreeceAustralia
Denmark
United States
SwedenRepublic of Korea
Hungary
Czech Republic
France
Chile
Iceland
Luxembourg
Slovakia
Austria
Switzerland
Belgium
Netherlands
IsraelNew ZealandJapan
Romania
70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

Note: Missing countries: Cyprus, Germany, Malta and Mexico.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D1 4

4 3

G O A L

1 2–

E N S U R E

S U S T A I N A B L E

P R O D U C T I O N

A N D

C O N S U M P T I O N

P A T T E R N S

Figure 12.1 The majority of 15-year-olds in the OECD countries are aware of at least five environmental issues
Percentage of 15-year-old students familiar with, or knowing something about, five or more environmental issues
90
80
70

Country average 2015: 62.1%

Per cent

60
50
40
30

38.3

44.4

49.7

53.0

53.5

55.2

56.0

57.3

57.6

57.6

57.9

58.3

58.4

58.5

58.6

60.1

60.6

61.0

61.7

62.6

62.7

63.4

64.5

64.6

65.4

66.2

66.3

66.8

67.8

70.1

71.0

71.0

72.3

72.6

73.0

Por
tug
Slo al
ven
ia
Tur
key
Est
o
Lith nia
uan
i
Can a
ada
Bu
lga
ria
Un
ited Irelan
d
Kin
gdo
m
Pol
and
Fin
lan
d
Lat
via
No
rwa
Cro y
atia
Ital
y
Sp
ai
Gre n
e
Au ce
stra
lia
D
Un enma
ited
rk
Sta
t
e
s
Re
pub Swe
den
lic
of
Kor
ea
Cze Hun
gar
ch
y
Re
pub
lic
Fra
nce
Ch
ile
I
Lux celandembou
Slo rg
vak
i
Au a
st
Sw
itze ria
rlan
d
Be
l
g
i
Ne
the um
rlan
ds
Isra
Ne
wZ
e
eal l
and
Jap
Ro an
ma
nia

0

75.8

10

82.0

20

Below average

AverageAbove average

Note: Germany is excluded on account of a high rate of missing values. Mexico is excluded due to low rates of enrolment in upper-secondary
school at the time of the PISA 2015 tests (65 per cent) – see UNICEF (2016). ‘Niños y niñas fuera de la Escuela en México’, p.29:
https://www.unicef.org/mexico/spanish/UNICEF_NFE_MEX.pdf. However, in Mexico in 2015, 60 per cent of 15-year-old students werefamiliar with, or knew something about, five or more environmental issues. Missing countries: Cyprus, Germany, Malta and Mexico.
Source: OECD PISA survey 2015.

For SDG 12, indicator 12.8.8 is themost directly relevant to children andyouth, since this measures the levelof environmental awareness among
15-year-old students as they
approach the end of secondary
education. It is a plausible
assumption that the greater is young
people’s understanding ofenvironmental problems andhumans’ impact on nature, the morethey will be able to contribute to
global progress towards
sustainability.

4 4

the increase in greenhousegases in the atmosphere

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

use of genetically modified
organisms (GMOs)»»

nuclear waste»»»

air pollution

the consequences of clearing
forests for other land use
extinction of plants and animals
water shortage.

Figure 12.1 compares the results
across 37 countries.

The 2015 PISA asked students if they
were familiar with, or could explain
well, each of the following seven key
environmental problems:»»

On average, 62 per cent of students
are at least familiar with five or moreenvironmental issues. Portugal
stands out, with 82 per centawareness; in a further sevencountries, more than seven students
in ten have this level of knowledge:
Bulgaria, Canada, Estonia, Ireland,

C A R D

1 4

Lithuania, Slovenia and Turkey. At the
opposite end of the scale, in Japan,
New Zealand and Romania, less than
50 per cent of students are thisaware.
Some issues are more widely
recognized than others. In general,
air pollution had the highest level ofrecognition, with around 83 per centof students having some knowledgeof it, followed by the extinction ofplants and animals (79 per cent). The
issues with which they were leastacquainted were the use of GMOs
(42 per cent) and nuclear waste(55 per cent). Awareness of theeffects of greenhouse gases fell inthe middle, with 65 per cent ofstudents able to explain the problem.

G O A L

1 6–

P R O M OT E

P E A C E F U L

A N D

I N C LU S I V ES O C I E T I E S

F O R

S U S TA I N A B L E

D E V E LO P M E N T

GOAL 16
Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable
development, provide access to justice for all and build
effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels» All high-income countries have to address high rates of violence affecting children, as they seek to develop
peaceful and inclusive societies.

» Rates of child homicide are far higher in the Americas than in Europe – in Mexico the rate is nine times theaverage for the countries examined, while in the US it is four times the average.

» At least one child in ten in countries surveyed regularly experiences bullying, with the incidence particularly highin the Baltic States.

» On average, one woman in five reports having suffered physical violence from adults before the age of 15.
Figure G16 – Promote peace and justice
Average country performance across two indicators: homicide rates (0–19 years of age) and bullying rates(11–15 years)
Iceland
Italy
GreeceSpain
SwedenCzech Republic
Switzerland
Japan
IrelandDenmark
Croatia
Malta
Slovenia
Netherlands
Germany
United Kingdom
Hungary
Australia
Luxembourg
PolandFranceTurkeyRepublic of Korea
Romania
IsraelSlovakia
Portugal
Austria
Finland
NorwayLithuania
Belgium
New Zealand
Bulgaria
Estonia
CyprusCanadaLatviaChile
United States
55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

Note: Missing country: Mexico. One data point (2014) for Lithuania has been excluded (children aged 11–15 who had experienced bullying at least
twice in the past month); one data point for Mexico (2012/13) has been excluded (child homicide rate: deaths of children aged 0–19 by intentional
assault per 100,000). These are outliers, and their inclusion in calculating the results for Goal 16 would result in Lithuania ranking 39th and Mexico
ranking 41st.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

4 5

G O A L

1 6–

P R O M OT E

P E A C E F U L

A N D

I N C LU S I V ES O C I E T I E S

F O R

S U S TA I N A B L E

D E V E LO P M E N T

7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Country average 2012/13: 0.65 per 100,000

5.98

2.66

1.91

1.23

0.90

0.84

0.78

0.76

0.66

0.62

0.55

0.52

0.48

0.46

0.43

0.42

0.38

0.38

0.37

0.32

0.32

0.31

0.28

0.27

0.26

0.25

0.24

0.21

0.20

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.17

0.13

Ma
Lu
l
Un xemb ta (20
ited
13)
our
g
Kin
gdo (2012Sw
itze m (20 )rlan
1d (2 2)Au
stri 012)a
Jap (2013an)(2
Ital 012)y (2Irel
and 011)Sp (2011
ain
)
(2
Pol
and 012)
(20
Cro
12
at
Por ia (20 )
tug
12)
a
Fra l (201
nce
2)
(2
Cze Germ
any 010)chRe
pub (2012)li
Est c (20
12)
oni
a
Sw
(20
ed
11
Hu en (20 )
nga
12)
ry
Be
lgiu (2012
Ne
)
m
the
rlan (2011ds)
De
nm (201
2)
ark
Au
stra (2011)
lia
Roma (2010
nia)Bu
lga (2011
ria
)
(2
Tur
key 011)
Re
(
201
pub
Lat
2)
via
lic
of
(
Kor 2011
ea)Isra (2012
)
e
Lith
l
uan (2012
)
ia (
201
F
in
Ne
2)
w Z land (2eal
and 012)
(20
Cyp
10)
ru
Can s (2011)
ad
No a (20
rwa
10)
y (2
012
Un
C
)
ited hile
(20
Sta
12)
tes
(20
Me
1
xic
o (2 2)
012
)

0.01

0
0.00

Child homicide rates (per 100,000 population)

Figure 16.1 The Americas have high rates of child murderChild homicide rate (deaths of children aged 0–19 by intentional assault per 100,000)

2012/13

2010

2006

Note: Mexico is excluded from the composite League Table, as it is an outlier with a child homicide rate over three standard deviations higher thanthe country average as reported here. Figures are three-year averages around the year in brackets. Earlier estimates are averages for the three
years preceding. Country average is unweighted. Missing countries: Greece, Iceland, Slovenia and Slovakia.
Source: WHO mortality database, 2016.

The first official SDG indicator
under Goal 16 is 16.1.1, which
tracks the rate of intentional
homicides per 100,000 people.
Figure 16.1 adapts this to show thenumber of children murdered in 37
high-income nations.
While the international average forthe countries included is 0.65
deaths per 100,000 population, thisconceals an extraordinary variation.
Of course, even the murder of one
child is unacceptable, but rates arevery low indeed in most European
countries, and the international
average would also be much lower
were it not for the much higher
child homicide rates in three

4 6

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

countries of the Americas: Chile,
the United States and Mexico. In
Chile and the United States, childmurder rates are respectively
around three and four times theaverage for high-income countries;
these rates have declined slightly
since 2009. In Mexico, by contrast,
the rate has risen from under 3 per
100,000 in 2006 to almost 5 in 2009
and to 6 in 2012/13, a trend thatcan be attributed to the rise inviolence related to illegal druggangs over that period.
The highest child homicide rate inEurope is in Norway, where therising trend between 2006 and the

C A R D

1 4

most recent year available should
also give cause for concern.
Although the massacre on Utøya
Island of 22 July 2011 must haveaffected the 2012 figure, the trend
was already rising between 2006
and 2009.

Bullying: everyday violence
Most children in high-income
countries are more likely toexperience violence on an everyday
basis in the form of bullying.
Bullying has recently been thefocus of a UN General Assembly
resolution and a report from the
Office of the UN Special
Representative of the Secretary-

G O A L

1 6–

P R O M OT E

P E A C E F U L

A N D

I N C LU S I V ES O C I E T I E S

F O R

S U S TA I N A B L E

D E V E LO P M E N T

Figure 16.2 More than one child in ten in rich countries experiences chronic bullying
Percentage of children aged 11–15 who had experienced bullying at least twice in the past month30
25

Per cent

20
15
Country average 2014: 10.8%

10

29.2

22.7

16.6

15.1

15.0

14.7

13.9

13.3

12.7

11.6

12.0

11.3

a

ce

Lux
e

Fra
n

Pol
and
mb
our
g
Por
tug
al
Be
lgiu
m
Au
stri
a
Can
ada
Bu
lga
ria
Est
oni
a
Lat
via
Lith
uan
ia

10.9

Ro
m

ani

10.5

m

Kin

Un

ited

Slo

gdo

10.3

ia

10.0

nd

Fin
la

vak

9.5

el

Isra

9.3

ry

Hu

nga

8.4

any

Ge

rm

8.3

ia

Slo

Ne

the

ven

8.1

7.9

ds

7.6

atia

rlan

6.6

and

Irel

lta

6.4

y

No

Ma

6.3

ece

Below average

Cro

5.5

ark

Cze

ch

De

rwa

5.3

blic

Re
pu

Gre

5.2

ain

Sp

nm

4.6

y
Ital

4.5

d

Ice

Sw

ede

0

lan

n

5

AverageAbove average

2010

2006

Note: Chronic bullying refers to when children have experienced bullying two or more times in the previous month. Data for 2014 are not available
for Switzerland. Countries missing from HBSC in 2014 include Turkey and the United States. Estimates for Belgium and the United Kingdom arebased on population weights for regional samples (excluding the Brussels region for Belgium, and Northern Ireland in the case of the United
Kingdom). Data for Japan, which records 14.3 per cent of 10–12-year-olds and 13–15-year-olds who report having been “lightly bumped or hit or
kicked while pretending to play (more than 2 or 3 times a month)”, are available from the Japanese National Center for Research on Education‘2013–15 Bullying Follow-up Survey’, but are not included in the comparison above. Missing countries: Australia, Chile, Cyprus, Japan, Republic ofKorea, Mexico, New Zealand, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States.
Source: HBSC study, various waves.

General on Violence against
Children. The report makes it clearthat bullying includes violence of anemotional and psychological, as
well as of a physical kind. It links
experiences of bullying to ill-health,
low self-esteem, poorer educational
outcomes, depression andthoughts of suicide.31 Figure 16.2
gives some indication of the scaleof the problem, showing the
proportion of children aged 11–15
who reported having experienced
bullying at school two or moretimes a month.
An average of around one child innine experiences regular andrepeated bullying. However, theoverall average conceals significant
differences between countries.
While chronic bullying in Sweden
and Iceland affects less than
5 per cent of children, Lithuania has
a startlingly high rate of
29.2 per cent, and its Baltic
neighbours, Estonia and Latvia,
have the next highest incidence. In
Estonia, the rate of bullying has atleast declined since 2006, though
the biggest improvement over thisperiod has been in Greece, where
the chronic bullying rate declined
from 22.9 per cent in 2006 to
6.4 per cent in 2014.

Stopping adult violence againstchildrenTarget 16.2 aims to end abuse,
exploitation, trafficking and allforms of violence against andtorture of children. All of these
forms of violence against children
exist in high-income countries,
which are all too often the end
destination for children trafficked
into prostitution or other forms of
exploitation. In the absence ofmore detailed comparative data,
Figure 16.3 shows the results of asurvey by the European Union
Agency for Fundamental Rights thatreflects the levels of adult physical

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

4 7

G O A L

1 6–

P R O M OT E

P E A C E F U L

A N D

I N C LU S I V ES O C I E T I E S

F O R

S U S TA I N A B L E

D E V E LO P M E N T

Figure 16.3 One girl in five under the age of 15 experiences physical violence from adults
Percentage of women aged 18–29 who reported having experienced physical violence before the age of 15
45
40
35

Per cent

30
25

Country average 2012: 21.2%

20
15

44.6

40.0

34.9

31.8

30.9

30.2

30.0

25.9

Slo

vak

24.7

n
ede

Sw

ia
Lat
via
Bu
lga
ria
Fra
nce
Lux
em
bou
rg
Fin
lan
d
Est
oni
a

ch
Cze

Ge

24.0

23.7

Average

Re
pu

22.9

l

any

Below average

atia

21.9

uga

Cro

20.5

ark

De

rm

19.6

a

ry

Hu

Por
t

18.0

stri

nm

16.2

y

m

Kin

nga

16.1

Ital
Un

ited

Au

15.7

a

ain

gdo

15.3

ani

Ro
m

Sp

12.8

ia

m

Be

lgiu

12.7

Lith

uan

12.2

and

Irel

11.7

ece

Gre

11.3

lta
Ma

9.5

nd

Pol
a

8.4

ia

rus

Cyp

8.0

rlan
the
Ne

Slo

0

ven

ds

5

blic

10

Above average

Note: Physical violence was defined as: hair-pulling, slapping, hitting, kicking, beating or stabbing. Missing countries: Australia, Canada, Chile,
Iceland, Israel, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States. Insufficient country coverage
to include in calculation of Goal 16.
Source: FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, gender-based violence against women survey dataset, 2012.

violence against girls aged under
15. Women aged 18–29 were asked
if, before the age of 15, they had
experienced violence from an adult,
such as hair-pulling, slapping,hitting, kicking, beating or stabbing.
Figure 5.1 used corresponding
questions about past experiencesof sexual violence.
The rate of such violence is lowest
in the Netherlands and Slovenia,
where 8 per cent of women
recalled being assaulted duringchildhood, and is highest in Estonia(45 per cent) and Finland(40 per cent). The nature of thesurvey reflects national experience

4 8

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

over a long period – at least two
decades. However, it is interesting
to note that Finland, which has ahigh rate of reported physicalviolence, was one of the first
European countries to ban corporalpunishment (in 1983), while thenation with the lowest incidence,
Slovenia, has only recently (inOctober 2016) passed legislationprohibiting it in the home.32
The inclusion here only of girls is aconsequence of data availability,
rather than because physicalviolence or corporal punishment isdirected more at girls than boys. Ifanything, the limited international

C A R D

1 4

evidence suggests that boys are
marginally more likely to suffer
corporal punishment.33 The
experience of such violence is not
only a violation of all children’s
rights, but can also be extremely
damaging, increasing the chancesof domestic violence occurring inlater life.34

G O A L

1 6–

P R O M OT E

P E A C E F U L

A N D

I N C LU S I V ES O C I E T I E S

F O R

S U S TA I N A B L E

D E V E LO P M E N T

Box 6 How national averages hide thevulnerable: the example of indigenous children

Values of non-discrimination and inclusion lie at theheart of the Agenda for Sustainable Development,
reflected in its central promise of “leaving no one
behind”. National averages, however, conceal formsof vulnerability, often rendering invisible the mostdisadvantaged and excluded children. These may
include indigenous children, Roma, undocumented
migrants, children with disabilities or those outside
family care. This box focuses on one such group, bypresenting selected statistics on indigenous children
from four geographically diverse countries (Australia,
Canada, Mexico and Norway).
Goal 1: End Poverty Indigenous children face rates
of poverty higher than the national average. In 2010,38 per cent of all Aboriginal children (First Nations,
Inuit and Métis) in Canada lived in income poverty,
compared to 17 per cent of non-indigenous children.
Further disaggregation by identity shows that half thechildren of Status First Nations in Canada lived inpoverty. In Mexico, 78.6 per cent of children andadolescents in indigenous households and 90.8 percent of those who spoke an indigenous language
were in poverty in 2014. This compared with 50.7 percent of non-indigenous children and adolescents.
Goal 3: Health and Well-being Indigenous children
perform poorly on many health and well-being
indicators. In 2011, 11 per cent of Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander babies in Australia were bornwith low birthweight – more than twice the proportionof non-indigenous babies. Data collected in 2014
showed that adolescent birth rates among the Sami
people of Norway were more than double the national
average. Aboriginal children in Canada experiencehigher rates of injury, suicide, obesity, infant mortality
and health conditions, such as tuberculosis.

Goal 4: Quality Education Despite progress in many
countries, closing the education gap between
indigenous and non-indigenous children remains achallenge. According to a 2015 Australian
government report, Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children continued to lag behind their nonindigenous peers in reading and numeracy, with low
attendance being one of the critical factors behind
this achievement gap. Language is a factor in low
school attendance, and preschool programmes havean important role to play in supporting indigenous
languages. For instance, in 2015, around half of the
1,000 Sami children enrolled in Norwegian preschool
were in Sami-language kindergartens. Yet official
statistics on the language of children leaving
kindergarten do not include the Sami language.
The SDG agenda is a window of opportunity to bringa dramatic change to the lives of not just indigenous
children and youth, but all excluded children. In
efforts to improve data collection, attention should be
paid to the specific need for data on such groups,
recognizing their particular cultural and linguistic
contexts and ensuring respect for their rights. Suchdata and monitoring can support a stronger national
focus on policy responses for inclusion and equity.
Source: Richardson, D., Bruckauf, Z., Toczydlowska, E. and
Chzhen, Y. (2017). ‘Comparing Child-Focused SDGs in HighIncome Countries: Indicator development and overview’,
Innocenti Working Paper 2017-08, UNICEF Office of Research– Innocenti, Florence.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

4 9

C O N C L U S I O N–

B U I L D I N G

T H E

F U T U R E

BUILDING THE FUTURE
Conclusion

All the world’s countries came
together in 2015 to draw up aroadmap to the more equitable,
inclusive and healthy world they
aspired to reach by 2030. This
Report Card delivers a child-centred
assessment of where high-income
nations stand at the start of thisjourney towards sustainable
development. It compares theperformance of 41 OECD and EU
countries on 25 indicators, focusing
on the goals and targets most
relevant to children in high-income
countries and adapting the global
indicators according to theavailability of cross-country data.
There are many positive stories
within these pages. The vast
majority of high-income countries
have seen declines in the rates ofneonatal mortality, adolescentsuicide, teenage births anddrunkenness. Nearly all preschool
children engage in organizedlearning one year before the startof compulsory schooling. Youngpeople show a high level ofenvironmental awareness nearly
everywhere. Child homicide rates
are almost universally low.
Yet high-income countries are still
far from delivering for their children
the vision held out by the SDGs.
Income inequality is growing,adolescents’ mental health isworsening and child obesity is
increasing. Not a single country
does well on all indicators or has
shown positive trends on all fronts.
Although countries have moved
forward in unison on some

5 0

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

indicators, there are still gulfs
between them in other areas.
Countries differ most in their rates
of child poverty and food insecurity,
though there is also significant
variation in the rates of adolescentsuicide and chronic bullying.
National income levels are far fromexplaining all of these differences:for example, Slovenia is far aheadof much wealthier countries on
many indicators. This demonstrates
that government policies andpriorities matter if children are to
make sustained progress. Countries
that rank high in the league tableon reducing inequality also tend toscore well on ending poverty,
ensuring healthy lives, quality
education and inclusive economies.
Based on the evidence collated inthis Report Card, UNICEF calls forhigh-income countries to takeaction in five key areas.

»

Put children at the heart ofequitable and sustainable
progress

Improving the well-being of allchildren today is essential forachieving both equity andsustainability. Advances on each of
the child-centred indicatorspresented in this Report Cardshould reinforce progress in others.
Policies that reduce gaps inmaterial well-being, health andeducation among children today
will translate into a reduction in
inequalities in adult life andcontribute to the well-being of
future generations of children. The
younger generation will spearhead

C A R D

1 4changes in norms that are key toattaining the goals of genderequality, peaceful societies andenvironmental sustainability. The
surest route for countries to attainthe aspirations laid out in the
Agenda for Sustainable
Development is to place children at
the centre of their policy priorities.

»

Leave no child behind

National averages often conceal
extreme inequalities and the severe
disadvantage of groups at thebottom of the scale. Some children
are left so far behind that they may
be missing from available data:
those that are undocumented, outof school or in institutional care, toname but a few. Data-collection
efforts should aim to be as
inclusive as possible, and besensitive to children who may
regularly be left out or who areinvisible to official statistics. The
data available should also allow for
disaggregation by key individual
characteristics. A first step towards
future equality and sustainability is
to identify those at the greatest riskof falling behind.

»

Improve the collection ofcomparable data, including
on violence against children,
early childhood development,
migration and genderThis Report Card has revealed thatinternationally comparable statistics
on high-income countries arelacking in four key SDG areas:
violence against children, earlychildhood development, migration

C O N C L U S I O N

and gender. In the first two areas,rich countries lag behind their lowerincome peers, which tend to collectthese data via internationallycomparable household surveys.
Some of the most urgent childrights violations in high-income
countries relate to migration – andthe SDG framework challenges
all countries to respect the rights
of all children, irrespective of theirmigration status. Yet appropriate
indicators that measureperformance in this domain arelacking. Finally, given that girls
tend to do better than boys on
many childhood indicators, there
is a paucity of data reflecting theprocesses that lead to women’s
disadvantage in the labour market
and under-representation in
public life.

»

»

–

B U I L D I N G

T H E

R E P O R T

C A R DF U T U R E

Honour the commitment
to global sustainable
development

The overarching SDG frameworkengages all countries in a global
endeavour. High-income countries
are accountable not only for theirown performance in pursuing thegoals, but also for theircommitments to global
environmental sustainability anddevelopment assistance – on which
the present and future well-being ofchildren worldwide unquestionably
depends.

Use these rankings to help
tailor policy responses tonational contexts

This Report Card shows that nocountry does well on all indicators ofwell-being for children covered here,
and all countries face challenges inachieving these child-focusedtargets within the framework of the
SDGs. The league table presented inthis report indicates which countries
come closest to achieving childfocused targets for each goal, andmay allow other countries to craft
policy responses that areappropriate to their own contexts.
The rankings are to be read as aninvitation to national discussions onwhat the appropriate policy
responses should be.

I N N O C E N T I

1 4

5 1

References

1. Calculating the z-score involves
establishing the difference between areported value and the mean, and thendividing it by the standard deviation.
Before averaging, indicator z-scores arereordered so that higher values represent
more positive outcomes. Statisticaloutliers are excluded before the z-score is
calculated; these are noted beneath eachchart, as appropriate.
2. See, for example: UNICEF (2004). The
State of the World’s Children 2005:
Childhood under threat, UNICEF, New
York, p. 17; Hackman, D.A. and Farah,
M.J. (2009). ‘Socioeconomic Status andthe Developing Brain’, Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 65–73.
3. Heckman, J.J., Pinto, R. and Savelyev,
P. (2013). ‘Understanding the Mechanisms
through which an Influential Early
Childhood Program Boosted Adult
Outcomes’, American Economic Review,
vol. 103, no. 6, pp. 2052–2086.
4. For consistency with other indicatorsand countries in this report, incomerelated measures in Goals 1 and 10 for theUnited States were calculated using themost recently available micro-data at thetime of study (CPS/ASES 2014 in the
Luxembourg Income Study). A 2014
estimate of relative child income poverty
in the United States using the more recent
CPS/ASES 2015, reports a 2.7% fall in thepoverty rate compared to the estimate
reported in Figure 1.1 to 26.7% (Wimer
and Smeeding (2017) ‘USA Child Poverty:
The Impact of the Great Recession’ inCantillon et al. (eds.) Children of Austerity:
Impact of the Great Recession on Child
Poverty in Rich Countries, Oxford: Oxford
University Press). Sensitivity tests showthat the inclusion of the new poverty
estimate would not change the position of
the United States in Figures 1.1, G1, or the
League Table as presented in this report.
5. UNICEF-CONEVAL (2015). Pobreza yderechos sociales de niñas, niños yadolescentes en México, 2014, UNICEF
México. https://www.unicef.org/mexico/
spanish/MX_Pobreza_derechos.pdf

5 2

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

6. Chzhen, Y., Bruckauf, Z. andToczydlowska, E. (2017). ‘Sustainable
Development Goal 1.2: Multidimensionalchild poverty in the European Union’,
Innocenti Working Paper 2017-07, UNICEF
Office of Research – Innocenti, Florence.
7. The data were gathered for the EU
Statistics on Income and Living Conditions
survey (EU-SILC).
8. Chzhen, Y., Bruckauf, Z. andToczydlowska, E. (2017). ‘Sustainable
Development Goal 1.2: Multidimensionalchild poverty in the European Union’,
Innocenti Working Paper 2017-07, UNICEF
Office of Research – Innocenti, Florence.
9. OECD (2011). Health at a Glance
2011: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/health_glance2011-en
10. National Institute of Public Health(Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública)(2016). Encuesta Nacional de Salud y
Nutrición (ENSANUT), México.
11. Joseph, K.S., Liu, S., Rouleau, J., et al.
(2012). ‘Influence of Definition Basedversus Pragmatic Birth Registration on
International Comparisons of Perinatal andInfant Mortality: Population-based
retrospective study’, BMJ, 344, p. e746.
12. OECD Family Database 2016.
https://www.oecd.org/els/family/
CO_1_3_Low_birth_weight.pdf
13. Beautrais, A.L. (2003). ‘Suicide andSerious Suicide Attempts in Youth: A
multiple-group comparison study’,American Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 160,
no. 6, pp. 1093–1099; Bridge, Jeffrey A. et
al. (2006). ‘Adolescent Suicide and Suicidal
Behavior’, Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry, vol. 47, no. 3/4, pp. 372–394.
14. Lee, F.S. et al. (2009). ‘Adolescent
Mental Health – Opportunity andObligation: Emerging neuroscience offers
hope for treatments’, Science, vol. 346, no.
6209, pp. 547–549.

C A R D

1 4

15. Pickett, W. et al. (2005). ‘Cross National
Study of Injury and Social Determinants in
Adolescents’, Injury Prevention, vol. 11, no.
4, pp. 213–218; De Looze, M.E. et al. (2012).
‘Early Risk Behaviors and Adolescent Injury
in 25 European and North American
Countries: A cross-national consistent
relationship’, Journal of Early Adolescence,
vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 101–122.
16. Britto, P. R., Yoshikawa, H., and Boller,
K. (2011). ‘Quality of Early Childhood
Development Programs in Global Contexts:
Rationale for investment, conceptual
framework and implications for equity’,Social Policy Report, vol. 25, no. 2.
17. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., etal. (2011). ‘Pre-School Quality and
Educational Outcomes at Age 11: Low
quality has little benefit’, Journal of Early
Childhood Research, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 109;
Bennett, J. (ed.) (2012). ‘Early Childhood
Education and Care (ECEC) for Children
from Disadvantaged Backgrounds:
Findings from a European literature review
and two case studies’, Study
commissioned by the Directorate Generalfor Education and Culture. Brussels,
European Commission.
18. OECD Gender Data Portal.
https://www.oecd.org/gender/data/
genderwagegap.htm
19. OECD (2015). ‘Women in Politics’, in
Government at a Glance 2015, OECD
Publishing, Paris. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.
org/docserver/download/4215081ec024.pd
f?expires=1481047228&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=CA5E2150EEDEA8EC1DBCEE74CD02BBB6
20. OECD (2016) ‘Is the Gender Gap inHigher Education Widening?’
http://oecdeducationtoday.blogspot.co.uk/
2016/01/is-gender-gap-in-highereducation.html
21. National Institute for Geography
and Statistics (2014). Encuesta Nacionalde Ocupación y Empleo, Modulo deTrabajo Infantil 2013, Mexico.
http://www.beta.inegi.org.mx/proyectos/
enchogares/regulares/enoe/

22. European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions (2012). ‘Young People Not in
Employment, Education or Training:
Characteristics, costs and policy
responses in Europe’, Dublin; Bell, D. andBlanchflower, D. (2011). ‘Young People and
the Great Recession’, Oxford Review of
Economic Policy, vol. 27, no. 2,
pp. 241–267.
23. OECD (2011). Doing Better for
Families, OECD Publishing, Paris.
24. Schoon, I. et al (2012).
‘Intergenerational Transmission ofWorklessness: Evidence from theMillennium Cohort and the Longitudinal
Study of Young People in England’,
United Kingdom Department for Education
Research Report DFE-RR234.
http://natcen.ac.uk/media/134300/intergenerational-transmission.pdf
25. UNICEF Office of Research (2016).
‘Fairness for Children: A league table ofinequality in child well-being in richcountries’, Innocenti Report Card 13,
UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti,
Florence.
26. ibid.
27. See: Bradbury, B., Corak, M.,
Waldfogel, J., et al. (2015). Too Many
Children Left Behind: The US achievement
gap in comparative perspective, Russell
Sage Foundation, New York; Blanden, J.
and Machin, S. (2010). ‘Intergenerational
Inequality in Early Years Assessments’, in:Hansen, K., Joshi, H., and Dex, S. (eds),
Children of the 21st Century: The first five
years, Policy Press, Bristol; Brooks-Gunn,
J. and Duncan, G.J. (1997). ‘The Effects ofPoverty on Children’, The Future ofChildren: Children and Poverty, vol. 7, no.
2, pp. 55–71; Waldfogel, J. (2013).
‘Socio-Economic Inequality in Childhood
and Beyond: An overview of challenges
and findings from comparative analyses ofcohort studies’, Longitudinal and Life
Course Studies, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 268–275.

28. UNICEF (2016). Clear the Air forChildren: The impact of air pollution on
children, UNICEF, New York, p. 6.
29. ibid.
30. World Health Organization (2016).
Ambient Air Pollution: A global
assessment of exposure and burden of
disease, WHO, Geneva. http://who.int/phe/publications/air-pollution-globalassessment/en/
31. UN Special Representative of theSecretary-General on Violence against
Children (2016). Ending the Torment:
Tackling bullying from the schoolyard to
cyberspace, New York. http://srsg.
violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/
files/2016/End%20bullying/bullyingreport.
pdf
32. Global Initiative to End All
Corporal Punishment of Children (2016).
‘Country Report for Slovenia’.
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/
progress/country-reports/slovenia.html
33. Lansford, J.E., Peña Alampay, L.,
Al-Hassan, S., et al. (2010). ‘Corporal
Punishment of Children in Nine Countries
as a Function of Child Gender and Parent
Gender’, International Journal of
Pediatrics, 672780. https://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2952896/
34. FRA – European Union Agency for
Fundamental Rights (2014). Violenceagainst Women: An EU-wide survey, p.
132. http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/
fra-2014-vaw-survey-main-results-apr14_
en.pdfI N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

5 3

Data Sources – the Background Papers

The original research for this report,
including further methodologicalexplanations, can be found in the
Innocenti Working Papers and Innocenti
Research Briefs detailed below andavailable at www.unicef-irc.org
Bruckauf, Z. (2017). Adolescents’ Mental
Health: Out of the shadows. Evidence on
psychological well-being of 11–15-yearolds from 31 industrialized countries,
Innocenti Research Brief 2017-12, UNICEF
Office of Research – Innocenti, Florence.
Bruckauf, Z. and Chzhen, Y. (2017). Is
University Education More Important for a
Boy than for a Girl? Social approval ofunequal educational opportunity across
21 countries, Innocenti Research Brief
2017-11, UNICEF Office of Research –Innocenti, Florence.
Bruckauf. Z. and Cook, S. (2017).
Child-centred Approach to the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) in Highincome Countries: Conceptual issues andmonitoring approaches, Innocenti
Working Paper 2017-06, UNICEF Office of
Research – Innocenti, Florence.

of Childcare and Pre-primary Education.
How do we measure it? Innocenti
Research Brief 2017-13, UNICEF Office of
Research – Innocenti, Florence.
Bruckauf, Z. and Rees, G. (2017).
Children’s Involvement in Housework: Is
there a case of gender stereotyping?
Evidence from International Survey ofChildrens’ Well-Being (ISCWeb), Innocenti
Research Brief 2017-17, UNICEF Office of
Research – Innocenti, Florence.
Chzhen, Y., Bruckauf, Z. andToczydlowska, E. (2017). Sustainable
Development Goal 1.2: Multidimensionalchild poverty in the European Union,
Innocenti Working Paper 2017-07, UNICEF
Office of Research – Innocenti, Florence.
D’Costa, B. and Toczydlowska, E. (2017).
“Not Refugee Children, Not MigrantChildren, But Children First”: Lack of asystematic and integrated approach,
Innocenti Research Brief 2017-15, UNICEF
Office of Research – Innocenti, Florence.

Bruckauf, Z. and Hayes, N. (2017). Quality

5 4

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

Richardson, D., Bruckauf, Z.,
Toczydlowska, E. and Chzhen, Y. (2017).
Comparing Child-focused SDGs in
High-income Countries: Indicator
development and overview, Innocenti
Working Paper 2017-08, UNICEF Office of
Research – Innocenti, Florence.
Toczydlowska, E. and D’Costa, B. (2017).
Migration and Inequality: Making policies
inclusive for every child, Innocenti
Research Brief 2017-14, UNICEF Office of
Research – Innocenti, Florence.
Toczydlowska, E. and Bruckauf, Z. (2017).
Growing Inequality and Unequal
Opportunities in Rich Countries, Innocenti
Research Brief 2017-16, UNICEF Office of
Research – Innocenti, Florence.

International abbreviations

International abbreviations (ISO) for
countries covered in the Report Card

Abbreviations and acronyms

AT

Austria

CASEN

AU

Australia

CIS

Canadian Income Survey

BEBelgium

CRC

Convention on the Rights of the Child

BG

Bulgaria

ECEC

early childhood education and care

CA

CanadaESCS

economic, social and cultural status

CH

Switzerland

CL

Chile

La Encuesta de Caracterización Socioeconómica Nacional (Chile)

EU
EU-SILC

European Union
European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions

CY

CyprusFIES

Food Insecurity Experience Scale

CZ

Czech RepublicGMO

genetically modified organism

DE

Germany

HBSC

Health Behaviour in School-aged Children

DK

Denmark

HILDAHousehold, Income and Labour Dynamics (Australia)

EE

Estonia

ISCWeB

ES

Spain

FI

Finland

FR

FranceGR

GreeceHR

Croatia

HU

Hungary

IE

IrelandIL

IsraelIS

Iceland

IT

Italy

JP

Japan

KR

Republic of Korea

LT

Lithuania

LU

Luxembourg

LV

Latvia

MT

Malta

MX

MexicoNL

Netherlands

NO

NorwayNZNew Zealand

PL

PolandPT

PortugalRO

RomaniaSE

SwedenSI

SloveniaSK

Slovakia

TR

TurkeyUK

United Kingdom

US

United States

MCS-ENIGH

International Survey of Children’s Well-Being
El Módulo de Condiciones Socioeconómicas de la Encuesta Nacionalde Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares (Mexico)

MDG

Millennium Development Goal

MICS

Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey

MODA

Multiple Overlapping Deprivation Analysis

NEET

not in employment, education or training

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PISA

Programme for International Student Assessment

SDG

Sustainable Development Goal

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

WHO

World Health Organization

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

5 5

Acknowledgements

The Innocenti Report Card 14 project wascoordinated by the UNICEF Office of
Research – Innocenti and assisted by apanel of advisors and reviewers. Research
was completed at the end of March 2017.
The Report Card was written by Chris
Brazier.

Kate Pickett (University of York)The full text and the background papers
can be downloaded from the UNICEF
Office of Research website:www.unicef-irc.org

UNICEF advisors

Tom Slaymaker (Senior Statistics andMonitoring Specialist, Data and Analytics,
UNICEF New York)Jan Vandemoortele (Independent Advisor)

Prerna Banati (Chief, Programme andPlanning, UNICEF Office of Research)
Sarah Cook (Director, UNICEF Office of
Research)Research and data analysis
Zlata Bruckauf (Social and Economic
Policy Consultant, UNICEF Office of
Research)
Yekaterina Chzhen (Social and Economic
Policy Specialist, UNICEF Office of
Research)
Jose Cuesta (Chief, Social and Economic
Policy Unit, UNICEF Office of Research)
Dominic Richardson (Senior Education
Specialist, UNICEF Office of Research)
Emilia Toczydlowska (Social and Economic
Policy Consultant, UNICEF Office of
Research)

Bina D'Costa (Migration Specialist,
UNICEF Office of Research)
Sudhanshu Handa (Former Chief, Socialand Economic Policy Unit, UNICEF Officeof Research)
Goran Holmqvist (Associate Director,
UNICEF Office of Research)
Dale Rutstein (Chief, Communication Unit,
UNICEF Office of Research)

Administrative support at the UNICEF
Office of Research – Innocenti wasprovided by Cinzia Iusco Bruschi and
Laura Meucci. Production was overseen
by Eve Leckey.

Advisory board
Romina Boarini (OECD Statistics
Directorate)
Dorothy Currie (St Andrews University,
HBSC network)
Dave Gordon (University of Bristol)Bergsteinn Jónsson (Executive Director,
UNICEF Iceland)
Eric Marlier (Luxembourg Institute ofSocio-Economic Research)
Susan Nicolai (Development Progress
Project, Overseas Development Institute)

5 6

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 4

Previous issues in this series:
Innocenti Report Card 1
A league table of child poverty in rich nations
Innocenti Report Card 2
A league table of child deaths by injury in rich nations
Innocenti Report Card 3
A league table of teenage births in rich nations
Innocenti Report Card 4
A league table of educational disadvantage in rich nations
Innocenti Report Card 5
A league table of child maltreatment deaths in rich nations
Innocenti Report Card 6
Child poverty in rich countries 2005
Innocenti Report Card 7
Child poverty in perspective: An overview of childwell-being in rich countries
Innocenti Report Card 8
The child care transition: A league table of early childhood
education and care in economically advanced countries
Innocenti Report Card 9
The children left behind: A league table of inequality inchild well-being in the world’s rich countries
Innocenti Report Card 10
Measuring child poverty: New league tables of childpoverty in the world’s rich countries
Innocenti Report Card 11
Child well-being in rich countries: A comparative overview
Innocenti Report Card 12Children of the recession: The impact of the economiccrisis on child well-being in rich countries
Innocenti Report Card 13
Fairness for children: A league table of inequality in childwell-being in rich countries

Graphics: MCC, UK (mccdesign.com)
Printed by: ABC Tipografia, Sesto Fiorentino, Florence, Italy

Innocenti Report Card 14, 2017
Building the Future:Children and the Sustainable
Development Goals in Rich Countries

UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti
Piazza SS. Annunziata, 1250122 Florence, Italy
Tel: +39 055 2033 0
Fax: +39 055 2033 220
florence@unicef.org
www.unicef-irc.org@UNICEFInnocenti
facebook.com/UnicefOfficeofResearchInnocenti
ISBN: 978-88-6522-050-4
ISSN: 2519-108X© United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
June 2017

ISBN: 978-88-6522-050-4
eISBN: 978-92-1-060790-2

Sales no.: E.17.XX.1