SCALABILITY OF COMPOSITE INDICES OF WELL-BEING: INDICES OF - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

SCALABILITY OF COMPOSITE INDICES OF WELL-BEING: INDICES OF WELL-BEING:

THE CASE OF THE THE CASE OF THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELL-BEING INDEX*

Kenneth C. Land, Ph.D., Duke University Italian Association for Quality of Life Studies Workshop Presentation Florence, Italy S b 9 10 2011 September 9-10, 2011

*Other members of the CWI Project Team are Vicki L Lamb Ph D and

1

*Other members of the CWI Project Team are Vicki L. Lamb, Ph.D., and Qiang Fu, M.A.

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

The Basic Social Indicators Questions

How are we doing? g With a focus on children, how are h kid (i l di d l d the kids (including adolescents and youths) doing? youths) doing?

2

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

The Basic Social Indicators Questions

These questions can be addressed by comparisons: to past historical values, to other contemporaneous units (e.g., comparisons p ( g , p among subpopulations, states, regions, countries), or to goals or other externally established standards to goals or other externally established standards, The Foundation for Child Development Child and Youth Well Being Index (CWI) described below Youth Well-Being Index (CWI), described below, uses all three points of comparison.

3

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

Some Peer-Reviewed Publications on the CWI

Land, Kenneth C. , Vicki L. Lamb, and Sarah Kahler Mustillo 2001 “Child and , , , Youth Well-Being in the United States, 1975-1998: Some Findings from a New Index,” Social Indicators Research, 56, (December):241-320. Land, Kenneth C. , Vicki L. Lamb, Sarah O. Meadows, and Ashley Taylor 2007 Land, Kenneth C. , Vicki L. Lamb, Sarah O. Meadows, and Ashley Taylor 2007 “Measuring Trends in Child Well-Being: An Evidence-Based Approach,” Social Indicators Research, 80:105-132. Hagerty Michael R and Kenneth C Land 2007 “Constructing Summary Indices of Hagerty, Michael R. and Kenneth C. Land 2007 Constructing Summary Indices of Quality of Life: A Model for the Effect of Heterogeneous Importance Weights,” Sociological Methods and Research, 35(May):455-496. Lee Joonkoo Vicki L Lamb and Kenneth C Land 2009 “Composite Indices of Lee, Joonkoo, Vicki L. Lamb, and Kenneth C. Land 2009 Composite Indices of Changes in Child and Youth Well-Being in the San Francisco Bay Area and the State of California, 1995-2005,” Child Indicators Research, 2(December):353- 374 374. Land, Kenneth C., Vicki L. Lamb, and Hui Zheng 2011 “How Are the Kids Doing? How Do We Know? Recent Trends in Child and Youth Well-Being in the United States and Some International Comparisons ” Social Indicators Research 100

4

States and Some International Comparisons, Social Indicators Research, 100 (January):463-477.

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

What is the CWI? What is the CWI?

A composite measure of trends over time in the quality of life, or well-being, of America’s q y , g, children and young people. It consists of several interrelated summary or It consists of several interrelated summary or composite indices of annual time series of 28 i l i di f ll b i social indicators of well-being.

5

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

The Principal Objective

• f the CWI:

To give a sense of the overall direction of change in the well-being of children and change in the well being of children and youth in the United States as compared to 1975 1975.

6

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

The CWI is designed to address the f ll i f i following types of questions:

Overall, on average, how did child and youth well-being in the United States change in the g g last quarter of the 20th century and into the present? present? Did it improve or deteriorate, and by how h? much? In which domains or areas of social life?

7

w c do a s o a eas o soc a e?

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

For specific age groups? For specific age groups? For particular race/ethnic groups? For each of the sexes? And did race/ethnic group and sex disparities And did race/ethnic group and sex disparities increase or decrease?

8

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

Methods of Index Construction

Annual time series data (from vital statistics and sample surveys) have been assembled on some 28 national level indicators in seven well-being/quality-of-life domains:

– Family Economic Well-Being y g – Health – Safety/Risky Behavior y y – Educational Attainment – Community Engagement y g g – Social Relationships (with Family and Peers) – Emotional/Spiritual Well-Being

9

Emotional/Spiritual Well Being

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

These seven domains have been well established These seven domains have been well-established in over two decades of empirical studies of subjective well-being, including studies of children and youths, by social psychologists and y y p y g

• ther social scientists.

In this sense the CWI is an evidence based In this sense, the CWI is an evidence-based measure of trends in averages of the social and lif di i d b hild d life conditions encountered by children and youths in the United States.

10

FCD CWI

FCD CWI Twenty-Eight Key National Indicators of Child and Youth Well-Being in the United States. Family Economic Well-Being Domain

• Poverty Rate (All Families with Children)
• Secure Parental Employment Rate
• Median Annual Income (All Families with Children)
• R

f Child i h H l h I

• Rate of Children with Health Insurance

Health Domain

• Infant Mortality Rate
• L

Bi th W i ht R t

• Low Birth Weight Rate
• Mortality Rate (Ages 1-19)
• Rate of Children with Very Good or Excellent Health (as reported by parents)
• Rate of Children with Activity Limitations (as reported by parents)
• Rate of Children with Activity Limitations (as reported by parents)
• Rate of Overweight Children and Adolescents (Ages 6-19)

Safety/Risky Behavior Domain

• Teenage Birth Rate (Ages 10-17)
• Teenage Birth Rate (Ages 10 17)
• Rate of Violent Crime Victimization (Ages 12-19)
• Rate of Violent Crime Offenders (Ages 12-17)
• Rate of Cigarette Smoking (Grade 12)

11

Rate of Cigarette Smoking (Grade 12)

• Rate of Alcohol Drinking (Grade 12)
• Rate of Illicit Drug Use (Grade 12)

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

Twenty-Eight Key Indicators, Continued Educational Attainment Domain

• Reading Test Scores (Ages 9 13 and 17)
• Reading Test Scores (Ages 9, 13, and 17)
• Mathematics Test Scores (Ages 9, 13, and 17)

Community Engagement

• Rate of Persons who have Received a High School Diploma (Ages 18 24)
• Rate of Persons who have Received a High School Diploma (Ages 18-24)
• Rate of Youths Not Working and Not in School (Ages 16-19)
• Rate of Pre-Kindergarten Enrollment (Ages 3-4)
• R

f P h h R i d B h l ’ D (A 25 29)

• Rate of Persons who have Received a Bachelor’s Degree (Ages 25-29)
• Rate of Voting in Presidential Elections (Ages 18-20)

Social Relationships Domain

• Rate of Children in Families Headed by a Single Parent
• Rate of Children who have Moved within the Last Year (Ages 1-18)

Emotional/Spiritual Well-Being Domain p g

• Suicide Rate (Ages 10-19)
• Rate of Weekly Religious Attendance (Grade 12)
• Percent who report Religion as Being Very Important (Grade 12)

12

Percent who report Religion as Being Very Important (Grade 12) Note: Unless otherwise noted, indicators refer to children ages 0-17.

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

Each of the 28 Key Indicators is indexed by h f h b percentage change from the base year, 1975.

– That is, subsequent annual observations are computed , q p as percentage changes from those of the base year. – Three indicators begin in the mid-1980s and use Three indicators begin in the mid 1980s and use corresponding base years. The base year is assigned a value of 100 – The base year is assigned a value of 100. – The directions of the indicator values are oriented h th t l t (l ) th 100 i such that a value greater (lesser) than 100 in subsequent years means the social condition measured h i d (d t i t d)

13

has improved (deteriorated).

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

The time series of the 28 indicators are grouped h i h d i d ib d together into the seven domains described above and domain-specific summary well-being indices are constructed.

– Within these summary indices each indicator is Within these summary indices, each indicator is equally weighted.

Th t i di th The seven component indices are then combined into the equally-weighted composite Child and Youth Well-being Index (CWI).

14

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

On Equal Weighting

I ti l t ti ti l th d l H t d L d In an article on statistical methodology, Hagerty and Land (2007) consider the general question of how to construct it i di f i l it th t ill b composite, summary indices for a social unit that will be endorsed by a majority of its members. They assume that many social indicators are available to describe the social unit, but individuals disagree about the relative weights to be assigned to each social indicator. The composite index that maximizes agree among p g g individuals can then be derived, along with conditions under which an index will be endorsed by a majority in

15

y j y the social unit.

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

On Equal Weighting

Using both a theoretical analysis of a statistical model to measure Using both a theoretical analysis of a statistical model to measure the extent of agreement among individuals and computer simulations, Hagerty and Land (2007) showed that intuition greatly underestimates the extent of agreement among individuals, and that it is often possible to construct a composite index with which most individuals agree (at least in direction) individuals agree (at least in direction). In particular, they show that the equal-weighting strategy is privileged in that it is what statisticians call a minimax estimator— it minimizes disagreement among all possible individuals’ weights for the indicators. Hagery and Land (2007) demonstrate these propositions by calculating real composite quality-of-life indices propositions by calculating real composite quality of life indices from two sample surveys of individuals’ actual importance weights.

16

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

Some Findings: Some Findings: National-Level CWI Trends, 1975 2010 1975-2010

17

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

104

Equally-Weighted Domain-Specific Average Index

100 102 98 100 96 B 92 94 90 92

18

Year

Figure 1. Composite Child and Youth Well-Being Index, 1975-2010

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

Some Findings: g N ti l L l D i S ifi National-Level Domain-Specific Indices, 1975-2010 Indices, 1975 2010

19

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

140 150

Family Economic Well-Being Safe/Risky Behavior

120 130 140

Safe/Risky Behavior Social Relationships Emotional/Spiritual Well-Being Community Engagement Educational Attainment

110 120 ase Year

Educational Attainment Health

90 100 Percent of Ba 70 80 50 60

20

Year

Figure 2. Domain-Specific Summary Indices, 1975-2010

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

The Question of the Day:

Granted that the CWI has been well-established as a composite inde of trends in child and o th ell composite index of trends in child and youth well- being at the national level in the U.S.: Is the CWI scalable? That is, can CWI well-being concepts, indicators, That is, can CWI well being concepts, indicators, domains of well-being, and composite indices be applied and interpreted at sub national levels?

21

applied and interpreted at sub-national levels?

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

A Sub-National CWI Study: y

To address this question, we studied trends, changes and projections for child and youth well-being in: 1) the State of California, 2) the San Francisco Bay Area, and 3) Los Angeles County by constructing CWIs for each of these geographic areas and measuring well-being changes in a comparable way to

22

the national CWI.

FCD CWI

FCD CWI Table 1. Sixteen Key Indicators of Child and Youth Well-Being in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, and the State of California.

Domain Indicator Definition

Family economic well–being Children in poverty Percentage of children ages 0 – 17 in households earning less than the y g domain: Children in poverty federal poverty level Households that can afford to purchase a median–priced home Percentage of households that can afford to purchase a median–priced home median priced home home

Safe/risky behavior: Teen birth rate Number of births per 1,000 girls ages 15–19 Juvenile felony arrest rate Number of juvenile felony arrests per 1,000 youth ages 10–17 Juvenile felony drug and alcohol arrest rate Number of juvenile felony drug and alcohol arrests per 1,000 youth ages 10–17

23

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

Table 1, Continued

Health domain: Infant mortality rate Number of deaths per 1,000 live births. I f t b t l bi th i ht Percentage of infants born at low birth weight, which is defined as less Infants born at low birth weight g g , than 2500 grams. Child/youth death rate Number of deaths per 100,000 children/youth ages 1 – 24 y p , y g Injury hospitalization rate Number of non–fatal injury hospitalizations per 100,000 children/youth ages 0–20 ages 0 0 Asthma hospitalization rate Number of asthma hospitalizations per 1,000 individuals at ages 0–14 Women receiving prenatal care in the first trimester Percentage of women who receive prenatal care in the first trimester of pregnancy

24

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

Table 1, Continued

Educational attainment/community Percentage of public school 12th grade graduates completing courses engagement High school graduates completing college preparatory courses Percentage of public school 12th grade graduates completing courses required for University of California (UC) and/or California State University (CSU) entrance, with a grade of "C" or better High school dropouts Estimated percentage of public high school students who drop out of high school, by race/ethnicity, according to the four–year derived dropout rate, which is an estimate of the percentage of students who would drop out in a four–year period based on data collected for a single year Percentage of children ages 0 13 with parents in the labor force who Children with access to child care Percentage of children ages 0–13 with parents in the labor force who have access to licensed child care Emotional well–being domain: Youth suicide rate Number of suicides per 100,000 youth age 15–24 g Self–inflicted injury hospitalization rate Rate of non–fatal self–inflicted injury hospitalizations per 100,000 children/youth ages 5–20 25

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

Some Findings:

Figure 3 Composite Child and Youth Well Being Index

140

Figure 3. Composite Child and Youth Well-Being Index, California, Bay Area and Los Angeles, 1995-2006

130

California Bay Area Los Angeles

110 120 t of Base Year 100 110 Percent 80 90

26

80 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

Figure 4. Comparison of Child and Youth Well-Being Index, U.S., California, Bay Area and Los Angeles, 1995-2006

140 U.S. California Bay Area Los Angeles 130 ar Six Indicators: U.S. Six Indicators: California Six Indicators: Bay Area Six Indicators: Los Angeles 110 120 rcent of Base Yea 100 Per 90 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

27

Year

Note: The U.S. index is equally weighted average of 28 indicators (Land et al. 2001,2007); Six-component averages for the U.S., the state of California, the Bay Area and Los Angeles are based on six indicators that closely match to the national CWI: children poverty, infant mortality rate, infants born at low birth weight, child/youth death rate, teen birth rate, and youth suicide rate.

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

The following major findings resulted from these analyses: 1) Overall Child and Youth Well-Being: Steadily improved during the decade from the mid-1990s to th id 2000 i ll th it f l i th St t the mid-2000s in all three units of analysis, the State

• f California the San Francisco Bay Area and Los
• f California, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Los

Angeles County

28

Angeles County.

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

2) Gender Disparities: With respect to our overall composite measures of levels of well-being, Disparity CWI analyses showed that girls had an enduring advantage over boys during the time that girls had an enduring advantage over boys during the time period studied. Girls’ sustained advantage over boys in health and educational attainment/community engagement in recent years resulted in a persistent gender gap in well-being in all three areas, although their advantage in emotional well-being was reversed in th B A d id bl d d i C lif i ft 2003

29

the Bay Area and considerably decreased in California after 2003.

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

3) Gender-Specific Improvements in Well-Being: In terms of the rate of improvement in overall well- b i b d h l ti t being, boys made much more progress relative to a 1995, compared to girls. Note, however, that the , p g , , generally higher level of girls’ well-being means that further gains are more difficult to achieve which may account for their relatively moderate improvement.

30

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

4) Race-Ethnic-Specific Trends: All groups studied – African Americans, Asians, Latinos, and Caucasians – showed improvements in well-being. The upward trend of African Americans’ CWI reversed after 2001, making them fall behind the

• ther race/ethnic groups. In terms of well-being levels, Disparity

CWIs show that gaps in well-being among racial and ethnic groups i t d ti B d i l d hild i diff t persisted over time. Boys and girls, and children in different race/ethnic groups generally showed similar trends across most of the well being domains The safe/risky behavior domain recorded the well-being domains. The safe/risky behavior domain recorded the highest in the rate of improvement, followed by education attainment and health. One domain that made a difference across the attainment and health. One domain that made a difference across the groups is emotional well-being. Suicide and self-inflicted injury hospitalization rates vary considerably by gender and in different

31

race and ethnic groups.

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

5) Direct Impacts of the Great Recession, 2008-2009: Our projections on the rates of children in poverty point to an increasing trend for the years 2008 rates of children in poverty point to an increasing trend for the years 2008 through 2010 for all three regions. Los Angeles County has the largest projected levels of child poverty over the period. It is expected to increase from 21.4 to around 35 percent between 2007 and 2012, whereas the trend for California was projected to increase from 17.3 to 27.3 percent over the same

• period. The Bay Area has the lowest projected levels of children in poverty
• verall and the smallest increase between 2007 and 2010. For all three

regions child poverty is projected to decline after 2010

32

regions, child poverty is projected to decline after 2010.

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

6) Secondary Impacts of the Great Recession: In addition to these direct impacts of Great Recession, it is expected that there will be d i di i hild d h ll b i i h h secondary or indirect impacts on child and youth well-being in the three focal regions that correspond to impacts expected at the national level. g p p p Specifically, it is anticipated that there will be adverse impacts on indicators in the health, safe/risky behavior, educational attainment/community engagement, and emotional well-being domains.

33

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

CONCLUSIONS

This study of the CWI suggests that composite indices of changes in well-being are scalable – that they can be applied at, and compared across, levels of aggregation below the national level. Such analyses can reveal differences in trends among the units being compared – local variation – that can be related to levels of development and other areal differences. The primary limitation to estimation and analysis of composite indices at the sub-national level is data availability.

FCD CWI

FCD CWI

The CWI on the Web:

http://www.soc.duke.edu/~cwi/

35