Left Further Behind - Child Poverty Action Group

11% respectively). Their living standards profile is worse than for other beneficiaries as Figure 2.8
shows. However, importantly, as Perry (2009a, p. 53) notes:
as there are many times more working families than beneficiary families, there are around the
same number from each group in hardship – around half the children in hardship are from working
families.
Figure 2.8. Distribution of ELSI-3 for beneficiary EFUs by presence of children (2008)
(Source: Perry, 2009a, p. 51)
40
Population percentage
30
20
10
18
22
11
24
15
10
30
21
22
17
7
3
0
No children
1
With children
0
The next living standards survey is not until 2012, but some data in the Household Economic Survey
that may be used to update the living standards measure annually.
Child Poverty Internationally
Child poverty in comparative studies is often measured by the proportion of children with an
equivalised family income below 50% of the median family income of the total population (OECD,
2009a, p. 34). On this indicator, all the Nordic countries are outstanding performers. Denmark, for
example, has around one in 40 children being poor, while as many as one in four children in the US
live in poor families, despite it being one of the richest countries (Figure 2.9).
On a broader basis, the OECD report uses three indicators to measure the material well-being of
children: the average disposable income in families with children under age 18; a relative poverty rate
for children under 18 and the proportion of 15 year olds deprived of basic necessities for education
Figure 2.9. Percentage of children living in poor households in OECD
(below 50% of median equivalised income), circa 2005 (OECD, 2009a, p. 34)
20