The above league table summarizes the current status of, and progress made in reducing, child income poverty in 39 countries in the OECD and EU.7 The table is based on two indicators: 1. The most recent available rates of child income poverty (2019–2021) 2. The proportional change in child income poverty over a seven-year period (2012–2014 and 2019–2021) Box 2 explains the reasons for the selection of these time periods. The overall rank in the league table is based on a statistical average rank of these two indicators.8 It therefore acknowledges both the most recent situation and progress in reducing child poverty. → The three countries at the top of the rankings – Slovenia, Poland and Latvia – combine relatively low child poverty rates with strong records in reducing child poverty. → All other countries in the top third of the league table rank high on one of the two dimensions and in the mid-range on the other. → The middle of the table includes three countries – Greece, Malta and New Zealand – that have made recent progress in child poverty reduction, although they still have relatively high rates. → In contrast, it also contains Denmark, Iceland, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Norway, which still have relatively low child poverty rates but have increasing child poverty rates. → In the bottom third of the table, France, Luxembourg, Türkiye and the United Kingdom have high rates of child poverty and are also ranked low in terms of child poverty trends. As will be seen later, France and the United Kingdom are among the countries where child income poverty rates have increased substantially in recent years. Box 2 Due to recent fluctuations in rates, which may be due to difficulties in data collection during the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in survey administration, the average income poverty rate over three recent years (2019–2021) is used. Therefore, for comparability, the three-year period (2012–2014) is used as a base for calculating change. The change is calculated as a ratio to reflect the fact that, when the child poverty rate is already low, it may be more difficult to achieve large reductions. Thus, a reduction from 10 per cent to 9 per cent is treated as equal to a reduction from 20 per cent to 18 per cent. Using the percentage-point reduction would unjustly favour the latter over the former. The remainder of this report fills in the detail of this broad sketch, considering the reasons for these patterns and solutions that can be employed to tackle child poverty. 9 Child Poverty in the Midst of Wealth Innocenti Report Card 18