A chance to design the way forward for education

This blog by Michael Ward of the OECD invites you to provide your views, on a set of indicators for measuring progress towards education targets for sustainable development, post 2015.

Want to get involved in shaping the future of education? As the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG) reach their 2015 deadline, several international groups, including the OECD, are formulating a new set of goals and targets for sustainable development… and we’d like to know what you think.

The Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (OWG), a UN-appointed task force, has proposed an agenda for development that includes goals for education, and educators from around the world have developed a set of specific education and learning targets that are closely aligned with that agenda.

The task now is to develop indicators so that progress towards achieving these new goals can be monitored.

To that end, a Technical Advisory Group, co-ordinated by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics and including members from the Education for All Global Monitoring Report, the OECD, UNESCO, UNICEF and the World Bank, has proposed a set of indicators, which you can find here.

We’d like to hear from you

What do you think about the indicators?

Until 30 January 2015 you are invited to comment on each indicator or to respond to these questions:

1. For each target, does the report identify the best indicators that are most aligned with the concept and are already being tracked in a large number of countries?

2. What new indicators could be developed to be more closely aligned with the proposed targets and have the potential to be globally comparable?

3. For each target, please identify or propose the two most important indicators.

4. Are there key issues that the document has not addressed satisfactorily or other issues that also need to be taken into consideration?

Please visit the UIS website for details on how to submit your comments.

To ensure that the consultation is open to as many people as possible, we invite you to spread the word among your networks and social media, referencing #Education2015.

After 30 January 2015, the Technical Advisory Group will review the list of indicators based on your feedback. The final proposal will be submitted for endorsement at the World Education Forum in Incheon (Korea) in May 2015. The final documents will then form the basis of the discussions at the UN General Assembly in September 2015 on the new UN goals for education.

Join the discussion on twitter via @EFAReport @UNESCO @WBEducation @OECD_Edu @UNICEFEducation and #Education2015.

by Michael Ward
Senior Policy Analyst, Development Co-operation Directorate

This post first appeared on the OECD Educationtoday blog site, here. 

How should we measure quality of life in urban centres?

This blog, written by David Satterthwaite with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), discusses what indicators are needed in order to assess the quality of life of the urban poor. The post is part of the Wikiprogress series on the quality of life.

Mexico City

 

Almost 1 billion people currently live in slums, and this number is expected to grow by nearly 500 million by 2020 - if we're to ensure that no one is left behind in the future development agenda, we need to determine whether progress is really reaching these marginalised groups. And for that, we need appropriate indicators and data.

 

 

Rather than reviewing the appropriateness of existing indicators on urban quality of life, this blog begins by considering what indicators are needed. This allows an assessment of existing or proposed indicators for their appropriateness and shows the huge inadequacies in the indicators currently used.

These indicators can be divided into those relating to living conditions (who 'lives in poverty'), access to public services and income and assets. They could include indicators relating to possibilities for citizen and community engagement – a voice for the urban poor, for example that includes whether they can get on the voter register or access public services and the possibilities of getting appropriate responses from government agencies.

Living conditions among urban populations

These should include sufficient indoor space per person, housing constructed with permanent building materials, and a secure site that does not pose any risk (so not on a site at high risk of flooding or under threat of eviction). They should also include safe and regular supplies of drinking water piped to the home, and a good-quality toilet in the home that all residents can use.

Data on each of these indicators should be available for each dwelling unit. The current indicators fail to show us which dwelling units have these conditions. Furthermore, the data is from national sample surveys, with the sample sizes too small to give a clear indication as to where living conditions are poor.

So for example, the Demographic and Health Surveys or Living Standards Measurement Studies may tell a government that X per cent of their urban population lack safe drinking water piped to their dwellings, but they fail to identify the deficient urban centres, let alone pinpoint where the individual dwellings are.

The data collected at the moment is also inadequate in itself. The definitions of what constitutes ‘improved’ water and sanitation are so broad that they include forms of provision that are grossly inadequate for most urban contexts. Even when there is data on water supply, it does not include details of the cost, quality or regularity of supply of that water.

Urban dwellers’ access to public services

Every urban household needs a solid-waste collection service, and a regular toilet-emptying service if not connected to sewers. Urban dwellers need access to good-quality healthcare and emergency services, schools (and day-care provision), public transport, and policing in their settlements to ensure the rule of law. They also need to be able to vote and hold local politicians to account.

At best, data for these indicators is only available from national sample surveys, so once again it’s of no use in identifying where needs are located. In fact there is no data at all for many of these. One surprising fact revealed in studies of informal settlements is that there are often private schools because the inhabitants cannot get their children into government schools without a legal address. Toilet and washing facilities are also often provided by private companies, and these services have to be paid for.

Income, assets and the poverty line

Indicators relating to whether individuals or households have sufficient income to meet their needs are particularly valuable in urban contexts because most aspects of good living conditions have to be paid for. But the monetary poverty line (the minimum income required to meet needs) must be set to reflect local costs.

The costs of food and non-food needs vary a lot within nations; usually they are highest in larger and more successful cities (especially rent for housing). They also rise where provision for water, sanitation, schools and healthcare is inadequate and people have to pay private enterprises for these services.

So poverty lines need to be adjusted to reflect differences in costs within nations – and we must avoid the application of the same monetary poverty line across a nation. The large variation in costs within nations is already recognised by the United Nations when setting the daily allowances for their own officials; yet this variation is not applied to poverty lines.

The worst offender is the US$1.25 a day poverty line: in many nations this figure bears no relation to the costs of needs (including adequate living conditions) and includes no adjustment for where such costs are particularly high.

The need for local data on urban poverty

Measuring urban quality of life has to be about better measurement in each locality, not more questions in national sample surveys. This needs to be linked to the institutions with responsibilities for addressing needs – mostly local governments and civil-society organisations.

It is also about better use of census data so local authorities can see where the deprivations are located. The collection of data should engage the urban poor themselves; this becomes easier and far more productive where there are representative organisations formed by those living in informal settlements or slums (now the case in over 30 nations).

Engaging with the women-led savings groups at the foundation of most of these federations will produce far more accurate data about living conditions, therefore about what is needed and what it costs. And there are some amazing examples of data on living conditions in informal settlements done by the inhabitants themselves.

Unfortunately, most of what is suggested above does not generally figure in discussions on measuring urban poverty. Debates over how to measure poverty in a post-2015 framework typically fail to acknowledge how the income required to avoid poverty varies within nations and how high that income requirement usually is for those living in informal settlements in cities; nor do they mention the need for official statistics to support local action and actors. If these key necessities were recognised, it really would promote a revolution in national statistical offices.

There is no discussion of the role of urban-poor groups themselves as data-gatherers and users, or as people with the right to question ‘expert’ judgements made about their needs. And there is no mention of the fact that the $1.25 a day poverty line is hugely inappropriate even for measuring ‘extreme’ poverty because of the size of the urban population with a higher income than this figure yet still living in extreme poverty.

 

 

- David Satterthwaite

This blog appeared first in early January as part of the ODI series on "Measuring progress in the quality of life of the urban poor: are indicators and data fit for purpose?".

See also 

Quality of life in Europe: Subjective well-being

Quality of Life in Urban Neighborhoods in Costa Rica

Quality of Life in Urban Neighborhoods in Metropolitan Lima, Peru

Online discussion "Calidad de Vida Urbana"

 

 

Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW) wins international award for work with City of Guelph

This article by the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW), is part of the Wikiprogress series  on Indicators.  

The Community Indicators Consortium (CIC) Impact award celebrates projects from around the world that demonstrate the power of indicators to drive positive community change. “It was an honour to attend #CICSummit 2013 and be surrounded by communities and researchers doing amazing work” says CIW Associate Director of Research Margo Hilbrecht, in Chicago last week with the City of Guelph to give a presentation and receive the prestigious award; the CIW’s first international award. 

This award is a success story originating from a demand for local data after the launch of the CIW national composite index of wellbeing report How are Canadians Really doing? First to approach the CIW for local data was the City of Guelph, Ontario and it resulted in the development of a new Community Wellbeing Survey tool. This innovation is the first of its kind in Canada and uses the CIW framework as a guide to ask residents how they are really doing. 

The findings from the CIW survey, along with all of the other information gathered from the extensive community engagement process undertaken by the City of Guelph, has been used to create a community profile and the City’s new community wellbeing strategy. The strategy aims to improve services and facilitate community-wide action to enhance wellbeing in Guelph. 

Mayor Karen Farbridge says 

“receiving the Impact Award is a clear indication of how the Guelph community strongly values wellbeing…the initiative is a model of how residents and government can work together and share accountability to achieve better outcomes.” 

For more information contact CIW.

Measuring Progress at the British Business Bank – beyond GDP

This blog by Charles Seaford discusses the recommendations for a state owned business bank from the Good Jobs Taskforce that is presented in the report 'The British Business Bank'. 

By the end of next year, the UK government’s British Business Bank, currently under construction, will have landed. It’s mission? To boost the UK economy by increasing flows of finance to our cash-strapped small businesses.

It’s good news, for sure – but is that all the new institution could do? In a recent report, the new economics foundation (nef) makes the case for dramatically extending the mandate of the British Business Bank. We argue that its core purpose should be to support not just any small businesses, but specifically the kinds that create good, sustainable jobs. That is, jobs that deliver high well-being, contribute to a fairer society, and will remain viable as we move to a low-carbon future.

It’s an easy objective to state. But the details matter. That’s why our report aims to prove that it is possible in practice to create and deliver against a new set of economic policy objectives, beyond simply growing GDP or reducing unemployment.

All this means particular attention has to be paid to the bank’s performance indicator framework, which will be used to guide lending and investment decisions. For these will need to take into account questions such as: how good an employer is the loan applicant? How does its environmental record compare with other similar businesses? Is the business in a sector that is financially sustainable given global trends? What impact will it have on the rest of the regional economy? The report goes into a lot more detail about what such questions mean both for the indicator framework and targets set for the bank’s managers, and for the kind of products and processes they use.

It is important that the bank serves all parts of the country and the indicators would need to be constructed on a regional basis. In addition, international experience suggests the bank should work with a network of partner regional banks. Unfortunately the latter don’t exist in the UK – one of the UK economy’s big problems. However, we do have a possible way of dealing with this: it may be possible to break up the Royal Bank of Scotland (currently 82% owned by the state) to provide the necessary network of branches. This would have a number of other benefits – above all bankers who understand the localities they serve – and we are investigating just how feasible this would be.

Discussion of banking performance indicators may seem a rather dry topic – but this is the kind of low key policy lever that could make a big difference to people and small businesses for years to come.


Charles Seaford
Head of the Centre for Wellbeing at the nef (new economics foundation)

Where is the Demand for Beyond GDP Indicators?

This blog by Saamah Abdallah, nef (the new economics foundation) profiles the recent report by BRAINPOoL*, Characterizing Demand for ‘Beyond GDP’. This article is part of the Wikiprogress series on Statistics and Data.

Where is the demand for Beyond GDP indicators? 

Which actors are interested in using such indicators and how do they want to use them? 

How might a societal demand for these indicators be understood? And, when there is a lack of demand, what factors explain it? 

These are the questions that are posed and answered in a recent report by BRAINPOoL, the EU funded project on bringing alternative indicators into policy. The presentation below provides a summary of the report.  Whilst there are some greenshoots emerging, it does highlight the many challenges faced by promoters of alternative indicators in terms of getting them to be use in the policy process.

Where is the demand for ‘Beyond GDP’ indicators? from Wikiprogress_slides

Saamah Abdallah

*BRAINPOol (Bringing Alternative Indicators into Policy) is a consortium of European partners with the aim of influencing policy makers to consider indicators for well-being and progress alternative to GDP. It was formed in 2010 following a push for further engagement in a beyond GDP society, and is funded by the European Commission’s 7th Framework Program. 

Read the report - Characterizing Demand for ‘Beyond GDP’

Let’s Talk about Child Well-being

Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), Wikigender and Wikichild invite you to participate in this online discussion.

“HOW SHOULD CHILD WELL-BEING BE MEASURED IN VIEW OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORKS?”

Open from Wednesday 19 June until Tuesday 2 July 2013.

The discussion will be officially launched at the HBSC 30th Anniversary Meeting and aims to spark discussion on the most effective means of measuring child well-being and how these measures should be applied to upcoming development frameworks.

This discussion seeks to explore a variety of questions including:

1. What is the actual state of child well-being today?
2. What are the most important domains of well-being – specifically for children?
3. What policies have had the most impact on children in the past? 
4. Should there be a child development goal in the Post 2015 framework?

We would like to hear your views, lessons learned and best practices or policies on measuring child well-being.

Background

Measuring child well-being has traditionally rested on economic measures such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP); however, it is now widely accepted that the well-being of the nation is influenced by a broad range of factors including economic performance, quality of life, the state of the environment, sustainability, equality, as well as individual well-being.

Over the last decade, organisations around the world have been developing new indicators of progress that look beyond GDP and economic growth when measuring child well-being.

The well-being of children is high on the agenda for policy makers and this online consultation, hosted by Wikichild, seeks to engage discussion on the most effective means of measuring child well-being and how these measures should be applied to upcoming development frameworks such as the Post-2015 agenda.

You can post a comment in a few clicks by going to the “Contribute!” section of the online discussion page. Here is the shortened link to the discussion page: http://bit.ly/19ECjl  and the hashtag for Twitter is #childwellbeing .

To find out more about the questions asked and how to participate, please click here.

Make sure your voice heard!

Robbie Lawrence,

Wikichild Coordinator 

Made to Measure: Why One Size Won’t Fit All

The recent OECD World Forum in Delhi showcased the plethora of approaches now underway to go beyond GDP and measure what matters.   The growth in popularity of these indicator initiatives is undeniable: the number of projects ratchets up after each world forum.  But while there has been a growth in activity, I don’t see as much growth in the maturity of the conversation about the indicators. 

Photo from Wikipedia

Far too much time is still being invested in discussions around how to measure, far too little in what to do with the measures once you get them (and what to do with the measures is the subject for a future post).  Moreover, I’m increasingly convinced that the questions around the how to measure? are much less important than we statisticians think they are.  

One type of indicator will never suit all purposes, and we’d be much better turning our minds to promoting the use of our new indicators for appropriate decision making, rather than searching for ever greater statistical perfection.

Take the debate around the merits of a composite indicator of progress (an average of other measures) versus a set of indicators for example. Few issues are likely to get a group of statisticians as hot under the collar.  

Many government statisticians feel about composite indicator much like the Taliban look on miniskirts.  They express abhorrence but are fascinated by what lies beneath.

Any composite indicator requires its component parts to be weighted together, which in turn requires judgments on the relative weights of each component. And such judgments are often difficult to make on statistical grounds alone. Now this is a genuinely important statistical issue, but I’d argue it is given way too much prominence when we consider how that composite indicator is going to be used.  Most composite indicators are not, and should never be, used directly to guide decision makers.  

If policies were set explicitly to achieve a certain value of a composite indicator for instance, we’d have to be very sure we had the weights right.  In reality composite indicators are meant to raise awareness, reframe debate and challenge a prevailing mindset. They might not be useful to design a policy, but they are great at summarizing a complicated set of data. Take the Human Development Index for example. It has never claimed to be anything other than a fairly crude measure of development. It doesn’t claim to have perfect weights, nor does it pretend to measure everything that matters.  Yet it is a practical tool that is relatively easy for all countries to produce and for users to interpret.  And it is this simplicity that has allowed it to challenge the hegemony of GDP and so help the world to realize that development is not synonymous with growth.

Likewise, those who support composite indicators do not always see the value in a set of indicators. 

“How can you communicate a simple story about change with 15 or 20 indicators?” they ask.  “You can’t.” is the honest answer.  

But you can use a set of indicators to encourage decision makers to look at policy through a broader well-being lens, rather than one focused only on achieving growth. 

A well-crafted set of indicators can help promote whole of government and cross-silo decision making, and highlight the interface between the economic, social and environmental spheres, and make trade-offs and synergies more explicit.

Different approaches and different indicators are neither better nor worse than each other.  They are all made to measure, but one size will not fit all purposes.  We will make quicker progress when we accept this, and start paying more attention to what those purposes are, and how to ensure all this information is turned into action.

Jon Hall

Global Progress Research Network member

Human Development Report Office, UNDP