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"

 

 

Job Quality - It's not just about having a job

This blog by Anne Saint-Martin, Economist at the OECD, is part of the Wikiprogress focus on the “Well-being in the workplace: Measuring job quality” chapter of the How's Life? 2013.

Workers in high-strain jobs, who lack the support they need to cope with difficult work demands, are more likely to suffer from job burnout, to develop musculoskeletal disorders, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease. The list is long, and worrying. For instance a recent study published by Harvard researchers suggests that women in demanding and stressful jobs have a 38% increased risk of heart disease. Compared with those in low-strain jobs, they have a 67% raised risk of a heart attack, the study shows.

This is worrying as high-strain jobs are relatively widespread. A recent OECD study shows that in Europe, 20% of employees report difficult work situations, facing multiple job 'stressors' without adequate support and resources to cope with. And half of those in high-strain jobs report that work impairs their health, compared to only 15% for those in low-strain jobs.

People spend most of their day and a significant part of their life at work. Employment is not only a major driver of material living standards but also powerful determinants of one’s quality of life.

It is not just a question of having a job, it’s also about of job quality.

So what are the elements that make up a quality job?

The features of a job that contribute to the well-being of workers include interactions with colleagues, support from managers, work content, autonomy in decision-making, earnings and job security. Job quality has multiple facets.

In the current economic climate, insecure employment and in-work poverty are at the heart of policy debates in many OECD countries. But looking beyond these economic aspects and opening the Pandora box of job quality remains a key challenge for economists and policymakers. As a matter of fact, measuring well-being at the workplace, its determinants and its consequences on life quality, is not an easy task. 

People may face a variety of stress factors at work, such as dealing with heavy workload and time pressures, coping with conflicting demands, or performing physically demanding tasks. What matters for their well-being is both the accumulation of such 'stressors' and whether they are given a fair chance to meet these multiple requirements. Without well-defined work goals, sufficient work autonomy, support from colleagues and managers, demanding jobs can impair people’s health. But with adequate resources and support, they can be conductive to personal achievement.

In part due to an increasing awareness of work-related health problems among the public at large, well-being at the workplace has gained momentum in the public debate. This change has emerged alongside a wealth of research in occupational health, epidemiology, management and sociology, indicating that there is a strong relationship between job quality and peoples’ physical and mental health.

But the difficulties of defining and measuring the quality of work organisation and that of workplace relationships in ways that are amenable to comparisons over time and across countries remain a major obstacle to giving more prominence to these aspects of job quality in the policy debate, despite their importance for people’s well-being. Further work is needed to develop cross-country comparable indicators so as to identify best practices. This is in the agenda of the OCDE, as part of a major project on job quality: “Defining, Measuring and Assessing Job Quality and its Links to Labour Market Performance and Well-Being”.

References:

Slopen N., Glynn R., Buring J., Lewis T., Williams D. and M. Albert (2012), “Job Strain, Job Insecurity, and Incident Cardiovascular Disease in the Women’s Health Study: Results from a 10-Year Prospective Study”, PloS ONE, Vol.7, No.7.

OECD (2013), “Well-being in the workplace: Measuring job quality” in How’s life? Measuring Well-Being.

The U.S. versus the rich world in child well-being

This blog, written by Wikichild coordinator Melinda George, is a comparison between the recently published 2013 KIDS COUNT Data Book on America's child well-being with UNICEF's 11th Report card on rich countries' child well-being. This blog is a part of the Wikiprogress Series on its well-being and progress networks.

Since last week’s launch of the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s 2013 KIDS COUNT Data Book, discussions about America’s child well-being, particularly concerning each states’ rankings, have been a hot topic. (For those of you who missed the highlights, read more here.) The Data Book examine trends of 16 indicators pertaining to 4 dimensions (economic well-being; education; health; and family and community). 

In April 2013, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Innocenti office of research launched its 11^th Report Card on child well-being in rich countries. This report ranks the world’s 29 advanced economies in terms of their overall well-being, using 26 internationally comparable indicators separated into 5 dimensions (material; education; health and safety; behaviors and risks; housing and environment).

According to this UNICEF study, the U.S. was ranked 26^th out of 29 in overall child well-being and was on the lower end for most dimensions and indicators. The Data Book recognises that when the data was disaggregated, the results were strikingly different, particularly the education data for the lowest-income students.

So, how do America’s states and races compare to 

the well-being of children in other advanced economies?

Between these two studies, there are 3 shared indicators (low-birthweight babies; child and youth mortality; teen births) and a 4^th indicator where the observed age range differs by one year (teens not in education, employment or training; i.e. NEET rate). 

I've aligned the state and race data* with the rich countries implementing UNICEF's 3 color system**, showing the first, second and third tiers. I also added a 4th color (the darkest) to indicate the states which are off the country charts. 

Low-birthweight babies

(% born below 2.5 kilograms or 5.5 pounds)

Regarding the percentage of babies born below 2.5 kilograms, Alaska is comparable to Norway, Idaho to Belgium, Georgia to Greece, and Mississippi is off the charts. A majority of the states are in the bottom third of the advanced countries. However, Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites are in the middle, closer to Germany, while African Americans (at 13.2%) have a much higher percentage of babies below 2.5 grams than the average in Greece (around 9.5%). 

Child and youth mortality rate

(deaths per 100,000 among 1-19 year-olds)

We see the same trend in child and youth mortality rates as we did in the low birthweight percentages. The majority of states are in the bottom third of advanced countries' rates, with only 5 states in the top two-thirds. However, the Asian and Pacific Islanders in the U.S. have the same rate as Sweden and the Netherlands.

Teen births

(per 1,000 15-19 year olds) 

Since the United States has the second highest number of teen births next to Bulgaria, it is not surprising that 21 out of 50 states are off the charts. There are no states in the top two-thirds of the rich countries; however, the Asian and Pacific Islanders are in the middle third, with the same number of teen births (11 births per 1,000 15-19 year-olds) as Greece and the Czech Republic.

NEET rate

Percentage of 15-19 or 16-19 year olds not in education, employment or training 

The percentage of teens in the United States neither attending school nor working varies a lot between the states. In comparing with the advanced country rankings, most states were in the bottom third, and 13 states were in the middle third. Also, Vermont and Wyoming have rather low percentages (4%) and are comparable to Germany. When the U.S. data is disaggregated by race, it also is more evenly spread, covering all three tiers of the advanced countries. American Indians have the lowest percentage (15%), only slightly lower than Bulgaria's percentage. I must note that the UNICEF study observed teens 15 to 19 years old, while KIDS COUNT observed only 16 to 19 year olds in its study.

It’s unfortunate that there were not more shared indicators among the two studies and most of the shared indicators were related to children's health. While the KIDS COUNT data is most likely very relevant to local policy-making, it cannot be compared internationally.

The Data Book recognises childhood obesity as a growing problem; however, the KIDS COUNT index regrettably does not include an indicator for childhood obesity as there is no 50-state data source available. In the 11^th Report Card, the U.S. is almost off-the-charts for its childhood obesity rate in comparison with other rich countries. Comparable data is crucial in order to highlight the problem areas, share best practices, and tackle America’s childhood obesity. 

When considering America's improvements and declines in child well-being, we should look across states, across races and across other advanced economies to get a better understanding of what success looks like. I hope that policy-makers will do the same when deciding where efforts should be spent.

*The data concerning the U.S. is available online at www.datacenter.kidscount.org. 

**The countries with grey bars have data for fewer than 75% of the total number of indicators used in the UNICEF study.

Melinda Deleuze

Build strong children to avoid repairing broken men

This blog, written by Wikichild coordinator Melinda George, is an overview of the comments made in the recent Wikichild online discussion on measuring child well-being. This blog is a part of the Wikiprogress Series its well-being and progress networks.

This week, Wikichild concluded an online conversation about the most effective means of measuring child well-being and how these measures should be applied to the Post 2015 agenda. Over 50 participants shared their thoughts on the subject. 

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. 

Below, you will find slides from Professor Fiona Stanley's presentation on child well-being at last year's OECD 4th World Forum on Statistics, Knowledge and Policy.

Nurturing Children by Fiona Stanley from Wikiprogress_slides

According to the participants ...

...WHY should we measure child well-being? 

"It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men." 

Frederick Douglas

"The World Bank, OECD, and most governments all recognise that sustained economic prosperity and security relies on policies that both enhances the health and well-being of future generations and closes the gap in well-being between the rich and poor." 

Dr. Frank Elgar, McGill University

...WHAT should be measured? 

Health          Material security         Safety       

Education        Malnutrition         Interaction with animals

Social and economic rights       Child marriage          Depression       

Relationships           Resilience          Satisfaction    

Aspirations and expectations      Spirituality        

Access to justice      Family income  

...WHO should be measured? 

Vulnerable       Disabled       Indigenous       Very young       Youth       Adolescents 

...HOW should it be measured?

• Use tools such as the Kidscreen and the Early Development Index (EDI)
• Integrate indicators related to child health with indicators collected at birth
• Create a strong international measurement for early childhood development
• Increase data and its availability, particularly regarding very young children
• Decrease the amount of time it takes to publish quality data
• Use both subjective and objective indicators
• Ask young people about their own well-being in a more systematic and constructive way
• Use family-based indicators (i.e. rate of wanted pregnancies, family structure, parental responsibilities, parental engagement)

SNEAK PEAK - here are a few quotes from participants: 

“Subjective well-being measured by reports given by children themselves will provide a clear view of what children think about themselves and their surroundings.” - Theodore Joloza

“Children are frequently the adjustment variable intended to compensate the loose of purchase power after the income loss or price rises. Empirical work in Bangladesh provides evidence regarding the reduced child provision of protein after the rise of the food prices.” - Gaelle Ferrant

"Emotional security is one key aspect of children's well-being. And this aspect is all the more important in a school setting, where peer pressure is predominant and especially given the negative repercussions of emotional insecurity on educational performance." - Estelle

“One category that needs to be prioritized are vulnerable children. Vulnerable children certainly view themselves as less happy than the average child in their societies.” - Ousmane

Read all comments here. 

Measuring Social Progress: Is Scotland really innovative?

This post is by Jennifer Wallace, Policy Manager at the Carnegie UK Trust and author of  ‘Shifting the Dial: From Wellbeing Measures to Policy Practice’

Speaking at the OECD World Forum last year Professor Stiglitz used his platform to highlight three countries that were leading the way on measuring wellbeing: Canada, with its Canadian Index on Wellbeing; Bhutan with Gross National Happiness and Scotland.  While the first two are well known in the international debate on measuring wellbeing, Scotland Performs is not often referred to.  Mention wellbeing in a UK context and most people will automatically assume you are referring to the Office of National Statistics Measuring National Wellbeing programme.

So what is a small country, a devolved government within the United Kingdom, up to?  Why haven’t more people heard about it?  And why did Professor Stiglitz single it out? 

The Scottish experience of measuring wellbeing began in 2007.  A new minority government had been formed by the Scottish National Party and they were keen to find a different way of doing things.  They implemented a range of changes which became known as the ‘Scottish model of government’.  These included the removal of horizontal departments in central government and, at a vertical level, the freeing up of local government.  The links between sectors and layers of government were to be held together by a new National Performance Framework (NPF) focused on the outcomes that the Scottish Government wanted to achieve for the people of Scotland.  The NPF is headed up by a purpose statement (to focus government on ‘creating a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth’), underpinned by 16 national outcomes and 50 national indicators.  The indicators include measures covering health, education, environment, income, housing, personal security and subjective wellbeing.  It is a whole-of-government framework and as such applies to all services and all layers of government. 

Originally the NPF was not referred to as a wellbeing measurement initiative.  It was seen as a performance management and accountability tool.  But the use of the word ‘flourishing’ in the Framework shows the link with the work of Professor Seligman in the USA.  By 2011, and following the Carnegie Roundtable on Measuring Economic Performance and Social Progress, the Scottish Government (now re-elected with a majority) were clearly articulating the National Performance Framework and Scotland Performs (its public facing website) as a wellbeing initiative. 

This history explains why few people in the measuring wellbeing world appear to have heard about Scotland Performs but there are other reasons.  Unlike most of the international examples of good practice, the Scottish initiative did not directly engage members of the public in a conversation about what wellbeing is to them.  Similarly, alongside many international examples that we found in our earlier case studies for Shifting the Dial, the Scottish initiative struggles to find ways to communicate with the public about its findings.

What the Scottish approach does excel at though is its impact on policy development.  This is the area that wellbeing initiatives struggle most with.  In particular, the Scottish NPF has helped with two key areas of policy development:

·      Shifting to prevention: The wellbeing perspective has encouraged decision-makers to look for creative ways of improving wellbeing by focusing ‘up-stream’.  In Scotland the NPF has supported the development of initiatives such as the Early Years Collaborative, which focuses on improving early childhood services and initiatives such as the Violence Reduction Unit in Glasgow which seek to reduce the level of offending in high-risk groups. 

·       Joined up solutions: the National Performance Framework provides government with a holistic view of the impact of current policies.  This was followed by a renewed emphasis on finding joined up solutions and overcoming the dominant, silo-based way of working, for example through the integration of health and adult social care.  

These developments are still at an early stage and it is unclear the extent to which they amount to a whole-scale wellbeing approach to public policy. In the ‘black box’ of policy making it is also unclear the extent to which these policy changes were developed because of the NPF, supported by it, or merely just parallel initiatives.

Despite these caveats, we believe there is something interesting happening in Scotland.  We are working with Oxfam Scotland and Scottish Environment Link to encourage the Scottish Government to review the framework, bringing it more in line with international best practice on wellbeing measurement.  

With international agreement that we must measure what matters, the focus must now transfer to how to use this in a policy context.  Here, despite starting from a different place, Scotland may well be ahead of the game.