methodology report social progress index barking ... · authors: phil canham, dr juan carpio, tony...

Methodology report Social Progress Index Barking & Dagenham

1 | P a g e

METHODOLOGY REPORT SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX: BARKING AND DAGENHAM


2 | P a g e

Barking and Dagenham council In 1886 social reformers claimed that as many as one quarter of Londoners were living in poverty. The successful businessman and philanthropist Charles Booth was liberal for his time, unlike many of his Victorian peers he did not believe poverty was caused by laziness. He saw poverty as a social ill that all of society had a responsibility to treat. Nevertheless, Booth received this news incredulously, believing it to be exaggerated. Booth was a man of science and believed that all work should be rooted in evidence and intelligence. So he set out to prove the social reformers wrong and show through evidence that fewer Londoners were living in poverty than had been estimated. To do this he set up camp in East London, living for several weeks at a time in the homes of working class, East End families, while working closely with Toynbee Hall, the Whitechapel-based anti-poverty charity. He carried out various thorough, well-thought-out investigations. Charles Booth’s hunch was wrong. In fact, he found an even greater proportion of Londoners were living in poverty. However, included in his final Inquiry into Life and Labour in London were his Maps Descriptive of London Poverty. Booth’s Maps portray poverty in London at a street-by-street level, by categorising each street as one of seven categories, from ‘the lowest class’ to ‘the upper-middle and upper classes’. Eventually ranging from Hammersmith in the west to Greenwich in the east, from Hampstead in the north to Clapham in the south, the maps are an astonishingly early and detailed example of social cartography, and of evidence-based policy making. Initially based on the extensive findings of school board visitors and by accompanying bobbies on the beat around their neighbourhoods, the maps were a tool to inform social reformers which parts of London were most in need. Booth’s work in East London in the late nineteenth century to create these maps was intended to use data and intelligence to make London a fairer, more inclusive place, where no-one was left behind. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Barking and Dagenham’s Social Progress Index is the twenty-first century successor to Booth’s Maps Descriptive of London Poverty. We are following the age-old, proud, East London tradition of trying to improve the lot of our community through intelligent, evidence-based action. Technology has moved on since the 1800s. Today, in the era of big data, we can measure a range of social and environmental outcome indicators more accurately than Charles Booth could ever dream of, to reveal:

• how well people are truly living

• how economic changes are affecting quality of life

• what improvements can have the greatest impact on society


3 | P a g e

The first social progress index at a ward level allows us to understand the social wellbeing of our residents who live in different parts of Barking and Dagenham. It informs the way we work and it targets our efforts on those areas and those challenges that will have the greatest positive impact on our community. Just as Charles Booth intended, the Social Progress Index allows us to stop guessing and to start knowing, so that we can work faster and more efficiently towards the vision of the Borough Manifesto, ensuring that no-one is left behind. Social Progress Imperative The Social Progress Imperative’s mission is to improve the lives of people around the world, particularly the least well off, by advancing global social progress by: providing a robust, holistic and innovative measurement tool—the Social Progress Index; fostering research and knowledge-sharing on social progress; and equipping leaders and change-makers in business, government and civil society with new tools to guide policies and programs. From the EU to India to Brazil and beyond, the Social Progress Imperative has catalysed the formation of local action networks that bring together government, businesses, academia, and civil society organizations committed to using the Social Progress Index as a tool to transform societies and improve people’s lives. For further information, please contact Tony Doherty [email protected] Authors: Phil Canham, Dr Juan Carpio, Tony Doherty, Petra Krylova, Pye Nyunt, Satyam Bhagwanani and Michael Sinclair. Barking and Dagenham, 2018

mailto:[email protected]


4 | P a g e

Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 5

What is the Social Progress Index ........................................................................................................... 7

Social Progress Index: Barking and Dagenham ................................................................................. 11

Geographic and Time Coverage ........................................................................................................ 12

Index Calculation ................................................................................................................................... 13

1) Indicator Selection and Data Collection ................................................................................. 13

2) Dealing with Missing Values ................................................................................................... 14

3) Data Transformations ............................................................................................................ 14

4) Aggregation and Scaling ........................................................................................................ 15

5) Evaluating the Fit .................................................................................................................... 16

Scorecards: Relative Performance of Wards ........................................................................................ 21

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 22

References ............................................................................................................................................ 23

Appendix A: Indicators not included in the final framework ................................................................ 24

Appendix B: Indicator definitions and sources ..................................................................................... 25

Appendix C: Data availability ................................................................................................................ 28

Appendix D: Weights ............................................................................................................................ 30

Appendix E: Best case and worst case scenarii ..................................................................................... 31

Appendix F: Peer Groups ...................................................................................................................... 32


5 | P a g e

Introduction

The loss of industry has proven a great challenge to Barking and Dagenham, a borough in East London, over the past 50 years. Where once it was the norm for young residents to leave school at 16 and move into low-skilled and local employment (at Fords, May & Baker, etc), this has not been the case for some time. In 2015 an Independent Growth Commission set out a blueprint for the future of the Borough. This highlighted the borough’s proud heritage, history of re-invention and untapped potential. It also however illustrated how far the borough must go to reach that potential as:

• Barking & Dagenham has become one of the fastest-changing communities in Britain

- between 2001 and 2011 the population rose from 164,000 to 186,000 and is

projected to rise to 270,000 people by 2041.

• The age of the community is changing with the highest birth rate in London, and a

large number of young people - Barking & Dagenham has the highest proportion of 0-

16-year old’s in the UK.

• The borough becomes more diverse each year – the proportion of the population

identifying as coming from black and minority ethnic backgrounds increased from

19.1% to 50.5% between 2001 and 2011, whilst those identifying as White British

reduced from 80.9% to 49.5%.

• People in the borough die earlier, have poorer health and lower levels of education

and skills than across London.

• Too many residents are insufficiently skilled, are in low paid work and struggle to find

suitable homes they can afford.

Taking these into consideration, one of the Growth Commission’s recommendations was the development of a long-term vision for Barking & Dagenham that could harness the energy, creativity and ambition of residents. Nearly 3,000 residents helped to create Barking and Dagenham Together – Borough Manifesto which outlines the vision of one borough, one community with no-one left behind. The development of the first Social Progress Index (SPI) at a community level gives Barking & Dagenham a unique tool that allows the council and other key actors to monitor and drive the experiences of people living in the borough. The Index will be used to:

• drive policy;

• complement social value;

• measure change;

• understand needs and challenges;

• encourage participation;

• monitor inclusive growth; and

• ensure that no-one is left behind.

https://www.lbbd.gov.uk/council/priorities-and-strategies/borough-manifesto/overview/

https://www.lbbd.gov.uk/council/priorities-and-strategies/borough-manifesto/overview/


6 | P a g e

The SPI will help to define, track, prioritize and ensure that life is improving for residents regardless of which part of the borough they reside in, they are able to flourish as individuals and as families, to choose to stay in the borough and to be able to afford to do so. This report describes the methodology used to calculate the Index. The first section talks about the conceptual architecture of the Social Progress Index and the principles that guide the index creation process. The second section provides a step-by-step overview of the process of constructing the Social Progress Index for Barking and Dagenham: data collection, missing values, data transformation, assessment of the Index’s statistical properties, and aggregation. Furthermore, the report outlines the challenges and solutions experienced by the team and describes the method for conducting relative analysis of performance for the 17 wards.


7 | P a g e

What is the Social Progress Index

The Social Progress Index is a composite indicator which represents the first comprehensive framework for measuring social progress that is independent of traditional economic indicators, but complementary to them. The Index focuses on what matters to societies and people by giving them the tools to better understand and seize opportunities and building blocks to enhance and sustain the quality of their lives, as well as create the conditions to reach their full potential. Developed in collaboration with a team of scholars led by Professor Michael E. Porter of Harvard Business School, the Index is being used by national and city leaders across Latin America, and the European Commission’s Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy for agenda setting, policymaking, prioritizing resource mobilization and measuring impact. The Index presents a granular, actionable picture of what matters most to people regardless of their wealth. It creates a common understanding of how well a community performs on the things that matter to all societies, rich or poor. As a complement to traditional measures of economic performance, such as income, the Social Progress Index provides better understanding of the bi-directional relationship between economic gain and social progress. Its unique framework offers a systematic, empirical foundation for governments, businesses, civil society and communities to prioritise social and environmental issues, and benchmark performance against other countries, regions, cities and communities to inform and drive public policies, investments, and business and community decisions. Guided by a group of academic and policy experts, the Social Progress Index follows a conceptual framework that defines social progress as well as its key elements. In this context, social progress is defined as the “capacity of a society to meet the basic human needs of its citizens, establish the building blocks that allow citizens and communities to enhance and sustain the quality of their lives, and create the conditions for all individuals to reach their full potential.” The Social Progress Index is built around a framework that comprises three architectural elements: dimensions, components, and indicators.

• Dimensions represent the broad conceptual categories that define social progress:

o Basic Human Needs dimension considers citizens’ ability to survive with adequate

nourishment and basic medical care, clean water, sanitation, adequate shelter, and

personal safety. These needs are still not met in many disparate countries and are

often incomplete in more prosperous countries.

o Foundations of Wellbeing captures whether a society offers building blocks for

citizens to improve their lives, such as gaining a basic education, obtaining

information, and access communications, benefiting from a modern healthcare

system and live in a healthy environment.

o Opportunity captures whether citizens have the freedom and opportunity to make

their own choices. Personal rights, personal freedom and choice, tolerance and

inclusion, and access to advanced education all contribute to the level of opportunity

within a given society.


8 | P a g e

• Each dimension comprises four components - distinct but related concepts that

together make up the Social Progress Index Framework (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Social Progress Index Framework

Source: Social Progress Imperative (2018)

• Each component is composed of indicators that measure as many valid aspects of the

component as possible.

Together, this interrelated set of factors represents the primary elements that combine to produce a given level of Social Progress Index. The methodology allows measurement of each component and each dimension, and yields an overall score and ranking. The three dimensions and twelve components of the Social Progress Framework provide the backbone of the Social Progress Index. The twelve-component structure provides the guidelines, while the questions below provide a first guide for interpreting each component and help to identify locally relevant data to define it. To help guide this process, the following guiding questions (Figure 2) are used for selecting contextually appropriate indicators for each of the twelve components.


9 | P a g e

Figure 2: Social Progress Index Guiding Questions

Source: Social Progress Imperative (2018) The Index is explicitly focused on non-economic aspects of performance. Unlike most other measurement efforts, the index treat social progress as distinct though associated with traditional economic measures such as income per capita. In contrast, other indices such as the Human Development Index (UNDP, 2016) or the OECD Better Life Index (OECD, 2015) combine economic and social indicators. The SPI objective is to utilize a clear yet rigorous methodology that isolates the non-economic dimensions of social performance. The Index applies a set of unique design principles that allow an exclusive analysis of social progress and help the Index stand out from other indices:

Social and environmental indicators only: While economic development is generally beneficial for social progress, it is not sufficient to fully capture the wellbeing of societies, and certain kinds of economic development can reduce social progress. The relationship is complex: social progress can drive as well as be driven by economic progress. Consequently, social progress needs to be measured directly, without combining economic performance. Measuring social progress exclusively and directly, rather than utilizing economic proxies or combining economic and social variables is therefore the key principle of any Social Progress Index.

Outcomes, not inputs: There are two broad categories of conceptually coherent methodologies for index construction: input indices and outcome indices. Both can help countries to benchmark their progress, but in very different ways. Input indices measure a country’s policy choices or investments believed or known to lead to an important outcome. In competitiveness, for example, an input index might measure investments in human capital or basic research. Outcome indices directly measure the outcomes of investments. The Social Progress Index has been designed as an outcome index. The Index measures the lived experience of real people, regardless of effort spent or the capacity to impart change. Given


10 | P a g e

that there are multiple distinct aspects of social progress each measurable in different ways, the Social Progress Index has been designed to aggregate and synthesize multiple outcome measures in a conceptually consistent and transparent way that will also be salient to benchmarking progress for decision-makers.

Holistic and relevant to all communities: A multidimensional measure of social progress that encompasses the many inter-related aspects of thriving societies everywhere. The Social Progress Index aims to be a practical tool for decision makers in any given country regardless of its level of development. At the national level, the Social Progress Index fulfils this value proposition by deepening our understanding on the relationship between social progress and economic growth and by designing a very relevant tool to highlight strength and weakness at the component and indicator levels, using GDP comparator groups. Nevertheless, what matters at the national level to compare countries among themselves may not be what matters for the policy debate in a given country. For example, tuberculosis is not an issue in the Amazon region, but Malaria is. These examples illustrate how building subnational indices by preserving the 12-components structure of the Social Progress Index and by customizing the indicators to be monitored and targeted, can increase the capacity of the Social Progress Framework to boost relevant and timely policy-debates in every country at every stage of development.

Actionable: The Index aims to be a practical tool with sufficient specificity to help leaders and practitioners in government, business, and civil society to benchmark performance and implement policies and programs that will drive faster social progress. At the national level, the Social Progress Index fulfils this value proposition by focusing on the granularity of the model. Every component supposes an essential area for human wellbeing. And every indicator implies a potential “entry-point” and an “explicit target” for public policy. Building subnational indices with local networks will strengthen the actionability of the social progress framework, if the process of disaggregating and customizing the index is also supported by strong political buy-in around socially legitimate targets. A practical tool that will help leaders and decision-makers in government, business and civil society to implement policies and programs that will drive faster social progress.

The successes of the Global Social Progress Index has resulted in an increased demand for subnational indices to address the need for greater actionability; the need to make the index relevant for all countries at all levels of development and at any level of geography; and a need to build common languages and to align interventions. As a result local stakeholders around the world have developed innovative initiatives to build relevant and consistent social progress indices at the macro (national), meso (regional, municipal) and micro (community, organizational) levels, to influence the policy decision-making process and move the needle of social progress around the world.


11 | P a g e

Social Progress Index: Barking and Dagenham

The Social Progress Index for Barking and Dagenham follows the Social Progress Index rationale as well as its key principles and methodology. As such, it adopts the same dimension and component level framework as the global Social Progress Index and an effort has been made to mirror the indicators where possible. However, this has not been feasible in many cases due to the limited availability of data at ward-level. Locally relevant and appropriate indicators have therefore been included, together with outcomes that relate to the Council’s long-term vision for the residents of Barking & Dagenham. The resulting Social Progress Index Framework for Barking and Dagenham includes 53 indicators as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: Social Progress Index Framework: Barking and Dagenham

Source: authors

Social Progress Index: Barking & Dagenham

Basic Human Needs Foundations of Wellbeing Opportunity

Nutrition and Basic Medical Care Access to Basic Knowledge Personal Rights

Premature mortality Key Stage 2 attainment in reading, Households who own their property

Death rate writing and maths Voter registration

Foodbank users Key Stage 2 gap FSM and non-FSM pupils Voter turnout

Key Stage 4 attainment score per pupil

Water and Sanitation Key Stage 4 gap FSM and non-FSM pupils Personal Freedom and Choice

Overcrowding Schools judged as outstanding/good Teenage pregnancy

Food hygiene ratings Persistent absentees Youth unemployment gap

Pest control visits Public transport accessibility

Pension Credit claimants

Shelter Longterm JSA claimants

Housing affordability Residents without internet access

Non-decent homes Registered library users Inclusiveness

Homelessness Average broadband speed Volunteering residents

Housing benefits My Account users Racist hate crime

Households in fuel poverty Perceived community harmony

Health and Wellness Adults with learning disabilities in

Personal safety Obesity amongst children in Reception employment

People killed or seriously injured in road Obesity amongst children in Year 6 Adults with learning disabilities living

traffic accidents Excess weight in adults independently

Crime rate Male life expectancy

Domestic abuse Female life expectancy Access to Advanced Education

Domestic violence with injury Sustained education after key stage 4

Serious youth violence victims Environmental Quality Young people not in education,

Air pollution - PM10 exposure employment or training

Air pollution - NO2 exposure Young people in employment

Fly-tipping with training

Noise complaints Adults with no qualifications

Access to parks and open space

Access to Information and

Communications


12 | P a g e

Geographic and Time Coverage

The Index is calculated for all 17 wards of Barking and Dagenham (see map 1). These wards are as follows:

• Abbey

• Alibon

• Becontree

• Chadwell Heath

• Eastbury

• Eastbrook

• Gascoigne

• Goresbrook

• Heath

• Longbridge

• Mayesbrook

• Parsloes

• River

• Thames

• Valence

• Village

• Whalebone

Map 1: Barking and Dagenham wards

The Index for Barking and Dagenham is calculated for two most recent years – 2016 and 2017. This entails that in total, there are 34 observations in the data set – 17 wards, over 2 years. Detailed table with annual data availability for each indicator is presented in Appendix C.

Barking and Dagenham council plans to update the index on annual basis.


13 | P a g e

Index Calculation

Calculating the Social Progress Index involves the following multistage process: 1) Indicator Selection and Data Collection.

2) Dealing with missing values.

3) Data Transformation.

4) Aggregation and scaling.

5) Evaluating the fit.

1) Indicator Selection and Data Collection

It has been the aim of Barking and Dagenham’s Social Progress Index to include the most appropriate and relevant indicators reflecting the real lived experience of Barking and Dagenham’s residents. An initial list of more than a hundred of ideal indicators eventually slimmed down to final 53.

The Indicators for SPI Barking and Dagenham were selected following SPI general design principles: non-economic focus, outcome oriented, relevant to all units of observation and actionable. Furthermore, indicators were reviewed to ensure their timeliness, relevance and technical robustness. The process of indicator selection followed the Social Progress Index indicator selection tree as outlined in Figure 4. A list of indicators that were taken into consideration but are not included in the final index is presented in Appendix A. Detailed information on individual indicators included in the Index is presented in Appendix B.

Figure 4: Indicator selection tree

Source: Social Progress Imperative 2018


14 | P a g e

All indicators included in Barking and Dagenham SPI were compiled from government sources, or from other official sources.

2) Dealing with Missing Values

While no indicator included in the Index has missing values for either of the 17 wards, several indicators were only available for one time period, instead of two (2016 & 2017) for which the Index is calculated. In such cases, the values were used for both years. While this is not an ideal approach, it was the only feasible one. It is important that indicators with one time period only are not confined to one component, and therefore the impact on component, dimension and index level is minimal. The following indicators are only available for one year:

• Premature mortality;

• Persistent absentees;

• Registered library users;

• Air pollution – average PM10 exposure;

• Air pollution – average NO2 exposure;

• Access to parks and open space;

• Average public transport accessibility index;

• Adults with no qualifications.

3) Data Transformations

Three key data transformations took place in the process of calculating Barking & Dagenham’s Social Progress Index. First transformation concerned data for three indicators that were sourced from Barking and Dagenham’s annual survey of 1,000 residents. As the sample size at ward level is relatively small empirical Bayesian estimation was applied to the survey results of the following indicators to increase the probability of accurate distribution:

• Residents with no access to the internet;

• Volunteering – residents who gave unpaid help in the last 12 months; and

• Perceived community harmony – residents who agree that the local area is a place

where people from different backgrounds get on well together.

Secondly, there are specific cases where data values for certain indicators are over a rational boundary. In some other cases, data values exceed all other values among wards (aka outliers) which excessively skews the distribution. These indicators are confined at a boundary, a list is presented in Table 1.


15 | P a g e

Table 1: Confined Indicators

Indicator Treatment Explanation Pest control lower boundary

confined to 67.1 Windsorisation was applied so that the worst performing ward (117.2) was assigned the second worst performance (67.1). The second worst performance became the worst-case scenario.

Key Stage 2 gap upper boundary confined to 0

Theoretical boundary of 0 gap was applied.

Key Stage 4 gap upper boundary confined to 0

Theoretical boundary of 0 gap was applied.

Public Transport Accessibility

upper boundary confined to 11.6

Best achieving score across all London boroughs (11.6) was assigned to the best performing ward (25.4). This performance became the best-case scenario.

Youth Unemployment gap upper boundary confined to -1

With no theoretical grounding an upper boundary of -1 was applied entailing a slight overachievement in youth integration compared with the general population is a desired target.

Source: Authors Thirdly, as all the indicators are measured in different units, it is important to standardize them so that they become comparable. Otherwise, a variable that has less variation relatively but is measured on a larger scale compared to other variables may appear to have much greater variation than it actually does. Standardization helps solving the problem by making indicators unitless as it rescales them with a mean of zero and standard deviation of one.

4) Aggregation and Scaling

The Social Progress Index Barking and Dagenham adopts an aggregation approach similar to other subnational Social Progress Indices, such as Social Progress Index for India’s Districts or Social Progress Index for the United States. The Index applies geometric mean to aggregate the four components within each dimension into a dimension score and across dimensions into the index score. In contrast with arithmetic mean (aka simple average), geometric mean accounts for variation in performance across components and dimensions. This method of aggregation is particularly relevant for measuring social progress for two reasons. When the number of units of observations (wards) is relatively small, it is essential to distinguish each ward’s performance in a fair and balanced way. Secondly, geometric average embraces the imperative of social progress because it limits substitutability – i.e. good performance in one component/dimension cannot fully substitute for mediocre performance elsewhere. For example, a ward that performs very well on one of the four components but poorly on the other three will not receive the same score as a ward performing at a consistent level across all four components.


16 | P a g e

The Social Progress Index uses the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for calculating the weights of indicators within a component.1 A list of weights is presented in Appendix D. There are no indicators with smaller than ideal weights. The component values are calculated by summing the weighted scores using the following formula:

Components = ∑ (wi * indicator) To calculate component scores the Index transforms indicator values onto 0 to 100 scale. This is done by calculating scores using best- and worst-case scenarii which are defined at the indicator level according to desirable or theoretically possible upper and lower bounds. The best-case scenario in most cases reflects a 15% improvement on the best performance recorded across the 34 observations. The value for worst-case scenario represents the worst recorded performance across the 34 observations in most cases. See Appendix E for the worst and best-case scenarii. This method enhances comparability as well as comprehensiveness across the dataset. The calculation is done using the following formula:

𝑋𝑗 − 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝐶𝑎𝑠𝑒

𝐵𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝐶𝑎𝑠𝑒 − 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝐶𝑎𝑠𝑒

Where, Xj represents the raw values. Each dimension score is then taken to be the geometric average of its four components. The overall Index score is the geometric average of the three dimensions.

5) Evaluating the Fit

The indicator selection process entails including the indicators that describe the concept of the component in the best possible way and are conceptually linked to each other. The rigor of the Social Progress Index methodology is strengthened by assessing multiple aspects of fit between those. First, exploratory factor analysis is used to test the underlying factors among the set of selected indicators in each component. In this process, the indicators that are statistically incompatible are removed.

1 Principal Component Analysis is a multivariate technique which was developed in early 20th century for the purpose of aggregating information. Calculations were done in STATA, using “factor, pcf” command.


17 | P a g e

Furthermore, the Social Progress Index methodology involves evaltuating the fit between the individual indicators by calculating Cronbach’s Alpha for each component. Alpha was developed by Lee Cronbach in 1951 to provide a measure of the internal consistency; it is expressed as a number between 0 and 1 (Tavakol & Dennick 2011). Internal consistency describes the extent to which all the items in a test measure the same concept or construct and hence it is connected to the inter-relatedness of the items within the test. An applied practitioner's rule of thumb is that the alpha value should be above 0.7 for any logical grouping of variables (Cortina, 1993). The alpha values are presented in Table 2. Table 2: Alpha Values

Component Cronbach's Alpha

Bas

ic H

um

an

Ne

eds

Nutrition and Basic Medical Care 0.61

Water and Sanitation 0.67

Shelter 0.58

Personal Safety 0.80

Fou

nd

atio

ns

of

Wel

lbei

ng

Access to Basic Knowledge 0.73

Access to Information and Communications

0.68

Health and Wellness 0.87

Environmental Quality 0.75

Op

po

rtu

nit

y Personal Rights 0.64

Personal Freedom and Choice 0.53

Inclusiveness 0.65

Access to Advanced Education 0.73

Source: Authors Cronbach’s alpha values are lower for several components, most significantly in Personal Freedom and Choice. We acknowledge this shortcoming, but despite various attempts we could not improve the component performance. After calculating each component, the goodness of fit is evaluated using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy. The measure reflects the proportion of variance among variables that might be common variance. The KMO index ranges from 0 to 1, as a rule of thumb, KMO scores should be above 0.5 (Williams, Onsman, & Brown 2010). The results of this analysis are shown in Table 3.


18 | P a g e

Table 3: KMO Values

Component Mean KMO B

asic

Hu

man

N

eed

s

Nutrition and Basic Medical Care 0.43

Water and Sanitation 0.64

Shelter 0.61

Personal Safety 0.72

Fou

nd

atio

ns

of

Wel

lbei

ng

Access to Basic Knowledge 0.71

Access to Information and Communications

0.47

Health and Wellness 0.84

Environmental Quality 0.68

Op

po

rtu

nit

y Personal Rights 0.40

Personal Freedom and Choice 0.41

Inclusiveness 0.66

Access to Advanced Education 0.62

Source: Authors As with Cronbach’s Alfa, KMO values in several cases do not meet the 0.5 requirement, however the results are not significantly below.

The last test undertaken to validate the conceptual fit of indicators selected for the three dimensions was exploratory principal component analysis (PCA)2. The results for PCA applied on the three dimensions of Basic Human Needs, Foundations of Wellbeing and Opportunity are shown in Figures 5-7 respectively. Eigenvalues higher than 1 imply there is a significant

underlying concept. As all three scree plots indicate within each dimension there is only one strong concept as measured by the four components within each dimension.

2 Following Annoni, P. Dijkstra, L. and Hellman, T. (2016)


19 | P a g e

Figure 5 Basic Human Needs scree plot

Source: Authors Figure 6 Foundations of Wellbeing scree plot

Source: Authors


20 | P a g e

Figure 7 Opportunity scree plot

Source: Authors


21 | P a g e

Scorecards: Relative Performance of Wards

The absolute scores do not distinguish wards on the basis of economic development. In some cases, it is more illuminating to compare a ward’s performance with its economic peers. For instance, a ward may score low on certain aspects of social progress, but its performance could exceed the scores for wards with similar household income levels. Conversely, a high-income ward may have a high absolute score on a component, but still fall short of what is typical for comparably wealthy wards. For this reason, the Social Progress Index developed a methodology to assess ward’s strengths and weaknesses on a relative rather than absolute basis. Scorecards are used to depict the relative results. The ward-level scorecards portray a ward’s detailed absolute and relative analysis. The scorecards are colour-coded to highlight relative strengths and weaknesses. Red indicates performance below the peer group median; yellow indicates performance consistent with the peer group; and green highlights areas of relative strength. Additionally, scoring on a 0–100 scale provides a realistic benchmark rather than an abstract measure. This scale allows to track absolute, not just relative performance of wards over time on each component, dimension, and the overall index. To determine the relative strength and weakness of a ward, the first step is to identify a peer group. We define the group of economic peers as the 5 wards closed in median household income3 (Appendix F). Each ward’s median household income is compared to every other ward and the 5 wards with the smallest difference on an absolute value basis are selected for the comparator group. Once the group of comparator wards is established, the ward’s performance is compared to the median performance of wards in the group. If the ward’s score is greater than (or less than) the average absolute deviation from the median of the comparator group, it is considered a strength (or weakness). Scores that are within one average absolute deviation are within the range of expected scores and are considered neither strengths nor weaknesses. A floor is established so the thresholds are no less than those for poorer wards and the minimum distance from median to strength or median to weakness is 1 point. Progress over time is based on the overall SPI score between 2016 and 2017. A decrease or zero change is treated as deterioration, an improved score by less than one point reflects stagnation, an improved score by between one and four points is considered steady improvement whilst an improved score by more than four points is seen as significant improvement.

3 To eliminate annual fluctuations in household income, as well as ensuring comparability of relative performance across years the calculation uses the average of 2016 and 2017 median household income.


22 | P a g e

Conclusion

Building the Social Progress Index for Barking and Dagenham was a long-term endeavor lead by the Corporate Insight Hub at Barking and Dagenham Council, supported by the Social Progress Imperative. Throughout the process the team constructed and tested several iterations of the index, and consulted many colleagues across the council and beyond. Despite numerous challenges, such as the lack of appropriate data, or the fit of indicators, the authors are confident that the presented Social Progress Index: Barking and Dagenham is a robust and credible assessment of social progress.

The Index will provide a benchmark by which wards can compare themselves to others, and can identify priorities that need addressing in order to advance social progress. The Index is a unifying tool, which brings a common language and understanding of what social progress means to Barking and Dagenham’s public and private actors as well as its residents.


23 | P a g e

References

Annoni, P. Dijkstra, L. and Hellman, T. (2016) The EU regional SPI: A measure of social progress in the EU regions, retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/information/maps/methodological_note_eu_spi_2016.pdf Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of applied psychology, 78(1), 98. Social Progress Imperative (2018). Social Progress Index 2018. Retrieved from www.socialprogress.org Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal of medical education, 2, 53.

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/information/maps/methodological_note_eu_spi_2016.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/information/maps/methodological_note_eu_spi_2016.pdf

http://www.socialprogress.org/


24 | P a g e

Appendix A: Indicators not included in the final framework

Dimension/component Indicator Name Reason not included

Basic Human Needs

Infant mortality Suppressed values

5 a day on a usual day Unable to source ward data

Water and Sanitation Quality of drinking water Unable to source ward data

Shelter Temporary Accommodation Unable to source ward data

Personal Safety Gangs Did not fit as well as victims of serious youth violence following principal component analysis

Knife crime - young people Did not fit as well as victims of serious youth violence following principal component analysis

Foundations of Wellbeing

Library visits Origin of library visitors not recorded – included registered library users instead

Health and Wellness Anti-biotic prescribing Unable to source ward data

Suicide Did not fit as well as remaining indicators within the component following principal component

analysisSelf-harm Did not fit as well as remaining indicators within the component following principal component

analysisEmergency hospital admissions Did not fit as well as remaining indicators within the component following principal component

analysisEnvironmental Quality Recycling Origin of waste not recorded – only weighed per authority

Opportunity

Personal Rights Confidence in policing Unable to source ward data

Inclusiveness Disability hate crime Numbers are too small to allow for meaningful distribution

Faith hate crime Numbers are too small to allow for meaningful distribution

Sexual orientation hate crime Numbers are too small to allow for meaningful distribution

Adults engaged with mental health services within paid employmentUnable to source ward data

Adults engaged with mental health services living independently Unable to source ward data

Further education after Key Stage 5 Year 14 outcomes no longer statutorily monitored by local authorities

Apprenticeships Year 14 outcomes no longer statutorily monitored by local authorities – replaced with Employment

with training

Nutrition and Basic

Medical Care

Access to Information

and Communications

Access to Advanced

Education


25 | P a g e

Appendix B: Indicator definitions and sources

Dimension/component Indicator Name Definition Source

Basic Human Needs

Premature mortality Age-standardised rate of

mortality from causes

considered preventable per

100,000 population

LBBD

Death rate Deaths from all causes, all ages

(standardised mortality ratio)

ONS Vital Statistics

Foodbank users Foodbank users per 1,000

population

LBBD

Water and Sanitation

Overcrowding Reports of overcrowding per

1,000 households

LBBD

Food hygiene ratings Percentage of food businesses

whose most recent food

hygiene inspection rating was

improvement needed - rated

0,1 or 2 (0 - urgent

improvement necessary; 1 -

major improvement necessary;

2 - improvement necessary)

Food Standards Agency

Pest control visits Pest control visits per 1,000

households

LBBD

Shelter

Housing affordability Median house price/household

income ratio

ONS House price statistics for small

areas AND CACI Paycheck data

Non-decent homes Percentage of local authority

housing stock that is non-

decent

LBBD

Homelessness Number of homelessness

applications made per 1,000

households

LBBD

Housing benefits Proportion of households in

receipt of Housing Benefits

DWP

Households in fuel poverty Proportion of households living

in fuel poverty. A household is

fuel poor if it needs to spend

more than 10 per cent of its

income on fuel to maintain an

adequate standard of warmth

Department for Business, Energy &

Industrial Strategy

Personal Safety

People killed or seriously injured in road traffic

accidents

People killed or seriously

injured in road traffic accidents

per 10,000 population

Transport for London

Crime rate Recorded offences per 1,000

population

MET Crime Data Dashboard

Domestic abuse Domestic Abuse offences per

1,000 population

MOPAC London Landscape

Domestic violence with injury Domestic violence with injury

per 1,000 population

LBBD

Serious youth violence victims Serious Youth Violence (victims)

per 1,000 population - most

serious violence or gun crime or

knife crime where the victim is

aged 1 to 19

MOPAC London Landscape

Nutrition and Basic

Medical Care


26 | P a g e



Key Stage 2 attainment in reading, writing and

maths

Percentage of pupils achieving

expected standard in reading,

writing and maths at the end of

Key Stage 2

LBBD

Key Stage 2 gap FSM and non-FSM pupils Percentage of pupils achieving

expected standard in reading,

writing and maths at the end of

Key Stage 2 - gap between

pupils eligible for free school

meals and those who were not

LBBD

Key Stage 4 attainment score per pupil Average attainment 8 score per

pupil at the end of Key Stage 4

LBBD

Key Stage 4 gap FSM and non-FSM pupils Average attainment 8 score per

pupil at th eend of Key Stage 4 -

gap between pupils eligible for

free school meals and those

who were not

LBBD

Schools judged as outstanding/good Percentage of schools judged as

outstanding/good at latest

inspection

LBBD

Persistent absentees Persistent absentees as a

percentage of all pupils aged 5-

15 on the school roll for at least

one session

LBBD

Residents without internet access Proportion of residents who do

not have acces to the internet

anywhere.

LBBD Residents Survey

Registered ibrary users Library registrations per 1,000

population (includes LBBD

residents registered at libraries

within all boroughs within

Library consortium: Barking &

Dagenham; Bexley; Brent;

Bromley; Ealing; Enfield;

Hackney; Harrow; Havering;

Kingston; Lewisham; Luton;

Merton; Newham; Redbridge;

Sutton; Tower Hamlets;

Waltham Forest and

Wandsworth)

LBBD

Average broadband speed Average download speed (in

Mbits/s) of all connections

OFCOM

My Account users My Account registrations per

1,000 population aged 18+

LBBD

Health and Wellness

Obesity amongst children in Reception Prevalence of obesity among

children in Reception (age 4-5

years)

National Child Measurement

Programme

Obesity amongst children in Year 6 Prevalence of obesity among

children in Year 6 (age 10-11

years)

National Child Measurement

Programme

Excess weight in adults Percentage of adults (aged 16 +)

classified as overweight or

obese

LBBD

Male life expectancy Life expectancy at birth for

males


Female life expectancy Life expectancy at birth for

females


Environmental Quality

Air pollution - PM10 exposure Average PM10 exposure London Atmospheric Emissions

Inventory

Air pollution - NO2 exposure Average NO2 exposure London Atmospheric Emissions

Inventory

Fly-tipping Fly-tipping incidents per 1,000

households

LBBD

Noise complaints The number of complaints

about noise per 1,000

households

LBBD

Access to parks and open space Percentage of households with

access to open space, local

parks, district parks and

metropolitan parks (average)

Greenspace Info for London

Access to Basic

Knowledge


and Communications


27 | P a g e


Opportunity

Personal Rights

Households who own their property Proportion of households who

own their property

(outright/mortgage/loan)

LBBD

Voter registration Total electors as a proportion of

population aged 18 plus

Electoral Roll

Voter turnout Turnout at 2018 local election LBBD

Teenage pregnancy Number of teenage mothers as

a proportion of years 12-13

cohort

LBBD

Youth unemployment gap GAP between job seekers

allowance claimants aged 18-24

as a proportion of population

aged 18-24 and all job seekers

allowance claimants as a

proportion of population aged

16-64

ONS

Public transport accessibility Average score on the Public

Transport Accessibility Index

(detailed and accurate measure

of a point to the public transport

network, taking into account

walk access time and service

availability)

Transport for London

Pension Credit claimants Pension Credit claimants per

1,000 population aged 65 +

DWP

Longterm JSA claimants Job Seekers Allowance

claimants claiming for over 12

months per population aged 16-

64

ONS

Inclusiveness

Volunteering residents Proportion of residents who

had given unpaid help to any

group, club or organisation in

the last 12 months


Racist hate crime Racist hate crimes per 1,000

population

LBBD

Percieved community harmony Proportion of residents who

agree that this local area is a

place where people from

different backgrounds get on

well together


Adults with learning disabilities in employment Proportion of adults with

learning disabilities in paid

employment

LBBD

Adults with learning disabilities living independently Proportion of adults with

learning disabilities who live in

their own home or with their

family

LBBD

Sustained education after key stage 4 Pupil destination after

completing key stage 4 - pupils

in years 12-13 who are in

learning as a proportion of

resident young people (years 12

and 13)

LBBD

Young people not in education, employment or

training

Percentage of 16 to 18 year olds

who are not in education,

employment or training (NEET)

LBBD

Young people in employment with training Proportion of pupils in years 12-

13 in employment WITH

training as a proportion of the

cohort (years 12-13) (aged 16

and 17)

LBBD

Adults with no qualifications Proportion of population aged

16-64 with no qualifications

ONS

Personal Freedom and

Choice

Access to Advanced

Education


28 | P a g e

Appendix C: Data availability

Dimension/component Indicator Name 2016 2017

Basic Human Needs

Premature mortality 2012-15 2012-15

Death rate 2013 2014

Foodbank users 2016 2017

Water and Sanitation Overcrowding 2016 2017

Food hygiene ratings Jun-17 Mar-18

Pest control visits 2016 2017

Shelter Housing affordability 2015 2016

Non-decent homes Dec-16 Jan-18

Homelessness 2016 2017

Housing benefits Dec-16 Nov-17

Households in fuel poverty 2014 2015

Personal Safety People killed or seriously injured in road traffic accidents 2011-13 2012-14

Crime rate 2016 2017

Domestic abuse 2015/16 2016/17

Domestic violence with injury 2015/16 2016/17

Serious youth violence victims 2015/16 2016/17


Key Stage 2 attainment in reading, writing and maths Summer 2016 Summer 2017

Key Stage 2 gap FSM and non-FSM pupils Summer 2016 Summer 2017

Key Stage 4 attainment score per pupil Summer 2016 Summer 2017

Key Stage 4 gap FSM and non-FSM pupils Summer 2016 Summer 2017

Schools judged as outstanding/good Aug-16 Aug-17

Persistent absentees 2016 2016

Residents without internet access 2016 2017

Registered ibrary users May-17 May-17

Average broadband speed 2016 2017

My Account users 2016 2017

Health and Wellness

Obesity amongst children in Reception 2012/13 to

2014/15

2013/14 to

2015/16

Obesity amongst children in Year 6 2012/13 to

2014/15

2013/14 to

2015/16

Excess weight in adults Dec-16 Apr-18

Male life expectancy 2009-13 2010-14

Female life expectancy 2009-13 2010-14

Environmental Quality Air pollution - PM10 exposure 2013 2013

Air pollution - NO2 exposure 2013 2013

Fly-tipping 2016 2017

Noise complaints 2016 2017

Access to parks and open space 2015 2015

Nutrition and Basic

Medical Care

Access to Basic

Knowledge


and Communications


29 | P a g e

Dimension/component Indicator Name 2016 2017

Opportunity

Personal Rights Households who own their property 2016 2017

Voter registration Dec-16 Dec-17

Voter turnout 2014 2018

Teenage pregnancy Apr-16 Apr-17

Youth unemployment gap Dec-16 Dec-17

Public transport accessibility 2015 2015

Pension Credit claimants Nov-16 Aug-17

Longterm JSA claimants Dec-16 Dec-17

Inclusiveness Volunteering residents 2016 2017

Racist hate crime 2015/16 2016/17

Percieved community harmony 2016 2017

Adults with learning disabilities in employment 2015/16 2016/17

Adults with learning disabilities living independently 2015/16 2016/17

Sustained education after key stage 4 Aug-16 Aug-17

Young people not in education, employment or training Aug-16 Aug-17

Young people in employment with training Aug-16 Aug-17

Adults with no qualifications 2014-16 2014-16


Choice

Access to Advanced

Education


30 | P a g e

Appendix D: Weights

Dimension/component Indicator Name Weight Scaled Weight

Basic Human Needs

Premature mortality 0.53 0.41

Death rate 0.41 0.31

Foodbank users 0.37 0.28

Water and Sanitation Overcrowding 0.42 0.32

Food hygiene ratings 0.41 0.32

Pest control visits 0.46 0.36

Shelter Housing affordability 0.14 0.09

Non-decent homes 0.20 0.13

Homelessness 0.41 0.27

Housing benefits 0.38 0.26

Households in fuel poverty 0.36 0.24

Personal Safety People killed or seriously injured in road traffic accidents 0.25 0.19

Crime rate 0.30 0.22

Domestic abuse 0.30 0.22

Domestic violence with injury 0.30 0.22

Serious youth violence victims 0.18 0.14


Key Stage 2 attainment in reading, writing and maths 0.25 0.17

Key Stage 2 gap FSM and non-FSM pupils 0.20 0.13

Key Stage 4 attainment score per pupil 0.24 0.16

Key Stage 4 gap FSM and non-FSM pupils 0.28 0.18

Schools judged as outstanding/good 0.24 0.16

Persistent absentees 0.30 0.20

Residents without internet access 0.33 0.26

Registered ibrary users 0.41 0.33

Average broadband speed 0.11 0.08

My Account users 0.41 0.32

Health and Wellness Obesity amongst children in Reception 0.25 0.20

Obesity amongst children in Year 6 0.20 0.16

Excess weight in adults 0.26 0.21

Male life expectancy 0.27 0.22

Female life expectancy 0.24 0.20

Environmental Quality Air pollution - PM10 exposure 0.34 0.26

Air pollution - NO2 exposure 0.34 0.26

Fly-tipping 0.16 0.12

Noise complaints 0.22 0.17

Access to parks and open space 0.26 0.19

Opportunity

Personal Rights Households who own their property 0.52 0.41

Voter registration 0.43 0.34

Voter turnout 0.32 0.25

Teenage pregnancy 0.35 0.23

Youth unemployment gap 0.21 0.14

Public transport accessibility 0.42 0.28

Pension Credit claimants 0.13 0.08

Longterm JSA claimants 0.42 0.27

Inclusiveness Volunteering residents 0.35 0.23

Racist hate crime 0.33 0.22

Percieved community harmony 0.34 0.22

Adults with learning disabilities in employment 0.20 0.13

Adults with learning disabilities living independently 0.29 0.19

Sustained education after key stage 4 0.40 0.32

Young people not in education, employment or training 0.38 0.30

Young people in employment with training 0.32 0.25

Adults with no qualifications 0.16 0.13

Nutrition and Basic

Medical Care

Access to Basic

Knowledge


and Communications


Choice

Access to Advanced

Education


31 | P a g e

Appendix E: Best case and worst-case scenario

Dimension/component Indicator Name Best Case Worst Case

Basic Human Needs

Premature mortality 229.2 480.5

Death rate 62.0 145.4

Foodbank users 0.0 5.2

Water and Sanitation Overcrowding 0.5 4.7

Food hygiene ratings 0.0 21.2

Pest control visits 4.4 67.1

Shelter Housing affordability 6.0 13.9

Non-decent homes 16.9 74.3

Homelessness 2.9 21.0

Housing benefits 13.2 33.7

Households in fuel poverty 6.8 14.5

Personal Safety People killed or seriously injured in road traffic accidents 2.2 17.1

Crime rate 49.6 157.7

Domestic abuse 6.1 15.5

Domestic violence with injury 2.0 5.5

Serious youth violence victims 1.1 7.9


Key Stage 2 attainment in reading, writing and maths 88.1 40.0

Key Stage 2 gap FSM and non-FSM pupils 0.0 -29.0

Key Stage 4 attainment score per pupil 64.5 43.6

Key Stage 4 gap FSM and non-FSM pupils 0.0 -16.7

Schools judged as outstanding/good 100.0 33.3

Persistent absentees 8.2 14.4

Residents without internet access 6.0 16.0

Registered ibrary users 746.9 331.6

Average broadband speed 69.3 32.7

My Account users 842.4 218.5

Health and Wellness Obesity amongst children in Reception 9.9 16.1

Obesity amongst children in Year 6 19.1 29.3

Excess weight in adults 48.1 65.6

Male life expectancy 84.2 75.0

Female life expectancy 91.6 78.2

Environmental Quality Air pollution - PM10 exposure 20.1 25.4

Air pollution - NO2 exposure 24.6 37.9

Fly-tipping 9.9 81.2

Noise complaints 25.1 79.8

Access to parks and open space 76.5 19.3

Opportunity

Personal Rights Households who own their property 76.7 26.1

Voter registration 96.4 77.6

Voter turnout 50.2 25.6

Teenage pregnancy 0.0 1.7

Youth unemployment gap -1.0 1.1

Public transport accessibility 11.6 2.5

Pension Credit claimants 175.1 444.0

Longterm JSA claimants 0.2 0.7

Inclusiveness Volunteering residents 33.6 17.2

Racist hate crime 0.0 4.3

Percieved community harmony 73.0 61.7

Adults with learning disabilities in employment 12.8 0.0

Adults with learning disabilities living independently 100.0 16.7

Sustained education after key stage 4 100.0 85.9

Young people not in education, employment or training 1.5 8.1

Young people in employment with training 14.7 3.1

Adults with no qualifications 9.0 25.3

Nutrition and Basic

Medical Care

Access to Basic

Knowledge


and Communications


Choice

Access to Advanced

Education


32 | P a g e

Appendix F: Peer Groups

Ward Peers

Abbey River, Chadwell Heath, Valence, Becontree, Mayesbrook

Alibon Goresbrook, Eastbury, Mayesbrook, Parsloes, Valence

Becontree River, Abbey, Chadwell Heath, Valence, Mayesbrook

Chadwell Heath Valence, Mayesbrook, Eastbury, Goresbrook, Alibon

Eastbrook Whalebone, Becontree, River, Abbey, Chadwell Heath

Eastbury Mayesbrook, Goresbrook, Valence, Alibon, Chadwell Heath

Gascoigne Village, Heath, Thames, Parsloes, Alibon

Goresbrook Eastbury, Mayesbrook, Alibon, Valence, Chadwell Heath

Heath Village, Gascoigne, Thames, Parsloes, Alibon

Longbridge Eastbrook, Whalebone, Becontree, River, Abbey

Mayesbrook Eastbury, Goresbrook, Valence, Chadwell Heath, Alibon

Parsloes Thames, Alibon, Goresbrook, Eastbury, Mayesbrook

River Abbey, Chadwell Heath, Becontree, Valence, Mayesbrook

Thames Parsloes, Alibon, Goresbrook, Eastbury, Mayesbrook

Valence Chadwell Heath, Mayesbrook, Eastbury, Goresbrook, Alibon

Village Heath, Gascoigne, Thames, Parsloes, Alibon

Whalebone Eastbrook, Becontree, River, Abbey, Chadwell Heath

methodology report social progress index barking ... · authors: phil canham, dr juan carpio, tony...

Documents