The EHRC Measurement Frameworks

Anna Henry – EHRC Head of Social Analysis

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Why a Measurement Framework?

• Development of the EHRC Measurement Framework was

recommended by the final report of the Equalities Review

(Feb 2007) “all public bodies.. to agree priorities, set

targets, and evaluate progress towards equality”

• It is set out in the EHRC duties in the Equality Act 2006 -

to monitor social outcomes from an equality and

human rights perspective, by developing indicators and

reporting on progress every 3 years (section 12)

• The Triennial Review in October 2010 was the first of

such reports

Purpose and Practical Use

For use by the EHRC, Government and Public Bodies, stakeholders:

• Flags where there may be gaps in outcomes, differences in

processes (including discrimination) or differences in autonomy for individuals and groups

• Helps us build our narratives and arguments

• Helps motivate stakeholders

• Helps mainstream equalities

• Helps us meet our legal obligations to measure progress

Progress to Date:

• Equality Measurement Framework – 2009

• Good Relations Measurement Framework – 2010

• Children’s Measurement Framework – forthcoming in 2011

• Human Rights Measurement Framework - forthcoming in 2011

Common Methodology for all Frameworks

• Development of conceptual domains and selection criteria for measures and indicators

• Preparation of initial long list of proposed measures and indicators

• Specialist consultation (Government and civil society stakeholders)

• Revision and agreement of shortlist• Web consultation for wider input• Technical analysis of survey data• One-to-one meetings with data providers and other

specialists• Final list of recommended indicators

Conceptual Approach

Each of the separate frameworks has a similar ‘3 dimensional’ approach

Each aims to disaggregate by the same ‘protected characteristics’

Each includes domains, indicators and measures

Equality and Children’s Measurement Frameworks

Indicators across 10 domains based on “Substantive Freedoms” Based on the central and valuable things in life that people can ‘do’ and ‘be’:

Types of indicator: • inequality in outcomes: what people are actually

doing or being, e.g. whether employed or not; • inequality in processes: how people are treated

E.g. when applying for a job or accessing health service

• inequality in autonomy: the extent to which people are empowered and have choice and control e.g. over their work/life balance

Good Relations Measurement Framework

Indicators across 4 domains based on theoretical principles derived from race relations:

Attitudes Personal SecurityInteraction with OthersParticipation and Influence

Types of indicator: Outcomes, processes, autonomy

Human Rights Measurement Framework

Domains based on specific rights: – Right to life– Freedom from torture, inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment– Right to liberty and security of the person– Right to a fair trial– Right to private and family life– Right to an adequate standard of living

Types of indicator: Structure, Process, Outcome

Practical application:

• ‘How Fair is Britain?’ 2010– Equality Measurement Framework– Around 40 indicators across 10 thematic

chapters– Descriptive, reflecting diverse survey sources

across England, Scotland and Wales

• Human Rights Review 2011– Based on the Human Rights Act– Complements the HRMF publication– More narrative, analytical

Challenges

• Still many indicators for which no official data sources exist particularly in area of process and autonomy.

• Data is missing for marginalised groups (e.g., homeless people, prisoners, those in care, asylum seekers/refugees, gypsies and travellers).

• Data for strand groups is not consistently captured (e.g ethnicity), disaggregated (e.g. disability) or well captured (e.g. transgender, sexual orientation).

• Geographical coverage is inconsistent (countries and regions).

• Questions around the ongoing capacity and commitment to data collection.