Programme for Government Wellbeing Framework

About the Framework

The PfG Wellbeing Framework sits alongside the Programme for Government and helps us track wellbeing trends in Northern Ireland.

Wellbeing is a combination of social, environmental, economic, and democratic factors which are essential for society to flourish. These factors align to the PfG Missions of People, Planet, Prosperity and the cross-cutting commitment to Peace. The PfG Missions have been broken down across ten strategic domains of wellbeing. Each domain is supported by a selection of indicators, all of which are high-quality official statistics.

The Executive will work to understand why the indicators within these domains are improving, staying the same or getting worse and use this analysis to inform future iterations of the Programme for Government.

Each indicator is subject to assessment by a Technical Assessment Panel comprising senior statisticians and an economist. The panel consider the technical quality of a proposed indicator and determine overall suitability. TAP also set the comparison year and criteria for determining whether change has occurred over time for each indicator which are agreed in advance to help ensure objective and transparent reporting on progress. The assessment of performance is made objectively and independently of Ministers.

Considerations in developing an indicator

Public interest

Indicators should have communicative power and allow us to demonstrate progress in a way that’s meaningful to everyone. Public interest in either the policy area or the statistics can be a useful way to assess this.

Technical quality of the indicator

Indicators need to be technically robust. Factors considered in developing indicators include:

✓ Are the data practical to collect? Most, if not all indicators will already be collected by Government or can be easily adapted for PfG purposes.

✓ Are the data straightforward to interpret? Is it clear when the situation is improving or worsening? Simple counts and percentages lend themselves better to this than rates/differences in rates or indices.

✓ Are the data precise enough to identify change? For survey data, this means sample sizes need to be of sufficient size to have a high degree of confidence in the estimate.

✓ Are definitions consistent? Data without breaks in the time series and with a historical trend are preferable.

✓ Are the data timely and regularly available? Is the indicator provided in a timely manner and available regularly (data which is at least annual is preferred but not always essential). Timeliness relates to the length of time between collection and publication of data.

✓ Do the data measure what they are intended to measure? Well-defined data that communicates what the indicator is trying to assess is more desirable than proxy measures.

✓ Do the data have sufficient coverage? Large population surveys/administrative sources with good coverage are more desirable than indicators depending on small surveys or administrative sources with known issues.

✓ Are the data from official sources? Indicators which are Official/Accredited Official Statistics are preferable, and should conform to international standards where applicable.

✓ Are the data burdensome or intrusive to collect? Where indicators are new, respondent burden, cost and the intrusiveness of the data should be considered.

Relation to wellbeing

Wellbeing is a combination of social, environmental, economic, and democratic factors which are essential for society to flourish. Indicators need to be relevant to the wellbeing of everyone in our society. Factors to consider include:

✓ Do the data reflect a key aspect of wellbeing – social, environmental, economic or democratic?

✓ How do the data fit with the domains of wellbeing in the PfG Wellbeing Framework?

✓ Is there support from policy, statisticians and stakeholders for the indicator?

✓ Is an objective or subjective indicator best suited to what you want to measure?

✓ Is a new indicator required to reflect this aspect of wellbeing or is it possible to improve or replace an existing one?

✓ Does the inclusion of a new indicator skew the overall wellbeing framework disproportionally towards one policy area?

Figure 1. Domains of wellbeing

Domains of wellbeing

Assessing change over time

Good indicators tell us something important about the current situation – is it improving, getting worse or not changing? How we measure that change must be technically robust and will depend on how the data is sourced and presented – e.g. indicators sourced from surveys will often use something like statistically significant change. Indicators coming from administrative sources may report any change as ‘real’ change. Indicators also need a ‘comparison year’ from which progress can be compared and change determined. For consistency across the wellbeing indicators, the Technical Assessment Panel agreed the options below for reporting on change:

Reporting an improving/no change/worsening trend based on a five year trend using data from the most recent five year period.
Reporting an improving/no change/worsening trend based on a post-covid comparison year, making comparisons between this year and the most recent year of data, until it is possible to report on a five-year trend (as per option 1).
Where statisticians have made a strong case for using an alternative method from options 1 and 2, this can be agreed as an exceptional approach.

Assessing differences in Northern Ireland

All our work must demonstrate due regard to equality of opportunity and good relations. For indicators, this means that where it is possible and appropriate, they should be broken down by different demographic groups such as sex, age, marital status, religion, disability, ethnic group, sexual orientation, those with and without dependants, and political opinion. Geographic breakdowns should also be included where possible to make sure that inequalities that exist between council areas, assembly areas, between urban and rural areas and areas of multiple deprivation are clear for all to see. Data providers can propose any additional breakdowns that might be useful to include for your specific indicator e.g. Housing stress includes a household group breakdown, Good jobs includes breakdowns by occupation and work pattern, and Life satisfaction among young people includes a breakdown by free school meal entitlement. Breakdowns that help give context, or that are relevant to policy are particularly helpful for users.

Addressing gaps in data

Considering the right data to measure a particular aspect of wellbeing can highlight gaps in the data that we have available to us. We can work to address these gaps and include additional indicators when it is possible to do so. TAP are available to assist and advise departmental statisticians and policy areas through this process.

Considering the international context

It is often useful to consider which indicators are being used by other countries to measure progress towards UN Sustainable Development Goals, OECD indices, or their own Wellbeing Frameworks for example, to allow international comparisons if appropriate.

Communicating indicators effectively

A good indicator is not only accurate and relevant but also effectively communicated. Each indicator page on the Wellbeing Framework dashboard has three sections which are there to help users understand the data:

How do we measure this? This is a brief description or definition of the indicator, including what data is collected, and should explain any technical terms so that a general user can understand.

What is this indicator telling us? This describes the current picture for the data. This section should also be used to highlight any longer-term trends and notable differences between subpopulations. Commentary here can be used to signpost users to other relevant information regarding the current picture, such as related research or publications.

Why is this indicator important? This sets the context within the overall Wellbeing Framework, as well as any links to policies and initiatives.

Commentary plays a crucial role in making indicators accessible and understandable, especially to non-technical audiences. Providing clear context helps the audience grasp why the indicator matters and how it relates to broader goals or issues. Comparisons with other indicators or benchmarks can offer perspective, while highlighting trends over time can reveal progress or areas needing attention. Using plain language and real-world examples can further enhance comprehension and engagement. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure that indicators and the wider framework inform decision-making and foster meaningful dialogue among diverse stakeholders.

Useful resources

Carnegie UK and the Centre for Thriving Places have produced a paper entitled Shared Ingredients for a Wellbeing Economy, which includes an ‘indicator pool’ as an appendix.

The What Works Centre for Wellbeing produced a Wellbeing Measures Bank, which also has links to further resources.

Annex A: Summary of criteria for assessing indicators

Public interest
1. Is there a public interest for the indicator?

Technical quality of the indicator
2. Are the data practical to collect?

3. Are the data straightforward to interpret?

4. Are the data precise enough to identify change?

5. Are definitions consistent?

6. Are the data timely and regularly available?

7. Do the data measure what they are intended to measure?

8. Do the data have sufficient coverage?

9. Are the data from official sources?

10. Are the data burdensome or intrusive to collect?

Relation to wellbeing
11. Do the data reflect a key aspect of wellbeing – social, environmental, economic or democratic?

12. How do the data fit with the domains of wellbeing in the PfG Wellbeing Framework?

13. Is there support from policy, statisticians and stakeholders for the indicator?

14. Is an objective or subjective indicator best suited to what you want to measure?

15. Is a new indicator required to reflect this aspect of wellbeing or is it possible to improve or replace an existing one?

16. Does the inclusion of a new indicator skew the overall wellbeing framework disproportionally towards one policy area?

Assessing change over time
17. Can the indicator measure change over time?

Commentary
18. Is further guidance required on the commentary?