1 / 11

The EHRC Measurement Frameworks Anna Henry – EHRC Head of Social Analysis

The EHRC Measurement Frameworks Anna Henry – EHRC Head of Social Analysis. Equality and Human Rights Commission. Why a Measurement Framework?.

ivria
Download Presentation

The EHRC Measurement Frameworks Anna Henry – EHRC Head of Social Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The EHRC Measurement Frameworks Anna Henry – EHRC Head of Social Analysis Equality and Human Rights Commission

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. Good Relations Measurement Framework Indicators across 4 domains based on theoretical principles derived from race relations: Attitudes Personal Security Interaction with Others Participation and Influence Types of indicator: Outcomes, processes, autonomy

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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.

More Related