TransmonEE: leaving no child behind Is Britain fairer? Monitoring equality and human rights progress for children The aim of this presentation is to explain what the Measurement Framework is and how it works, including key features and messages, ahead of the launch in October. TransmonEE: leaving no child behind 25 October 2017 1

My expertise on children comes from experience..! Not an expert on children but have two of my own! This opportunity to speak made me reflect on the experiences of my own children and the fact that many are less fortunate – in Great Britain but also other parts of the world 2

The Equality and Human Rights Commission What I will talk about The Equality and Human Rights Commission ‘Is Britain Fairer?’ and our new Measurement Framework Some facts and figures on children and ethnicity in Great Britain Data issues 3

About the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) We cover Great Britain (GB) and England, Scotland and Wales We are the national equality body and official National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) We aim to make Britain fairer Independent, expert, authoritative…excellent! We challenge discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and protect human rights We cover Great Britain (GB) and the devolved governments in England, Scotland and Wales (but not Northern Ireland). GB’s national equality body and official National Human Rights Institution (NHRI). We were established by the Equality Act 2006. We aim to make Britain fairer, by safeguarding and enforcing the laws that protect people’s rights. Independent from government, we aim to be an expert and authoritative organisation that is a centre of excellence for evidence, analysis and equality and human rights law. We use our unique enforcement powers to challenge discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and protect human rights. 4

About ‘Is Britain Fairer?’ (IBF) We are legally obliged to monitor equality and human rights The last major IBF review was published in 2015 The next IBF review will be published in October 2018. The 2018 report will be our first publication making use of the new measurement framework We have a statutory duty in law to monitor social outcomes from an equality and human rights perspective and report to Parliament on progress. We do this through our regular IBF reports. The last major IBF review was published in 2015. The next IBF review will be published in October 2018. It will provide a robust evidence base to influence Government(s), statutory bodies and others to improve equality and human rights outcomes. It will also inform our strategic direction. ‘Is Britain Fairer?’ 2018 will be our first publication making use of the new measurement framework (more on that later). 5

The EHRC’s Measurement Framework (MF) Induction Pack 2016 Directorate The EHRC’s Measurement Framework (MF) A tool for monitoring progress in equality and human rights It consists of six major ‘domains’ or areas of life Each domain has 3-4 ‘indicators’. Indicators are broken down further into ‘topics’ The Measurement Framework (MF) is a tool for monitoring progress in equality and human rights It consists of six major ‘domains’: 1) Education 2) Work 3) Living standards 4) Health 5) Justice and personal security and 6) Participation Each domain has 3-4 ‘indicators’. These are quite broad: e.g. ‘poverty’ is an indicator in the living standards domain Indicators are broken down further into ‘topics’. E.g. ‘food and fuel poverty’ is a topic within the ‘poverty indicator’. Some topics focus on findings from statistical analysis, e.g. ‘percentage of adults experiencing severe material deprivation’ (data source is a household survey). We tend to call these ‘measures’ 6

A little bit of history From four frameworks into…one! These frameworks have informed the development of major reviews in the past – most recently ‘Is Britain Fairer’ (2015) BUT…the frameworks had become a bit complicated Work began on developing a single MF in 2016. The new MF will underpin the 2018 IBF report. We used to have four measurement frameworks: equality, good relations, children and human rights (2009-11). These have been combined into one streamlined framework, which will be published in October 2017. We continue to monitor children as a common thread running through the report. These frameworks have informed the development of major reviews in the past – most recently ‘Is Britain Fairer’ (IBF) which was published in 2015. And ‘How fair is Britain?’ (2010) before that. The frameworks had become quite complicated, unwieldy and dated. Work began on reviewing the MF in 2016. The new MF will underpin the next IBF report which is due for publication in October 2018. 7

The new Measurement Framework Education Educational attainment of children and young people School exclusions, bullying and NEET Higher education and lifelong learning Work Employment Earnings Occupational segregation Forced labour and trafficking* Living standards Poverty Housing Social care Health Health outcomes Access to healthcare Mental health Reproductive and sexual health* Palliative and end of life care* Justice and personal security Conditions of detention Hate crime, homicides, sexual and domestic abuse Criminal and civil justice Restorative justice* Reintegration, resettlement and rehabilitation* Participation Political and civic participation and representation Access to services Privacy and surveillance Social and community cohesion* Family life* We conducted a formal consultation on our new draft framework across all three countries, involving government departments, civil society organisations, academics and international specialists in January and February 2017. We subsequently received over 40 written responses from equality and human rights stakeholders,. The new framework has been designed to reflect all of the rights in the international HR treaties. The 18 core indicators will form the basis of the next review, ‘Is Britain Fairer’, using structural, process and outcome evidence to produce four country reports, covering GB, England, Scotland and Wales. We also plan to report against social and community cohesion. We will monitor systematically the position of certain groups in relation to equality and human rights, using disaggregated data. Evidence is therefore collected in relation to: the protected characteristics; socio-economic group; geographical location; whether people are ‘at higher risk’, and finally intersectionality – how people may experience a combination of multiple forms of discrimination or disadvantage (more on this on a later slide). We expect to report on the remaining 6 supplementary indicators in subsequent reviews. * Supplementary indicators 8

Key features of the Measurement Framework Strong theoretical foundations Precise indicators and topics Good data disaggregation and equalities analysis Compatible with other frameworks The outcomes for children and ‘at-risk’ groups are featured throughout It motivates us to achieve change! The MF has strong theoretical foundations that are applied to equality and human rights monitoring in a practical way. It has precise indicators and topics to monitor if we get any closer to achieving the future we want. It sets a high standard in relation to data disaggregation and equalities analysis – we break the data down by protected characteristics as much as possible, including intersectional analysis where possible It is compatible with frameworks used by other organisations (e.g. national indicators for Wales, National Performance Framework Scotland, Sustainable Development Goals) It can be used to drive social change and, ultimately, achieve progress towards equality human rights! Mention virtuous circle: 1) Develop/update measurement framework for equality and human rights 2) Use framework to inform Is Britain Fairer? reviews to Parliament 3) Use Is Britain Fairer? evidence base to influence public bodies and others to improve equality and human rights outcomes, and our own Strategic Plan and 4) Achieve progress towards equality and human rights 9

Who can use the framework Framework used by EHRC Government and statutory bodies Third-sector City mayors, local authorities Opinion formers and media NHRIs and NEBs International umbrella organisations (OHCHR) Research institutions, universities and colleges The Measurement Framework can be used by a wide variety of bodies and organisations. We will use the Measurement Framework for our statutory reports to Parliament. We expect that the framework will inform the ‘Is Britain fairer?’ reviews in 2018, 2021 and 2024, although the indicators, topics, statistical measures and structure, process and outcome evidence will need to be regularly updated to make use of the best available evidence and advances in analysis. We also use the Measurement Framework, and specifically the domains and overviews of the kind of Britain we are striving towards, to inform and structure our strategy work, as well as to monitor the UK’s compliance with the seven United Nations human rights treaties it has signed and ratified. Parliamentary committees, Government departments and statutory bodies in Britain can use the framework as an agenda-setting tool, as it gives an indication of the issues that may be at the forefront of the national debate on equality, human rights and social justice in the foreseeable future. Social researchers, economists and statisticians in these bodies can also use the framework to inform their own collection of data. Third-sector organisations, NGOs, charities and campaigning groups can use the framework as an agenda-setting tool. City mayors, local authorities and their partners can apply and adapt the framework to their local contexts, and use it to monitor how rights are respected, protected and fulfilled on the local level, compared to the national level, and to fill data gaps. Opinion formers and media can use the framework to inform public debate and discussion and to provide an equality and human rights context to wider social, economic, political and legislative issues. Other National Human Rights Institutions and National Equality Bodies can use or adapt the framework to inform their own monitoring activities. We hope that international umbrella organisations, such as OHCHR, the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Network of Equality Bodies and the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions use our framework as best practice, for instance in relation to data disaggregation and as an example of how structure, process and outcome evidence can be comprehensively collected at a national level. Research institutions and academics could use the framework to carry out deep-dive research into specific elements of it, to further expand knowledge and innovation in this area, including using the framework as a ‘business case’ in funding applications and to fill data gaps. Universities and colleges can use our framework as an example to teach practical applications of equality and human rights monitoring to their students, as well as development of indicators and metrics. 10

Children and ethnicity in GB: some facts and figures The school performance of different ethnic groups of children is quite mixed In Scotland, white children are outperformed by all other ethnic groups In England, Gypsy/Roma & Traveller children have the highest rates of school exclusions The school performance of different ethnic groups of children is quite mixed. In England and Wales, white children tend to do better than Black African/Caribbean children - but not as well as Indian children. Poor, white boys have the lowest educational attainment at age 16. In Scotland, white children are outperformed by all other ethnic groups. In England, Gypsy/Roma & Traveller children have the highest rates of school exclusions (based on a small sample). Black Caribbean pupils were over three times more likely to be permanently excluded than the average pupil. Chinese and Asian pupils had the lowest rates exclusion. Data sources: Department for Education (England). Scottish government. Data collected by schools and then shared with govts. 11

Children and ethnicity continued… In England and Wales, infant mortality is higher for ethnic minority infants than white ones In Britain, children in ethnic minority households are more likely to live in poverty Some children are subjected to racist bullying in school. Racist language is often heard in primary and secondary schools. In England and Wales, infant mortality is higher for African/Caribbean, Pakistani/Bangladeshi and Indian infants than it is for White infants. In Britain, children in ethnic minority households are more likely to live in poverty: 41.9%. This is much higher than the proportion of White children: 24.5%. Some children are subjected to racist bullying in school. Racist language is often heard in primary and secondary schools. There are concerns that incidents of racist bullying are under-reported. Data sources: specially commissioned analysis for IBF 2015 using data from Child Mortality Statistics and Gestation-specific Infant Mortality publications by the ONS. Poverty data: Family Resources Survey, DWP (in accordance with National Statistics standards, set by Office for Statistics Regulation) Bullying: no official statistics but there are numerous surveys and research studies. Most prominent is by an anti-bullying charity ‘Ditch the Label’ 12

Data collection on children and ethnicity Education is devolved, so data are collected separately in England, Scotland and Wales Other departments would have to have an agreement with the data owner to access the data Data for secondary analysis can also be obtained by qualified researchers Education is devolved, so data are collected separately in England, Scotland and Wales and held by the Department for Education, Scottish and Welsh Governments respectively. They then use the data in their own statistical releases. Other departments would have to have an agreement with the data owner to access the data. Data for secondary analysis can also be obtained by qualified researchers. Each application is considered carefully before access is given and the process can be lengthy. 13

Data coverage and quality Data coverage is good overall…but… Parents may be unwilling to provide schools with ethnicity data Data on children’s ethnicity are often provided by a proxy respondent, so may not reflect their own self-identity (e.g. household surveys) Parents may be unwilling to provide schools with ethnicity data as they fear discrimination or even deportation. This can be a particular concern for some groups, for example refugees. Data on children’s ethnicity are often provided by a proxy respondent, so may not reflect their own self-identity. Data are not always collected on children’s ethnicity, for example in some household surveys, in which case the ethnicity of a parent or another household member may be used as a proxy. 14

Ethnic group categories The ethnic group categories have been developed for use in the UK censuses and are reviewed every ten years The three UK censuses currently have slightly different ethnic group categories Although we have harmonised ethnic group questions, based on the 2011 Census questions, not all organisations/surveys use these The ethnic group categories have been developed for use in the UK censuses and are reviewed every ten years. The three UK censuses currently have slightly different ethnic group categories, developed for 2011, which are only partially comparable. The three censuses are: 1. England and Wales, 2. Scotland, 3. Northern Ireland Although we have harmonised ethnic group questions, based on the 2011 Census questions, not all organisations/surveys use these. For example, the NHS in England is still using the 2001 Census question. 15

To sum up… We monitor equality and human rights and report on progress There are many indicators on racial/ethnic inequality amongst children in our measurement framework Some ethnic groups of children face serious disadvantages in Great Britain Data coverage of children is generally good but there are some gaps Some ethnic groups of children face serious disadvantages A lot of data is collected on children in schools, via households surveys, health services and used centrally. Data integrity and coverage is good overall, although there are some gaps. We monitor equality and human rights using our measurement framework and report on progress. There are many indicators on racial inequality amongst children in our measurement framework: education, health, poverty and so on. The issue is a thread running through the framework and our reviews. 16

Thank you! Any questions? 17