London Ward Well-Being Scores
These ward level well-being scores present a combined measure of well-being indicators of the resident population based on 12 different indicators. Where possible each indicator score is compared with the England and Wales average, which is zero. Scores over 0 indicate a higher probability that the population on average will experience better well-being according to these measures.
Users can adjust the weight of each indicator depending on what they consider to be the more or less important, thus generating bespoke scores. This is done either by entering a number between 0 and 10 in the importance row or by moving the slider (each indicator is set to 10 by default). The scores throughout the spreadsheet will update automatically.
The tool combines data across a range of themes for the last five years of available data.
The well-being scores are then presented in a bar chart for each borough*, and a map of London.
The spreadsheet highlights wards in the top and bottom 25 per cent in London. Wards that have shown significant improvement or reduction in their scores relative to the average over the five year period are also highlighted.
Borough figures are also provided underneath to assist with comparisons.
Rankings and summary tables are included. The data that the tool is based on is included in the spreadsheet.
This file is 7.5MB.
IMPORTANT NOTE, users must enable macros when prompted upon opening the Excel spreadsheet (or reset security to medium/low) for the map to function. The rest of the tool will function without macros.
If you cannot download the Excel file directly try this zip file (2.5MB).
If you experience any difficulties with downloading this spreadsheet, please contact Gareth Piggott in the Intelligence Unit.
The scores from the spreadsheet are also available in PDF format. The scores in Intelligence Update 21-2012 are based on equal weightings across each measure.
The 12 measures included are:
- Life and Expectancy
- Incapacity Benefits claimant rate
- Unemployment rate
- Income Support claimant rate
- Crime rate
- Deliberate Fires
- GCSE point scores
- Unauthorised Pupil Absence
- Children in out-of-work families
- Public Transport Accessibility Scores
- Access to public open space & nature
- Elections Turnout
With some measures if the data shows a high figure that indicates better well-being, and with other measures a low figure indicates better well-being. Therefore scores for Life Expectancy, GCSE scores, PTALs, Access to Public Open Space/Nature, and Election turnout have been reversed so that in all measures low scores indicate probable lower well-being.
Why should measuring well-being be important to policy makers?
Following research by the Cabinet Office and Office for National Statistics, the government is aiming to develop policy that is more focused on ‘all those things that make life worthwhile’ (David Cameron, November 2010). They are interested in developing new and better ways to understand how policy and public services affect well-being.
Why measure well-being for local areas?
It is important for London policy makers to consider well-being at a local level (smaller than borough level) because of the often huge differences within boroughs. Local authorities rely on small area data in order to target resources, and with local authorities currently gaining more responsibilities from government, this is of increasing importance. But small area data is also of interest to academics, independent analysts and members of the public with an interest in the subject of well-being.
How can well-being be measured within small areas?
The Office for National Statistics have been developing new measures of national well-being, and as part of this, at a national and regional level, the ONS has published some subjective data to measure happiness. ONS have not measured well-being for small areas, so this tool has been designed to fill this gap. However, DCLG have published a tool that models life satisfaction data for LSOAs based on a combination of national level happiness data, and 'ACORN' data. Happiness data is not available for small areas because there are no surveys large enough for this level of detail, and so at this geography the focus is on objective indicators. Data availability for small areas is far more limited than for districts, and this means the indicators that the scores are based on are not all perfect measures of well-being, though they are the best available. However, by using a relatively high number of measures across a number of years, this increases the reliability of the well-being scores.
How can this tool be used to help policy makers?
Each neighbourhood will have its own priorities, but the data in this tool could help provide a solid evidence base for informed local policy-making, and the distribution of regeneration funds. In addition, it could assist users to identify the causes behind an improvement in well-being in certain wards, where examples of good practice could be applied elsewhere.
Differences to the 2011 report
This is the 2012 edition of this publication. There are a number of changes including the comparison is now to the England and Wales average where available (where it is not London has still been used). Indicators of Children in Lone Parent Families, Air Emissions, Standardised Mortality Ratio, House Prices and Access to a Foodstore have been replaced by Unemployment rate, Access to Public Open Space/Nature, Life Expectancy, Deliberate Fires, and Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs).
The data has been turned into scores where each indicator in each year has a standard deviation of 10. This means that each indicator will have an equal effect on the final score when the weightings are set to equal.
This tool was created by the GLA Intelligence Unit. Please contact email@example.com for more information.
* The London boroughs are: City of London, Barking and Dagenham, Barnet, Bexley, Brent, Bromley, Camden, Croydon, Ealing, Enfield, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Harrow, Havering, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Kingston upon Thames, Lambeth, Lewisham, Merton, Newham, Redbridge, Richmond upon Thames, Southwark, Sutton, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth, Westminster.
|Author Name||Intelligence Unit, Greater London Authority|