Transcript Document

The Canadian Index of Wellbeing:
A New Approach to
Measuring the
Progress of
Societies
Presented by:
Alex Michalos, Director of Research
Presented to:
IISD/CSIN, March 3, 2010
Measuring what Matters
 Indicators are powerful
 What we count and measure, influences how we make
policy decisions
If we don’t measure wellbeing, in all of its dimensions,
it doesn’t count…leaving Canadians to:
 Gauge wellbeing using a narrow set of economic
indicators
 Misinterpret wellbeing or use surrogate measures
 Ignore policy options that will fundamentally improve
wellbeing
www.ciw.ca
What is the Canadian Index of Wellbeing?
A national index that will report on:
Domain Name
Release date
Healthy Populations
Living Standards
Community Vitality
Democratic Engagement
Time Use
Arts, Culture and Recreation
Education
Environment
and Composite Index
June ‘09
June ‘09
June ‘09
Jan ‘10
June ‘10
June ‘10
June ‘10
Nov ‘10
Nov ‘10
www.ciw.ca
Why a New Measure of Wellbeing?
 Promote a shared vision of what really constitutes sustainable
wellbeing and the elements that contribute to or detract from it;
 Measure national progress toward, or away from, achieving that
vision;
 Understand and promote awareness of why society is moving in the
direction it is moving;
 Stimulate discussion about the types of policies, programs, and
activities that would move us closer and faster toward achieving
wellbeing;
 Give Canadians tools to promote wellbeing with policy shapers and
decision makers so as to account for why things are getting better or
worse; and
 Add momentum to the global movement for a more holistic way of
measuring societal progress.
www.ciw.ca
Keys to Success
 Leadership
 Collaboration
 Technical Expertise
 Public Engagement
 Solid Evidence
 Communication
www.ciw.ca
Keys to Success – Leadership
Vision
To enable all Canadians to share in
the highest wellbeing status by
identifying, developing and publicizing
statistical measures that offer clear,
valid and regular reporting on
progress toward wellbeing outcomes
Canadians seek as a nation.
www.ciw.ca
Keys to Success – Leadership
 R&D guided by team of national and internationally
renowned experts
 Independent, non-partisan Advisory Board
 Advice and data sources from Statistics Canada
 Civil society partnerships
 International Advisory Network
 International partners (e.g. OECD)
 Funders’ Alliance led by the Atkinson Charitable
Foundation
www.ciw.ca
Keys to Success – Leadership
CIW Advisory Board
Chair
 The Honourable Roy Romanow, P.C., O.C., Q.C.
Deputy Chair
 The Honourable Monique Bégin, P.C., FRSC, O.C.
Members








Dr. Judith Bartlett
Charles (Charlie) S. Coffey, O.C.
Enrico Giovannini
Allan Gregg
Hugh Mackenzie
Dr. Bob McMurtry
Charles Ungerleider, Ph.D.
Marilyn Waring, Ph.D.
International Advisory Group
 Jon Hall
 Hazel Henderson
 Thomas Homer-Dixon
 Dennis Trewin
www.ciw.ca
Keys to Success – Collaboration
Building
relationships with
Canadian and
International
organizations
Barrie Community
Health Centre
…and growing
www.ciw.ca
Keys to Success – Public Engagement
Canadian Policy Research
Network (CPRN) conducted
nationwide consultation on
quality of life matters
1999
2000
2001
National working
conference establishes panCanadian research advisory
group (CRAG)
2002
2003
Expert roundtable of
indicator experts and
practitioners reviewed
CPRN results
Expert roundtable convened
and endorsed the
development of a wellbeing
tool
2004
2005
Cross-Canada roundtables
to update, engage and build
network of users and
champions
2006
Cross-Canada
consultations informing
domain development
2007
2008
2009
Launch
Toronto workshop with key
partners to work on key
messaging for launch
www.ciw.ca
Keys to Success – Communication
Latest domain report released
First Report featuring Living
Standards, Healthy Populations
& Community Vitality Domains
www.ciw.ca
Keys to Success – Communication
The First Four Domain Reports
 Living Standards
Andrew Sharpe and Jean-François Arsenault, Centre for the
Study of Living Standards, Ottawa
 Healthy Populations
Nazeem Muhajarine, University of Saskatchewan and Ronald
Labonté, University of Ottawa
 Community Vitality
Katherine Scott, Canadian Council on Social Development,
Ottawa
 Democratic Engagement
Lenore Swystun and Kelley Moore, Prairie Wild Consulting Co.
together with Bill Holden and Heather Bernardin, HOLDEN &
Associates, Saskatoon
www.ciw.ca
Domain Definitions
 Living Standards measures the quality and
quantity of goods and services, both public
and private, available to the population, and
the distribution of these goods and services
within the population.
 Healthy Populations measures the physical
and mental health of the population –
experiencing disease, disability and delaying
death, people’s life circumstances, and care
people receive.
www.ciw.ca
Domain Definitions
 Community Vitality measures the strength,
activity and inclusiveness of relationships
among residents, private sector, public sector
and civil society organizations that work to
foster individual and collective wellbeing.
 Democratic Engagement measures the
participation of citizens in public life and in
governance; the functioning of Canadian
governments with respect to openness,
transparency, effectiveness, fairness, equity
and accessibility; and the role Canadians and
their institutions play as global citizens.
www.ciw.ca
Living Standards Data
Table 1a: Trends in living standards indicators for Canada
Year
Ratio
of top
to
bottom
quintile
After tax
median
income
of
economic
family
Incidence
of
economic
families
in
poverty
Scaled
value of
economic
security
Incidence of
long-term
unemployment
Employment
rate
CIBC index of
employment
quality
(1994Q1=100)
RBC
housing
affordability
index
1994
4.46
50,400
10.8
0.592
17.4
58.4
100.62
42.50
1995
4.53
49,900
10.9
0.599
16.3
58.7
101.58
39.24
1996
4.74
49,800
11.7
0.586
16.4
58.4
100.09
36.70
1997
4.86
50,100
11.6
0.575
15.6
58.9
100.10
35.11
1998
4.99
52,000
10.1
0.581
13.3
59.7
100.44
34.53
1999
4.86
53,700
9.5
0.584
11.2
60.6
104.36
35.55
2000
5.11
54,600
9.0
0.593
10.7
61.3
105.32
36.63
2001
4.99
56,800
7.9
0.571
9.0
61.1
105.68
34.27
2002
5.09
56,700
8.6
0.537
9.2
61.7
102.86
35.08
2003
4.98
56,700
8.5
0.534
9.6
62.4
100.23
35.48
2004
5.15
57,400
8.0
0.549
9.1
62.7
99.17
36.65
2005
4.97
58,400
7.4
0.544
9.2
62.7
99.28
37.29
2006
4.88
59,600
7.0
0.558
8.3
63.0
98.49
40.98
2007
4.86
61,800
5.8
0.563
7.1
63.5
97.72
44.91
2008
4.86
61,800
5.8
0.558
6.7
63.6
99.93
45.24
www.ciw.ca
Healthy Populations Data
Table 2a: Trends in healthy population indicators for Canada
Year
Patient
Average
satisfactio
Teen
HALE for
n with
Self-rated
smoking
Influenza 15+ (% of
Life
Depression
overall
health (% Diabetes
rate (aged
immunizati remaining
expectanc
(% with
health
excellent prevalence
12-19, %
on rate
years
y at birth
probable
services
or very
(% yes)
daily or
(age 65+) expected to
(years)
depression) (% rating
good)
occasional
(%yes)
be lived in
services as
smokers)
good
excellent
health)
or good)
1994
63.1
3.0
78.2
20.9
5.2
84.4
47.9
85.3
1995
63.3
3.1
78.4
21.3
4.7
84.4
47.9
86.2
1996
63.4
3.2
78.6
21.6
4.1
84.4
47.9
87.1
1997
64.3
3.4
78.8
20.5
4.2
84.4
50.9
84.7
1998
65.2
3.5
79
19.4
4.3
84.4
53.9
82.2
1999
63.9
3.7
79.2
19.2
5.2
84.4
57.0
82.1
2000
62.7
3.9
79.4
18.9
6.2
84.4
60.0
81.9
2001
61.4
4.1
79.6
18.7
7.1
84.4
63
81.7
2002
59.9
4.4
79.8
16.8
6.5
85.6
62.7
82.8
2003
58.4
4.6
79.9
14.8
5.9
86.8
62.4
83.9
2004
59.3
4.8
80.2
13.6
5.6
86.0
64.5
82.9
2005
60.1
4.9
80.4
12.3
5.2
85.2
66.5
82.0
2006
59.9
5.4
80.4
12.2
5.2
86.0
66.5
82.0
2007
59.6
5.8
80.4
12
5.2
86.8
66.5
82.0
2008
59.6
5.8
80.4
12.0
5.2
86.8
66.5
82.0
Note: Data which are not in bold were obtained by interpolation.
www.ciw.ca
Community Vitality Data
Table 3a: Trends in community vitality indicators for Canada, 1994 and 2008
% who
Rates property Rates violent % who feel % disagreeing
% reporting
provide
crime per
crime per safe walking that they worry
unpaid volunteer
Year
alone after less about the unpaid help work in thepast
100,000
100,000
to others on
1
population
population
needs of others
12 months
dark
their own
51.0
39.7
73.0
31.4
1994
5,250
1,046
86.8
27.0
51.0
39.7
87.0
31.7
73.0
31.4
1995
5,283
1,007
51.0
87.3
36.3
73.0
31.4
1996
36.7
5,264
1,000
36.3
87.5
1997
51.0
4,867
990
41.0
73.0
31.4
51.0
35.9
87.8
41.0
74.3
29.8
1998
4,556
979
51.0
35.5
75.7
28.3
1999
4,266
955
88.0
41.0
35.0
88.5
41.3
2000
51.0
4,070
982
77.0
26.7
54.3
34.6
89.0
41.5
78.5
28.9
2001
4,047
995
57.7
34.2
89.5
41.8
80.0
31.1
2002
3,973
969
81.5
2003
61.0
33.8
4,120
965
90.0
42.0
33.3
61.0
33.8
90.0
42.0
33.3
2004
3,991
946
83.0
61.0
33.8
90.0
42.0
83.0
33.3
2005
3,738
943
61.0
33.8
90.0
42.0
83.0
33.3
2006
3,588
951
61.0
33.8
90.0
42.0
83.0
33.3
2007
3,320
930
61.0
33.8
3,320
930
90.0
42.0
83.0
33.3
2008
Note: Data which are not in bold were obtained by interpolation. When the first year with available data was after 1994, the value of the first
year with available data was used for previous years.
% reporting
participation
in activities
% with 6 or
more close
relatives
www.ciw.ca
Democratic Engagement Data
Table 4a: Trends in democratic engagement indicators for Canada
% reporting
% who strongly
% reporting
% reporting
that they are
or somewhat
% strongly
paying no
that they
Voter turnout
very
agree that the Donation rate
agreeing that it attention at all
discussed
International Aid
at federal
sastisfied
government
% to
Year
is every citizen's to news about
federal
(Net ODA as a %
elections (per
with the way
does not cares international
duty to vote in
the federal
election often
of GNI)
cent)
democracy
about what
organisations
federal elections elections on
or several
work in
people like them
TV
times a week
Canada
think
1994
67.0
75.0
15.1
11.7
21.7
65.3
2.0
0.43
1995
67.0
75.0
15.1
11.7
21.7
65.3
2.0
0.38
1996
67.0
75.0
15.1
11.7
21.7
65.3
2.0
0.32
1997
67.0
75.0
15.1
11.7
21.7
65.3
2.0
0.34
1998
65.1
75.0
15.1
12.5
21.7
65.3
2.0
0.30
1999
63.2
75.0
15.1
13.2
21.7
65.3
2.0
0.28
2000
61.3
75.0
15.1
14.0
21.7
65.3
2.0
0.25
2001
61.2
75.0
15.5
12.9
25.8
65.7
2.0
0.22
2002
61.1
75.0
15.9
11.8
29.8
66.2
2.0
0.28
2003
61.0
75.0
16.2
10.6
33.9
66.6
2.0
0.24
2004
60.9
75.0
16.6
9.5
37.9
67.0
2.0
0.27
2005
62.8
80.5
17.0
10.8
37.9
67.5
2.0
0.34
2006
64.7
85.9
17.3
12.0
37.8
67.9
2.0
0.29
2007
61.9
85.9
17.3
12.0
37.8
67.9
2.0
0.28
2008
59.1
85.9
17.3
12.0
37.8
67.9
2.0
0.28
Note: Data which are not in bold were obtained by interpolation. When the first year with available data was after 1994, the value of the first year
with available data was used for previous years.
www.ciw.ca
Data Trends
Trends of four domains and average
1994-2008
140
GDP
Index percent changes
130
CIW
120
110
100
90
80
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
Average of Living Standards Indicators
Average of Healthy Populations Indicators
Average of Community Vitality Indicators
Average of Democratic Engagement Indicators
Composite CIW Measure
GDP per Capita
www.ciw.ca
Report Highlights – Living Standards
Canada became a much richer country, but the top 20%
received the lion’s share of rising income and wealth
 Canadians experienced a widening of income and wealth
inequalities
 The fight against poverty has stalled since 1981; some poverty
reductions were not nearly as large as the increase in wealth
inequality
 Between 1981-2008, the incidence of long-term
unemployment is higher now than in 1981
 Since 1981, many dimensions of living standards in Canada
have not improved, despite a 53.0% surge in GDP per capita
 Frayed social safety net provides less support for the
disadvantaged (e.g. welfare benefits, employment insurance
less generous re: qualifications period, coverage, duration of
benefits)
www.ciw.ca
Report Highlights – Healthy Populations
 Life expectancy rates are among the best in the world; a closer
look at health indicators reveals a more mixed picture
o Canadians are living longer but not better
o Canadians are increasingly likely to develop a chronic disease or
mental illness during their lifetime
 For more than a decade, merely 65% of Canadians have declared
their overall health very good or excellent. Self-rated health is
considerably lower than it was 10 years previously
o This decline is most marked among Canadian teenagers - a drop of
11.9%
 Health disparities between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
Canadians have narrowed somewhat but still remain unacceptably
large
 Higher incomes and higher levels of education are associated with
longer life expectancy and better self-reported health.
o The positive impact of income and education is most marked among
women
www.ciw.ca
Report Highlights – Community Vitality
 Canadians have strong social relationships with their families and
communities
o Positive trend of most of the indicators suggests that the wellbeing
of Canadians, as measured by the quality of their relationships, is
improving over time.
 We are well-equipped to deal with current and future challenges
 The size of Canadian’s social networks has declined since the
mid 1990s; Canadians are reporting smaller numbers of close
relatives and close friends
 A growing number of Canadians report that they provide help to
others (83% of Canadians in 2004)
 Over half of Canadians believe that people can generally be
trusted
 In 2004, 4.1% of Canadians reported experiencing discrimination
because of their ethnicity, race, culture, skin colour, religion or
language, a decline from 7.1% in 2002; significantly higher for
visible minorities
www.ciw.ca
Report Highlights – Democratic
Engagement
 Fewer Canadians are voting. Turnout in the most recent federal
election, in 2008, was the lowest in Canadian history at 59.1%, down
more than 10 percentage points from 1993.
 Participation rates in formal political activities are extremely low. The
number of people volunteering for law, advocacy and political groups
has hovered at about 2% or less throughout the past decade, and hours
volunteered dropped by 15% from 2004 to 2007.
 Canadians aren’t satisfied with their democracy. Between 40-45% said
they were not satisfied with how democracy works in Canada. (2004
and 2006 surveys)
 An overwhelming majority of people say that federal government
policies have not made their lives better. Only 12% said their lives had
been improved by federal policies when last surveyed in 2006.
 Women and minorities are underrepresented in the political process.
Since 1997, the percentage of women in Parliament has remained
relatively steady – and low – at about 20%.
www.ciw.ca
What Have We Learned?
 Challenge of tracking change over time when data collection is
not consistent over time, changed, or dropped
 Need for increased data collection at the sub-municipal level,
community and neighbourhood level
 Need for integrated government-community frameworks for
collecting, organizing and disseminating data
 Benefits of inter-sectoral policy/planning models that will lead
to better measures of wellbeing and reduce silo decision
making and cross purpose planning – excellent communitybased inter-sectoral models across Canada
 Need for a national index as a foundation for linking regional,
provincial and community based indicator initiatives
www.ciw.ca
Recommendations
 Successful policy development is best done through government
and civil society partnerships with a focus on systems change
 Successful policy development is best done through inter-sectoral
collaboration with all aspects of wellbeing used as a lens
 Data collection by government agencies is best advanced by
strategic partnerships with those who use the data and can inform
its development over time
 Income insecurity and poor health outcomes and inequities lie in
addressing issues of poverty and the exclusion of some of our
community members
 Establish an integrated government-community, multi-level, health
and social development framework for collecting, tracking,
organizing, analyzing and disseminating data (e.g., National Social
Data Strategy)
www.ciw.ca
For more information:
Check our website at www.ciw.ca
or contact
Lynne Slotek
416-869-4009 or [email protected]
www.ciw.ca