Engagement Hub

Welcome to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Engagement Hub. This site will help you find, share and participate in our consultations. This is your chance to help us produce better statistics for better decisions. 

 
You can find details of consultations held before November 2016 on our website

Formal consultations

  • Consultation on the Reform to Retail Prices Index Methodology

    The UK Statistics Authority (the Authority) and HM Treasury are jointly consulting on reforming the methodology of the Retail Prices Index (RPI). The RPI is the oldest measure of inflation in the UK and is used widely across the economy and in financial contracts. However, it has a number of ... More

    Closes 21 August 2020

Surveys

All Formal Consultations and Surveys

We Asked, You Said, We Did

See the outcomes of our consultation and survey work See all outcomes

We Asked

We asked for people’s views on taking an indicator-based approach to measuring human capital. Human capital is a measure of the skills, knowledge and experience of an individual or population that can be applied to the economy or to society at large.

The key elements of the consultation were developing a new lifetime measurement indicator-based framework, which complements and augments the current Human Capital Stock measure. In practice, this means we will aim to produce a suite of indicators (data summarising the population which can be tracked over time) based on the themes set out in the consultation.The indicators are designed to work together to help everyone from the policy maker to the citizen understand the elements that can enhance an individual’s and the country’s human capital. This will help with making key decisions on investing in people at the right time and in the right place.

We asked for general feedback on whether this indicator-based approach would be useful for respondents and the work that they do or if they had suggestions for alternative approaches that we could take. We also asked for feedback on specific aspects of the proposal such as:

  • Whether respondents agreed our proposed themes (Health, Compulsory, further and higher education, Work, Family and Home, Crime, Independent Learning and Personality Traits) were complete and relevant.
  • Whether respondents agreed with our proposed three types of indicator; input, enabling factor and outcome.
  • Whether respondents were more interested in us filling data gaps or creating proxy indicators.

You Said

We received over 130 responses to the consultation from a wide range of users including central government, local government, industry organisations, academics, third sector organisations, trade unions, public corporations and individuals. We also held an engagement day with over 40 people attending and providing feedback on our proposals.

Overall, users agreed with our proposed indicator-based approach to measure human capital and were particularly in favour of us expanding our measures to consider the full lifetime of individuals, beyond the economically active population. Users said they would also like us to expand our measure to consider the impact on personal and social well-being, as well as retaining some priority on the economic well-being impacts.

Half of respondents thought the measure would be useful for the work they are planning to do, although some users had concerns around the complexity of the proposal. We received many suggestions for additional approaches which we are beginning to consider.

In terms of the proposed themes, there was a broad consensus from respondents that the health, compulsory, further and higher education, family and home and work themes were most relevant and important. The personality traits and crime themes were less well received as respondents were concerned with some of the terminology used and indicators suggested. Users also suggested additional indicators for us to consider.

The majority of users agreed with the approach of using 3 types of indicators, although some suggested also including wider background indicators.

When asked about anticipated data gaps, there were some common priorities highlighted amongst users including outcomes on skills, knowledge, competencies and attributes, data relating to the health, education and work themes and data relating to young adults and children, or those nearing retirement. Overall, users wanted us to prioritise filling data gaps over creating proxy indicators, but they recognized that proxy indicators were a useful way to allow the work to begin sooner.

We received over 50 responses highlighting that users would be interested in helping us to develop measures through involvement in a technical panel.

We Did

We intend to:

  • Begin to develop an indicator-based approach to measuring human capital, which would aim to take a lifetime acquisition approach, and where possible, have a broadened definition which includes impacts on personal and social wellbeing.
  • Develop this indicator-based approach iteratively, focusing on the Health, Family and home, Work and Compulsory, further and higher education themes first
  • Aim to first derive indicators where we have data available, but use proxy measures where this is not possible, looking to fill gaps in the medium to longer term
  • Carry out further work on the personality traits and crime themes to reflect the concerns users had around the use, terminology and suggested indicators for these themes.
  • Consider how to incorporate suggested new factors which users felt did not fit within the proposed theme structure, such as cultural engagement, volunteering and caring.
  • Consider how to incorporate an additional type of indicator to reflect a user need for wider background indicators which give more context for the mechanisms that we are reporting on
  • Engage more widely with different types of stakeholders such as academia, industry and head-hunters.
  • Set up agreed roles and terms of references for each user who is interested in becoming a member of the technical panel
  • Continue to get feedback to make sure we are meeting a wide range of users’ needs through the first iterations published

We Asked

The Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) is a recognised framework that enables all UK occupations to be classified according to skill level and specialisation. SOC is essential in the creation of occupational statistics which, in turn, are used to inform policy and the public. There are also many examples of how SOC is used outside of the statistical environment including matching job seekers to vacancies and in the identification of skills gaps and training needs.   

We asked representatives from a variety of businesses and organisations whether they thought the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) required more detail than is currently available, and if so, what additional detail was required.

We asked:

  • Whether and how often they used SOC
  • Whether the current version of SOC was detailed enough for their needs
  • Whether they felt their occupational area was sufficiently represented within SOC
  • Which areas of SOC would benefit from more detail
  • Examples of the additional detail required
  • Examples of job titles within their occupational area

You Said

We received 170 responses to our survey. A wide range of occupational areas were represented in the results, including a variety of Public Sector representatives, Universities and educational organisations. We also heard from a large number of overarching bodies representing specific industry sectors. Coverage of the framework was high, with all SOC Major Groups being represented in the results. 

Overall, there was support for adding greater detail to SOC. Around half of those responding were already users of SOC with specific requirements whilst the remainder wanted to help ensure that their own occupational area was accurately represented within the extended classification.

Around two thirds indicated that there are areas where they would like to see greater detail added. Examples of where respondents requested greater visibility and detail with the classification included amongst others: event planning, mediation services, bloggers/social influencers, engineering and the craft industry

A full report of the survey results will be available on this page shortly.  

We Did

The feedback we received highlighted occupational groups within the classification which would benefit from an additional breakdown and what this breakdown could look like. Using your feedback, we have begun drafting a structure for the SOC extension. Draft extended structures for each of the areas the classification will be made available on the GSS website in due course for you to view. There will also be the opportunity for you to provide feedback on these. To provide feedback, or if you have any questions about the project, please contact SOCExt@ons.gov.uk

We Asked

What is your general view on the proposed definition of avoidable mortality?

Do you have any concerns with ONS implementing the proposed definition?

Will the proposed change to the definition affect your future use of these statistics?

You Said

Overall, respondents were supportive of ONS implementing the new definition of avoidable mortality.

Some users highlighted limitations of implementing the new avoidable mortality definition from 2014 onwards, requesting a longer time series to be considered. The appropriateness of restricting the new definition to under 75 years was also raised, as well as inconsistences in the drug-related death International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes and the treatment of sequelae ICD codes.

We Did

We spoke to our avoidable mortality stakeholder interest group and the OECD working group about the validity of extending the time series back to 2001, rather than the more contemporary 2014. There was agreement across both groups that there would be benefits to having a longer time series; however, this does require an assumption to be made that the causes of death considered avoidable included in the definition were authentically avoidable over a lengthy time period.

ONS are aware of the need to provide information on avoidable mortality in over 75-year olds and this is something we will be looking at in the future.

We have discussed with the OECD working group the inconsistencies in some of the cause of death coding. As a result, OECD have agreed to update their avoidable mortality definition to correct these inconsistencies.

In February 2020, we will publish the Avoidable mortality in the UK release under the new definition for years 2001 to 2018. In May 2020, we will publish the Socioeconomic inequalities in England and Wales release under the new definition for years 2001 to 2018.