We Asked, You Said, We Did

We Asked

ONS currently produces Health State Life Expectancy estimates for local areas of the UK. These estimates at both national and subnational level are calculated using health state prevalence data available from the Annual Population Survey (APS). Stakeholders have wanted estimates of these summary measures of population health at a subnational level, and they are a national indicator in the Public Health Outcomes Framework.

We tested three alternative methods, designed to address the current weakness of small sample sizes producing somewhat erratic health state prevalence estimates across the age distribution in those areas with smaller populations. Each method modelled age-specific health and disability-free state prevalence using a least squares regression containing a quadratic line of best fit.

ONS wanted to ensure stakeholders had the opportunity to respond to the proposed change in methods, having had the opportunity to appraise its impact in the Proposed method change in UK health state life expectancies paper published in December 2017.

ONS wanted to elicit the opinion of key stakeholders on the proposed change, particularly regarding its complexity and ease of communication. We also asked whether other methods should be considered, whether they had any concerns with us implementing the method and whether implementation would impact on their use of these statistics.

You Said

We are grateful to everyone who took time to respond to the consultation. There were 5 responses received, but some of these were a collation from separate organisations although not all wanted to be identified. Those willing to be identified can be found in the final section of the consultation report titled ‘List of responding organisations’.

The key points to note from the responses to the consultation are:

• Further complexity to improve the model should not be undertaken at the expense of ease of communication of the statistics. It was thought the modelling approach was already somewhat complex and shouldn’t be made more so.

• Four respondents agreed that the method proposed to model health and disability state prevalence reduces the volatility in the estimates for sub-national areas and at the older ages, making comparisons over time easier.

• The proposed method complexity can be simplified by explicit explanation of the changes in methodology in plain English, which will mitigate the risk of figures being misinterpreted.

• Concerns were raised as to whether health and disability questions would be asked in the 2021 Census, and if they did, would they be comparable and would changes present challenges for using the new proposed method. Over longer time horizons, there was also a concern about the adequacy of data expected to replace the Census in 2031.

• ONS must ensure sufficient information is available to allow other departments and organizations to calculate figures and not be reliant on ONS calculating the health state life expectancy estimates using other sources or for different population sub-groups. This will also reduce the risk of users misrepresenting figures.

• There was a concern raised over whether the method will continue to be developed, as this would cause further breaks in the time-series. Another respondent expressed concern that the implementation of the method would put at risk a long, consistent time-series.

• One organisation has said they will implement the method that ONS decides to use, provided sufficient information is available to allow them to replicate the estimates. The proposed changes provide data for all subnational areas which would make the data more usable for one organisation’s purposes.

• Respondents said the health state life expectancy estimates feed into public health frameworks for England and Wales, which help understand how public health is being improved and protected. The estimates also have policy impact in that they are used in consideration of the State Pension age.

We Did

As a result of this consultation the following actions will be undertaken:

• We will implement our proposed method based on modelling health and disability-free state prevalence to calculate future health state life expectancy estimates and provide a back series;

• Our next publication for sub-national areas of the UK, due to be published in December 2018 will apply this method;

• Our publication measuring the socioeconomic inequality in health state life expectancy in England and Wales will be published in March 2019 and will also apply the new method.

• Subsequently, ONS will no longer publish statistics based on the previous method;

• The December 2018 and March 2019 publications referred to above will also take account of the revised mid-year population estimates for sub-national and small area populations in England and Wales and provide a back series from 2009 to 2011 for the former and from 2011 to 2013 for the latter;

• The December publication will include additional areas such as combined authorities (geographic codes E47) for England and Health Boards for Wales;

• The health state life expectancy template will be updated to align with the new method and aid users’ understanding and to help them to be able to calculate their own estimates;

• Will update the Quality and Methodology Information (QMI) report to communicate the method change concisely, the reasons for it, and its impact on the existing time-series;

• Facilitate further work with the devolved administrations to ensure understanding of the methodology to allow other departments to replicate the estimates and calculate their own estimates with other areas of interest;

• We will additionally undertake an evaluation of the method’s performance, comparing the 10-year trajectory between 2010 to 2012 and 2020 to 2021 using the new method and that using the censuses to interpolate census-based prevalence over the decade;

• ONS will ensure any changes brought about by what is learnt from the 2021 Census data will be implemented with a back series. If the 2021 Census contains health questions, ONS will wait until a formal evaluation and interpolation study has been conducted and published on. This is unlikely to be published until the late autumn of 2023.

ONS currently produces population estimates by marital status and living arrangements for England and Wales. Where possible an estimate of the population who are in a marriage between same-sex couples is provided separately. This is currently a number, not available by age or sex because of very small estimates of this population. Throughout the majority of the publication the population who are in a marriage between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are presented together as a total married population.

ONS were keen to learn whether the provision of a separate estimate of the population who are in a marriage between same-sex couples is meeting user need, allowing us to gain a better understanding of who uses these estimates and how they are being used.

The consultation questions were specifically aimed at gathering user need about the number (stock) of people by marital status living in England and Wales not the number of marriages being formed in England and Wales (flow), which ONS has asked users about in the past.

We are grateful to everyone who took time to respond to the consultation. There were a total of 354 responses received from a variety of organisations and individuals that monitor, formulate or influence policy and plan services both at the national and local level. We also received responses from academics, charities and religious groups. A full list of organisations that responded can be found in Annex A. The feedback we received is very valuable to us and has helped us to better understand our users and their data requirements.

The key points to note from the responses to the consultation are:

• 99.4% of respondents require estimates of the population who are married to be presented separately for same-sex couples and for opposite-sex couples.
• The majority (71.8%) of responses came from individuals; the next largest group of responses (16.1%) came from religious or church groups.
• Respondents require estimates of the married population to be separate to allow:
  • Analysis of family and relationship trends and diversity
  • Calculation of divorce rates which allows analysis of the differences in length of marriage
  • Equalities monitoring
  • Provision of a comprehensive picture of the resident population
  • Informed service provision
  • Monitoring of physical/ mental health and wellbeing outcomes
  • Support of evidence based policy making
  • Understanding of the impact and effect of the introduction of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013
  • Historical and international comparisons of the population who are in a marriage between opposite sex couples.   

As a result of this consultation, we:

• Have a better understanding of user need which allows us to make informed decisions about marital status data collection in the future.
• Will continue to provide separate estimates of the population who are in a marriage between same-sex couples and in a marriage between opposite-sex couples where possible.
• Will continue to monitor these data to see whether we can provide more detailed estimates in the future which could be of more use to our users.

Our aim was to gain a better understanding of price discrimination for export of services and how prices could be affected by exchange rates.

Information received varied across service sectors, consistent themes were identified.

Feedback obtained will be used to assist development of the Services Producer Price Index (SPPI).

We asked for people’s views on our new experimental balanced measure of regional gross value added (GVA). This new development is designed to provide a single best estimate of regional GVA, combining the best parts of the existing income and production measures.

We wanted to be sure that users of regional GVA statistics welcomed the single measure, and to identify any concerns that people have with the methods, test results and our proposed presentation of the statistics in future publications.

We received 23 written responses from a wide range of people representing central, local and devolved government, private companies and think tanks, universities and schools. In addition, we met with many other stakeholders to present our consultation and listen to their views, at events held in Belfast, Birmingham, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London. The main feedback was:

• Respondents strongly supported the introduction of a single balanced measure of regional GVA, and some requested that we continue to publish the pre-balanced income and production measures, at least for the first few years.
• A majority of respondents were happy with the method we have used, and some offered suggestions for potential enhancements to the methodology.
• A majority of respondents were happy with the test results, and some offered suggestions for parts that could benefit from further attention.
• A majority of respondents were happy with our plans for the presentation of the data, and some offered suggestions for additional supporting information.

We intend to:

• Publish the first experimental balanced estimates of regional GVA on or around 13 December 2017.
• Publish the pre-balanced income and production estimates alongside the balanced estimates, at least while the balanced estimates remain experimental statistics.
• Publish nominal and real estimates of balanced GVA for 80 industries at the NUTS1 level, and 71 industries at the NUTS2 level.
• Publish real estimates of balanced regional GVA one year earlier than before.
• Publish the existing set of income components at all geographic levels from NUTS1 down to local authority district, consistent with the balanced GVA estimates.
• Consider the various suggestions made by respondents, with a view to introducing further improvements in future publications, as resources permit.

Whether you found the publications useful, the methodology appropriate, and whether you wanted the outputs to continue in future

That the new output was very welcome, the methodology was basically suitable but could use a few additions, and that it should continue to be developed

Started planning for the next round of outputs in 2018, and set our priorities for next stages of development work

To enable ONS to publish more detailed birth statistics for England and Wales than currently available, whilst also improving timeliness, we proposed to make explorable datasets for live births available in NOMIS from the 2017 data year. Consequential changes were also proposed to our annual publication tables, and some new tables were outlined. We consulted users with these proposals to ensure birth statistics continue to meet user needs as much as possible. 

• Respondents welcomed detailed birth statistics being made available as explorable datasets in NOMIS; however some were concerned about locating particular birth statistics in the future. 

• Four respondents were concerned over plans to combine i) births to married couples with births to cohabiting couples and ii) sole registered births with births jointly registered by parents who live at different addresses. They considered the distinction between these groups important for both demographers and policy makers interested in changing family forms and living arrangements. 

• Three respondents requested that much more detailed data be made available as explorable datasets; for example live births by single year of age of mother and father with other characteristics available for cross tabulation, or the addition of parity and exact multiplicity.

• One respondent noted that they would like to have parents’ occupation coded on 100% of live births, currently only 10% are coded.

• Two respondents indicated that they would like to have more timely data available on births, similar to our provisional figures on monthly deaths. 

• Three respondents noted that they used tables which were proposed to be discontinued.

• Make available the five explorable datasets on NOMIS , outlined in Annex B of our Response to the ONS consultation on proposed changes to birth statistics. We intend to make 2017 data publicly available in NOMIS in July or August 2018.

• Make changes to our published tables as outlined in Annex C of our Response to the ONS consultation on proposed changes to birth statistics. These changes are based on those originally proposed in our consultation but take account of the responses we received. 

We sought information, opinions and suggestions in relation to two broad themes:

• the Country and regional public sector finances bulletin first published in May 2017, containing data at the NUTS1 geographical level.
• the possible future publication of public finance data for local areas below the NUTS1 level, and the issues identified in producing such local area statistics, as described in the sub-regional public sector finances scoping study published alongside the consultation, in July 2017.

We wanted to be sure that the new Country and regional public sector finances publication was welcomed by users and investigate in what ways ONS could develop these statistics to meet the needs of users for local area public finance statistics.

We received 18 responses from three private individuals, and 15 on behalf of organisations with either a national, country/regional, or sub-regional purvey and perspective,

Feedback on the Country and regional public sector finances bulletin was overall very positive, and respondents provided many examples of how they had made use of the NUTS1 level estimates provided in the bulletin. Some suggestions for possible improvement were offered, including the inclusion of workplace-based estimates alongside the current residence-based estimates.

The sub-regional scoping study was quite well received. Opinions were divided as to:

• how useful estimates of net fiscal balance would be at various sub-regional geographies
• the role that ONS might play in the production of public finance estimates for smaller geographies (i.e. below NUTS1 level).

As a result of his consultation we will take the following actions:

• continue publication of the Country and regional public sector finances bulletin.
• seek to further develop the content and presentation of the bulletin in the light of comments provided by respondents.
• continue to publish estimates of revenue and net fiscal balance derived on two bases, with revenues from North Sea activities estimated a) on a population basis, and b) on a geographic basis.
• undertake exploratory work on producing workplace-based estimates for certain tax revenues.

Given resource constraints and concerns over the robustness of such estimates, we do not intend to directly engage in the production of net fiscal balances for sub-regional geographies at this stage. However, we intend:

• to offer support and advice on methodologies and data sources to organisations and areas wishing to produce their own estimates.

We asked for your views on our assessment of estimating the number of rooms and bedrooms in the 2021 Census using Valuation Office Agency (VOA) data.

We wanted to understand how changing to an administrative data source to estimate number of rooms and bedrooms would affect users of this data.

We received 34 complete responses to the consultation from a range of local authorities, government departments, academics and agencies.

The main feedback in relation to number of rooms was:

• six respondents indicated that using VOA data would have a negative impact on their work
• nine respondents indicated using VOA data would have a positive impact on their work
• 12 respondents didn’t indicate an impact either way

The main feedback in relation to number of bedrooms was:

• nine respondents indicated that using VOA data to estimate number of bedrooms would have a negative impact on their work
• 10 respondents indicated using VOA data to estimate number of bedrooms would have a positive impact on their work
• 16 respondents didn’t indicate an impact either way

Some users highlighted areas for further research. These included investigating:

• the 34% increase in overcrowding (bedrooms) estimates from VOA data compared to using census data
• how frequently the VOA dataset is updated 

We have looked at:

• the differences between VOA and 2011 Census for occupancy rating (bedrooms) at local authority level and found the difference varies across the country 

ONS is required to report data for the UK against global sustainable development indicators and we asked for your views on:

1.   How ONS should report progress?

2.   Criteria for data selection.

3.   The approach to prioritising data development.

We want to make information available on global indicators available to all, we are keen to use the full range of data available and we want to be confident that our approach to reporting and prioritising areas for development is right. Therefore, it is important for us to listen and consider your views.

We would like to thank respondents for taking the time to respond to this consultation.

We received 111 responses to the consultation from a wide variety of respondents representing national and local government, charities and the voluntary sector; international organisations, the private sector and academia.

Some of the key findings:

·        Respondents were supportive of the proposed mechanisms on how ONS should report progress and went on to expand with further detail that aligns with the current programme of reporting and development work.  

·        Respondents suggested additional criteria that they thought should be considered for determining the suitability of data sources, some of which included looking at international comparability; looking at other frameworks; wider collaboration and the potential to look at hard to reach groups.

·        There were many initiatives respondents thought that could help with assessing progress towards global indicators, some for these included new data sources; suggestions of new questions for surveys; collaboration; harmonisation of questions and supporting frameworks.

·        Geographical breakdowns to the lowest level possible were highlighted as a priority for data development.

·        Respondents felt that evidence from user engagement and information gathering activities were important principles to use to develop data to plug gaps.

·        Some of the additional criteria that respondents suggested for prioritising data development centered around what was relevant and a priority for the UK, collaboration, internationally comparable indicators and to look at links across targets.

Progress so far:

We have developed an interactive reporting platform to disseminate (downloadable) data with charts which was launched on the 9^th November and is still under development.

We also published our first report on the 9^th November which looks at progress made towards measuring the global Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicators in the UK.

·        We have started to release a series of publications which have included a short piece on neonatal and under five mortality which looked at the UK in comparison with other European countries and a SlidesShare on renewable energy. We have also begun to highlight the importance of SDGs by aligning with significant outputs on relevant topics and communicating through social media. All of our publications are available on our reporting platform under a Publications tab.

We are working closely with various stakeholders to discuss the possibility of collaborating on outputs and have begun to collaborate with business. We have also been looking at the potential of using data from non government organisations.

We would like to thank everybody who took the time to respond to our consultation and ONS will take on board the suggestions and feedback provided as we continue to develop data sources, data gaps and prioritise our approach to reporting. 

This consultation proposed an alternative model for the publications of GDP estimates; the full details of the model can be found in the consultation document.

In summary, this model would give two estimates of quarterly GDP using data from all three of the Output, Income and Expenditure approaches around six weeks and 13 weeks after the end of the preceding quarter. This would be a change from three estimates of quarterly GDP, published four, eight and 13 weeks after the end of the preceding quarter.

In addition, the Index of Services publication would be moved two weeks earlier to become part of the Short Term Economic Indicator theme day, enabling the publication of monthly GDP estimates that would include both a three-month rolling estimate and an estimate for the latest month.

The clear majority of respondents were in favour of the proposed changes to the GDP publication model, saying that the higher quality first estimate of GDP along with the early view of Income and Expenditure data will mean the figures are more reliable and helpful, and ultimately lead to greater confidence in the GDP estimates.

However, a small number of respondents expressed concerns over the loss of timeliness in the proposed first estimate of GDP.

Furthermore, some respondents expressed concerns over the implications of monthly GDP (based on the Output measure) estimates. For example, there were concerns that the availability of both monthly and quarterly GDP estimates could result in confusion, and that monthly GDP had the potential to be misinterpreted.

We will move to using the new GDP publishing model in 2018, with the first estimate of monthly GDP (for the reference month of May) being introduced in July 2018 and the first quarterly GDP estimate (for quarter 2 2018) under the new model being introduced in August 2018.

We will develop a package of products to be released as part of the new monthly and quarterly publications under the new model in collaboration with users, with the aim of providing a clear and coherent picture of economic activity.

We will take a number of steps to ensure that any negative impact on data content in the first estimate of GDP is minimised. For example, we will be reviewing our survey and broader data processing timetables as well as our estimation and forecasting methods.

We will publish an article in Spring 2018 explaining the changes to the publication model in more detail, the products that we will produce under the new model and a clear schedule of publication dates from the date of implementation.

We asked for people’s views on which causes of death are appropriate to include in the National Statistics definition of deaths related to the misuse of alcohol.

We hoped that the consultation would result in a harmonised approach, across government and the devolved administrations, to measuring deaths which are wholly attributable to the misuse of alcohol.  

We received 20 responses to the consultation from a range of organisations including academics, government departments and agencies, and charities. The main feedback was:

• respondents strongly supported the need for a harmonised approach across government to measuring deaths caused by alcohol misuse;
• the majority of respondents recommended that ONS use a revised indicator of alcohol-specific deaths;
• several respondents voiced concern with excluding unspecified hepatitis and cirrhosis and fibrosis of the liver from the revised indicator, noting that more UK based evidence on the aetiology of these deaths is needed before they are discounted entirely.  

We intend to:

• use a revised definition of alcohol-specific deaths from the date of our next publication. This definition will also be used respond to Parliamentary Questions, and to media and customer data requests;
• publish a brief article to communicate the definition change, the reasons for it, and its impact on the existing time series;
• in the first publication based on the new definition, include figures on the previous definition. Subsequently, ONS will no longer publish statistics based on the previous definition;
• in each statistical release we will report deaths from unspecified hepatitis and cirrhosis and fibrosis of the liver – for information. We will also signpost to published data which shows the wider burden of alcohol misuse on other causes of death;
• facilitate further work with public health agencies and the devolved administrations to ensure greater consistency in terminology.

We asked users of the business prices publications, Producer Price Index (PPI) and Services Producer Price Index (SPPI) to comment on some ONS’ proposed process improvements to the publication and consider any impact these improvements would have on their use of the statistics.

We consulted on five proposals:

• Removal of the net sector aggregate for both PPI and SPPI
• Aggregation and publication of PPI for both domestic output, exports and total output prices
• Inclusion of proxies in the aggregate SPPI to represent the whole service sector
• Review the demand for seasonal adjustment in the PPI and SPPI series’
• Streamlining data made available in PPI and SPPI statistical releases 

We received five written responses, three of which were completed online and two offline responses. These responses were from a range of external users of the business prices data. The comments included within the responses were extremely useful. The main feedback was:

• The net sector aggregate is used in calculations within some organisations that are main users of our data. These organisations require more clarity on the comparison between the current Net sector and Gross sector indices and any discrepancies between them, to consider their future use.
• All consultation respondents were interested in seeing a publication of the PPI with a domestic, import and export splits.
• Respondents were unsure about the inclusion of proxies to aggregate the whole service sector within SPPI, stating further information on what these are and whether there would be a marker to identify which of the indices are proxies would be useful.
• Seasonal adjustment of the outputs was not considered to be key, and there was not a great demand for any further seasonal adjustment.
• Streamlining the data and publishing at a higher level may cause problems for some users of business prices therefore further information on how this would be represented is needed.

To date:

• Met with two users of Business Prices based on their responses and discussed their requirements in more detail. We have also corresponded with a third respondent.
• Considered the use of seasonal adjustment alongside the International Monetary Fund (IMF) PPI manual.

We intend to:

• Conduct more correspondence with users of business prices on their requirements from the PPI and SPPI publications.
• Conduct events/interactions to keep users of business prices informed of progress on the process changes.
• Produce and communicate a plan and timeline for producing PPI on a domestic, import and export basis.
• Investigate if the use of proxies within the SPPI would add value to the overall aggregate and communicate further with users of business prices once the investigation is complete. 
• Work with users and stakeholders of business prices to develop the correct balance in what we are publishing. 

Following a reduction in the level of funding for the Crime Survey for England and Wales we asked for your opinions of the proposed options for achieving the cost savings required. We would like to thank all respondents for taking the time to respond to the consultation.

We received a total of 123 responses to the consultation from academics, police forces and police and crime commissioners, local or regional government organisations, other government departments, charities and voluntary organisations. We would like to thank all respondents for taking the time to respond to the consultation.

The main feedback was:

• A majority of respondents (40%) identified Option D – reducing the response rate to 71% and the sample size by 600 - as the best option of those available for achieving the required cost savings.

• Many respondents raised concerns regarding the removal of questions related to victims’ experiences of the court system and use of victim services.

• In particular, 34 respondents (28%) specifically identified the removal of the questions on restorative justice from the 'Victimisation' module as a major concern.

We have:

• Reduced CSEW sample size for the 2017/18 survey year by 600 households and reduced the survey response rate to 71% from October 2017 (Option D).

• Removed the three modules of questions asked of respondents about the performance of, their experiences of and their attitudes to the criminal justice system from October 2017.

• Retained questions related to victims’ experiences of the court system and use of victim services included in the ‘Victimisation’ module of the CSEW that were previously proposed for removal.

ONS publishes annual infant mortality statistics for England and Wales in a number of separate statistical publications. The timing of these outputs varies depending on when the relevant dataset is extracted from our system, and is also affected by the availability of final data from Scotland and Northern Ireland to compile UK data.

Due to the timings of the data extracts and the linkage that is carried out, there are different infant and child mortality figures across publications which can be confusing for users; these were outlined in the consultation document.

To ensure the publication of more timely and fit for purpose final figures, ONS is proposing to change the data extracts used in the creation of infant mortality publications; this will streamline the outputs. ONS will also change some of the tables published to ensure users have the most suitable tabulations available to them.

There were a total of 45 responses received from a variety of organisations who monitor, formulate or influence policy and plan services. We also received responses from academics, media outlets, charities and private individuals.

The key points to note from the responses to the consultation are:

• Users prefer figures based on deaths that have occurred in a calendar year rather than figures based on deaths registered in a calendar year but both are still required
• Users prefer figures based on a birth cohort rather than a death cohort, but both are still required
• Users require a range of the tables for various purposes utilising both numbers and the rates. Some tables are used more than others
• Users have specified what other characteristics they require in the tables
• Users would like to see more data at local authority level and would like figures at country level including UK
• There was a larger proportion of users who do not use the ONS hierarchical cause groups
• Users would prefer a single underlying cause of death for perinatal deaths 

As a result of this consultation, we will take the following actions:

• ONS will continue to produce figures based on both the year the death was registered and the year the death occurred
• ONS will streamline the extracts used in the creation of publications. This means we will produce statistics using:

- a death cohort based on registrations in a calendar year (unlinked)

- a death cohort based on occurrences in a calendar year (unlinked)

- a death cohort based on occurrences in a calendar year (linked to birth registrations)

- a birth cohort based on occurrences in a calendar year (birth registration linked to birth notification and death registration)

• ONS will adapt the tables that are produced from these extracts to incorporate user feedback where possible and these can be found in the consultation response document
• ONS will produce one set of tables for the birth cohort: Infant mortality (birth cohort), England and Wales. This will merge together the Birth cohort tables for infant deaths (England and Wales) and the Pregnancy and ethnic factors influencing births and infant mortality (England and Wales) 
• ONS will continue investigations into whether a single underlying cause can be derived for stillbirths and neonatal deaths; and will maintain the ONS hierarchical cause groups until investigations identify a better solution

We asked for your views on proposed changes to the household projections methodology.

We hoped that the results of this consultation would help us to produce household projections based on an improved, simplified methodology that continues to meet your needs.

We received 42 responses to the consultation. The main feedback was:

• Some users were concerned about the proposal to project the household representative rates using only the 2001 and 2011 Census points and asked ONS to consider and report on alternative options.

• Some issues surrounding other aspects of the methodology were raised including concern about the proposal for removing gender and marital status from the projection model and the age groups currently used in the model.

• Variant household projections at local authority level were requested and household projections at the level of detail previously published by DCLG.

• There was an interest in what household types would be available in the outputs.