Dear Sir or Madam,

Please may I refer you to a request in the House of Commons [8th
January 2007, column 26 of Hansard]?

Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): Statistics are
collected on only seven of the eight indices of social exclusion
listed by the social exclusion unit. No statistics are collected on
family breakdown. Does the Financial Secretary agree that it would
be tremendously empowering for local practitioners who are trying
to deal with that issue if such data could be collected by local
neighbourhood area? Will he undertake to look into that omission?

John Healey: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to
elaborate on that point in the debate on social exclusion that will
take place on Thursday. In the context of the Bill, however, the
duty that will be placed on the independent statistics board will
be to assess, comment on and publicly report to the House on the
comprehensiveness and quality of the statistics. The board will
take a view on the adequacy not only of national statistics but of
all official statistics. I am sure that the point that the hon.
Gentleman has made — and which he might develop in Thursday’s
debate — will be taken into account by the statistics board when it
comes to discharge its functions.

[http://www.parliament.the-stationery-off...

I wonder whether the board has taken a view about this omission?

In the Audit Commission report "Hearts and minds: commissioning
from the voluntary sector" the authors recommend:

"Local public bodies should “Improve how they measure value for
money in public services, by shifting the current focus on inputs,
outputs, and unit costs, towards long-term measurement of outcomes
and effectiveness.”

This is entirely consistent with the request of Andrew Selous that
it should be possible to measure changes in domestic and social
cohesion by neighbourhood. It would make it possible to undertake
"long-term measurement of outcomes and effectiveness" of local
authority policies, and of programmes provided by the voluntary
sector.

It would bring consistency to the indices of deprivation which
currently lack one of the main elements listed by the Social
Exclusion Unit as a cause of social exclusion.

Yours faithfully,

Nick Gulliford

This is an automated reply to let you know that we have received your enquiry and will contact you as soon as possible.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr. Gulliford

Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding data on family breakdown
included as part of the indices of deprivation. We have added the issue
that you have raised to our Issues Log, an updated version will be
published in the next few weeks. The log is a record of issues raised with
the Authority, and it is available online at
http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/re...

I have passed on the points you have raised to the Authority's Monitoring
and Assessment Team who will consider this in more detail.

Kind regards

Ross Young
Head of Communications & Parliamentary Relations
UK Statistics Authority
Statistics House
Myddelton Street
LONDON EC1R 1UW

request-4236-dbeae5f4@whatdot
heyknow.com To: UKSAenquiries@ONS
cc:
18/11/2008 06:30 Subject: Freedom of Information request - Family breakdown statistics by neighbourhood

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please may I refer you to a request in the House of Commons [8th
January 2007, column 26 of Hansard]?

Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): Statistics are
collected on only seven of the eight indices of social exclusion
listed by the social exclusion unit. No statistics are collected on
family breakdown. Does the Financial Secretary agree that it would
be tremendously empowering for local practitioners who are trying
to deal with that issue if such data could be collected by local
neighbourhood area? Will he undertake to look into that omission?

John Healey: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to
elaborate on that point in the debate on social exclusion that will
take place on Thursday. In the context of the Bill, however, the
duty that will be placed on the independent statistics board will
be to assess, comment on and publicly report to the House on the
comprehensiveness and quality of the statistics. The board will
take a view on the adequacy not only of national statistics but of
all official statistics. I am sure that the point that the hon.
Gentleman has made ¡X and which he might develop in Thursday¡¦s
debate ¡X will be taken into account by the statistics board when it
comes to discharge its functions.

[http://www.parliament.the-stationery-off...

I wonder whether the board has taken a view about this omission?

In the Audit Commission report "Hearts and minds: commissioning
from the voluntary sector" the authors recommend:

"Local public bodies should ¡§Improve how they measure value for
money in public services, by shifting the current focus on inputs,
outputs, and unit costs, towards long-term measurement of outcomes
and effectiveness.¡¨

This is entirely consistent with the request of Andrew Selous that
it should be possible to measure changes in domestic and social
cohesion by neighbourhood. It would make it possible to undertake
"long-term measurement of outcomes and effectiveness" of local
authority policies, and of programmes provided by the voluntary
sector.

It would bring consistency to the indices of deprivation which
currently lack one of the main elements listed by the Social
Exclusion Unit as a cause of social exclusion.

Yours faithfully,

Nick Gulliford

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of UK Statistics
Authority's handling of my FOI request 'Family breakdown statistics
by neighbourhood'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fa...

Yours sincerely,

Nick Gulliford

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

[email address]
SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO:<[email address]>:
host mail1.ons.gsi.gov.uk [51.63.5.201]: 550 5.7.1 Unknown recipient <[email address]> was submitted by host <51.63.249.42>. Sender address was <[FOI #4236 email]>.

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

A message that I sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es)
failed:

[email address] SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO:<[email
address]>: host mail1.ons.gsi.gov.uk [51.63.5.201]: 550 5.7.1
Unknown recipient <[email address]> was submitted by host
<51.63.249.42>. Sender address was <[FOI #4236 email]>.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Gulliford

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

[email address]
SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO:<[email address]>:
host mail1.ons.gsi.gov.uk [51.63.5.201]: 550 5.7.1 Unknown recipient <[email address]> was submitted by host <51.63.249.43>. Sender address was <[FOI #4236 email]>.

show quoted sections