Bringing well-being evidence into local decision-making

Much of what I do in my work as a well-being researcher at nef is to advocate for a well-being-focused approach to policy-making. I make the case that we now know, and are discovering even more, about what drives people’s well-being. So we should ensure that policies, services and programmes are designed accordingly, to best promote good lives for all.

There is a clear danger that this assessment falls squarely into the category of ‘easier said than done’. There is now a convincing body of evidence within the academic literature identifying the key drivers of well-being for people and communities. But how can the thousands of different people and organisations across the country with precious public or charitable resources to spend on improving the lives of people locally, be expected to access, absorb and consider all of this evidence before making vital decisions about the design and delivery of their programmes and services?

One answer is provided by the Mental Well-being Impact Assessment (MWIA) Toolkit whose 3^rd edition has been published this week by the National MWIA Collaborative (of which nef is a member). The toolkit presents a guided process to help those developing a strategy, programme or project thinking through the potential impacts on the well-being of a population. Crucially, it presents a thorough and accessible guide to the existing evidence on what promotes well-being, which it distils into the following factors: enhancing control, increasing resilience and community assets, facilitating participation and promoting inclusion.

Those using the toolkit are guided through a screening process to help decide whether a full impact assessment is suitable for their project or programme. The assessment process, adapted after piloting over 300 MWIAs, involves:

• scoping out the scale and boundaries of the MWIA;
• gathering evidence from community profiling and stakeholder experience to add local experience to what is known from published research;
• analysing well-being impacts on different stakeholder groups; and
• formulating indicators to monitor impact on well-being (the area where we at nef  have had some input into the development of the toolkit).

This leads to formulating recommendations for design and delivery which are aimed at ‘maximising potential positive and mitigating against potential negative’ impacts on mental well-being.

One of the best aspects of the toolkit for me is that it is designed to be flexible and adaptable. While I would argue that all projects involving major public expenditure ought to include a full and thorough examination of likely well-being impacts prior to implementation, the toolkit allows those working on a much smaller scale to give some consideration to the issues at a level commensurate with their resources. For some, this can mean just undertaking the screening element of the process, while others will undergo a much fuller assessment. As we described in our report The role of local government in promoting well-being the flexibility can also mean building MWIA into other existing processes, such as local strategy development activity.

While the more ‘light-touch’ versions of MWIA do not probe into detailed evidence, they do ensure that the issue of impact on well-being is given some consideration in project design and implementation.  Which is precisely what we need more and more people to be doing if we are really to enter a world of well-being-focused policy.