Latest analysis from the BENEFITS project reveals that domains central to social service provision, including care services, service integration and user experience quality, are largely missing from Beyond GDP-measurement frameworks. This gap conceals the essential contribution that social services make to societal well-being and sustainable development.
Rethinking how we measure progress: the Beyond-GDP initiative
Over the past decades, policymakers, researchers and civil society organisations have increasingly questioned the suitability of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the primary indicator of societal progress. Designed to measure market economic activity, GDP indicators fail to capture the overall development of societies, including promoting citizen well‑being, equity or environmental sustainability.
Recognition of these limitations has prompted global efforts to rethink what constitutes progress and has led to the Beyond GDP initiative. The initiative aims to develop methods of prosperity measurement using meaningful measures of progress. Momentum behind Beyond‑GDP initiatives has accelerated in recent years, with multiple institutions advancing comprehensive frameworks and indicator sets, including the United Nations, OECD and national governments.
Inclusion of social services in Beyond-GDP frameworks
With the aim of more effectively measuring the social, economic and environmental value-added of social services in society, the BENEFITS project has conducted an assessment of how current Beyond-GDP frameworks address social services. Despite social services representing major public investments and playing a direct role in improving well‑being, the study found that they receive minimal attention in most Beyond‑GDP frameworks.
The study identified and then analysed 66 relevant international, national and regional indicator frameworks developed between 1972 and 2023. The findings reveal persistent and structural blind spots in domains central to social service provision, including care services, service integration, prevention and user experience quality.
Each indicator was analysed to see which aspects of wellbeing it measures, how often data are updated, whether inequalities can be identified and whether services such as care, housing or social support are included. This allowed the researchers to compare indicators in a structured way and to identify common patterns, as well as important gaps.
What is measured well and what is missing?
The analysis shows that most existing indicators focus on Health (92%), knowledge and skills (89%), and material wellbeing (85%): these areas are measured regularly and consistently, reflecting the widespread understanding that these indicators are central to human development and that strong data measurement systems already exist for them.
However, several domains crucial to social services receive far less attention, despite being central to people’s wellbeing. For example, care services are included in only 20% of indicators, despite their essential role in supporting children, persons with disabilities and older people. Coordination between services, crucial for people with complex or multiple needs, appears in fewer than 11% of frameworks, while prevention and early intervention are almost entirely absent, featuring in around 6%.
In addition, many indicators do not allow for users to develop a clear picture of intersectional inequality. While data on basic gender differences is possible in 56% of frameworks, very few (12%) make it possible to understand how intersectional disadvantages can be compounded (for example, the interplay between disability, socio-economic status and gender).
Principles for more comprehensive social service evaluation
Based on the study’s findings, the report makes several conclusions on the design principles that comprehensive social service evaluation frameworks should adhere to:
- Multi-dimensional scope is essential.
- Equity integration must move beyond aggregate assessment to systematic disaggregation to enable intersectional analysis.
- Timely and responsive data collection beyond annual reporting cycles.
- User voice and experience quality warrant dedicated measurement beyond objective outcomes.
- Prevention and early intervention require measurement approaches valuing problems averted.
- Service integration and coordination warrant dedicated attention.
- Methodological pluralism proves superior to single-method approaches.
The next steps towards better value measurement for social services
The findings of this analysis provide a strong evidence base for the next phase of the BENEFITS project. They show the need for new approaches to measure the value, that reflect not only costs and outputs, but also quality, access, inclusion and long-term impact.
As the BENEFITS project moves forward, this report sets the foundation for developing more inclusive, needs-based and policy-relevant ways of understanding the real value of social services in Europe. These new approaches aim to reflect the true value of social services in Europe, ensuring they are fully recognised in how societies define and measure progress.