“A Well-By Date: policy blueprint for eliminating wellbeing poverty”

A Well-By Date is a time-bound commitment for a region/country to eliminate (or sharply reduce) “wellbeing poverty”, defined as sustained low subjective wellbeing or clustered deficits across health, housing, income security and social connection. The target reframes investment and public services around prevention and human flourishing, measured in WELLBYs (one point change in life-satisfaction on a 0–10 scale for one person for one year). The UK Treasury’s supplementary Green Book guidance endorses WELLBYs and provides a central valuation (£13,000 per WELLBY, 2019 prices) that enables cost-benefit analysis.

Rationale

• Traditional GDP-first targets miss distributional harms and the lived experience of citizens. Better outcomes on wellbeing reduce long-term demand on health, social care and justice systems. (See New Zealand’s example of a Wellbeing Budget prioritising mental health and child well-being; Wales’ legally binding wellbeing framework shows how duties can shift public bodies toward long-term, preventative action.)

• WELLBYs create a comparable metric across sectors (education, housing, health), allowing prevention investments to be appraised on the same scale as clinical or infrastructure projects.

Definition & target idea

Wellbeing poverty (regional standard) - a person is in wellbeing poverty if they meet either (A) life-satisfaction <5/10 (ONS measure) or (B) two or more objective deprivations (e.g., insecure housing, persistent unemployment, untreated long-term mental ill-health, severe social isolation). Use local survey data + administrative indicators to identify pockets of risk.

Suggested target (example model for any region):

• Well-By Date: 2035 — reduce population in wellbeing poverty to <5% (baseline + interim milestones).

• Interim milestones: 2028: ≤15%; 2031: ≤10%; 2035: ≤5%. (Adjust dates to political cycle and local capacity.)

Measurement & valuation

• Core metric: population WELLBYs per annum (sum of individual life-satisfaction changes × person-years). Use ONS-style life satisfaction question (0–10).

• Monetary conversion (for appraisal): central Green Book WELLBY value £13,000 (2019 prices) with sensitivity range ~£10k–£16k, use for benefit-cost analysis and impact bonds.

Governance & accountability

• Regional Wellbeing Commission (independent) — cross-sector (government, public services, academia, voluntary sector, community reps). Responsible for target definition, annual wellbeing accounts, equity assessment and recommending funding priorities.

• Statutory or strategic embedding — regions can either legislate (like Wales) or enshrine the target within an updated National/Regional Performance Framework and fiscal rules.

• Citizen panels & distributional targets — require wellbeing progress to be reported by geography, age, ethnicity and income decile to avoid masking inequalities.

Financing the shift

• Create a Prevention & Wellbeing Fund that prioritises interventions with strong WELLBY returns (early childhood, mental-health hubs, housing security, active travel, community connectors). All applicants must estimate WELLBYs generated and cost per WELLBY. Use the Green Book valuation and sensitivity ranges for decision-making.

• Leverage social/impact investment (outcome payments, regional green bonds) to co-finance pilots, with public payments tied to WELLBY outcomes.

Monitoring, evaluation & reporting

• Annual Regional Wellbeing Account: WELLBYs gained/lost, headcount of people in wellbeing poverty, distributional breakdowns, sectoral contributions, fiscal implications (service demand avoided).

• Independent evaluation of flagship programmes using mixed methods and experimental/quasi-experimental designs to estimate causal WELLBY effects.

Risks & mitigations

• Risk: Gaming headline metrics.

• Mitigation: Use distributional sub-targets and independent audit.

• Risk: Short-termism (improving survey answers without structural change).

• Mitigation: Combine subjective and objective measures, require evidence of durable change (≥2 years).

• Risk: Political backlash if costs rise.

• Mitigation: Transparent cost-benefit using WELLBY monetisation and phased implementation.

Implementation roadmap (first three years)

1. Year-0 (design): set baseline, define wellbeing poverty threshold, establish Commission.

2. Year-1: launch Prevention Fund pilot tranche, publish first Regional Wellbeing Account.

3. Year-2–3: scale highest-return interventions, legislate/entrench the target where politically feasible, set interim milestone review.

Conclusion

A Well-By Date provides a disciplined, auditable path to reduce wellbeing poverty by aligning measurement, funding and governance around human flourishing. Regions already have precedents and technical guidance to make it work; the next step is political commitment and a properly governed Prevention Fund to start converting WELLBYs into real lives improved.