Consultation outcome

Government response to the consultation on standards for ethnicity data

Updated 17 April 2023

About this consultation

The government’s Equality Hub consulted on draft standards for ethnicity data in July and August 2022. These standards contribute to action 6 of Inclusive Britain, the government’s action plan for racial equality:

To ensure more responsible and accurate reporting on race and ethnicity, the RDU [Race Disparity Unit] will, by the end of 2022, consult on new standards for government departments and other public bodies on how to record, understand and communicate ethnicity data.

The standards give guidance and outline good practice for people collecting, analysing and reporting ethnicity data.

We have designed them for government departments and other public sector bodies.

The consultation asked for views on 3 proposals:

Do you agree or disagree that we should publish this version of the Standards for Ethnicity Data?

We supplied a draft version of the standards alongside the consultation.

Do you agree or disagree with our proposal for monitoring the use and impact of the Standards for Ethnicity Data?

We proposed that the Equality Hub and the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) monitor the use and impact of the standards.

Do you agree or disagree with us producing standards for data on other groups of people?

For example, standards for disability data.

A further question asked for any other views on the standards. Each of the sections below incorporates responses from that final question.

Responses

There were 47 responses to the consultation. There were 36 online, and 11 by email. Out of the 47 respondents:

• 17 were from the public sector, including central and local government and non-departmental public bodies
• 10 were from charities
• 14 were from other organisations including private sector companies, research organisations and professional bodies
• 5 were from individuals
• 1 was unknown

Summary

Respondents supported the standards as a way to improve ethnicity data. They also gave a large number of comments on ways to improve the standards.

There was a high level of support for the proposals on:

• reviewing the use and impact of the standards
• developing standards for other personal characteristics

In response, the Equality Hub:

• has revised the draft standards in some areas
• has published the revised version of the data standards for ethnicity
• will monitor the use and impact of the standards, in collaboration with OSR
• will consider developing another set of standards in the future

Section 1: publishing the standards

This section asked respondents about the following proposal:

Do you agree or disagree that we should publish this consultation version of the Standards for Ethnicity Data?

Respondents who disagreed with this statement were then asked for further information.

There were 36 online responses to this question:

• 14 respondents (39%) agreed that the Equality Hub should publish the consultation version
• 18 respondents (50%) disagreed
• 4 (11%) did not know

This result reflects the feedback that respondents provided on improving the draft standards. Many respondents did support the idea of the standards as a way to try to improve ethnicity data.

In comments on the consultation questions, 19 respondents:

• welcomed the standards
• were fully or broadly supportive of them
• praised the scope
• felt they covered the main aspects of collecting, analysing or reporting ethnicity data

We identified the following themes for improvements from the comments:

• style of the standards
• ethnicity categories and harmonisation
• intersectional data
• self-identification of ethnicity and proxy reporting
• inclusivity, barriers to participation and accessibility
• legal and ethical considerations
• statistical considerations

Our response below outlines how we have addressed these.

Style of the standards

9 respondents commented on the style of the standards and how we could improve them.

Some of these respondents said that some of the sections were too complex. They also suggested how the Equality Hub could make the language more user friendly. One respondent said the statistical language and lack of examples might be challenging for non-experts. Some respondents also said the standards should include:

• further description of different aspects
• more examples
• clearer steps on how to put in place some parts of the standards
• more options if a user could not achieve the ideal that was set out

Some respondents found the links to supporting information were not helpful. Some users might not read the linked information. Other respondents thought we should summarise information from supporting evidence within relevant sections. They recognised the balance between the document including enough information and being too long.

One respondent made a comment on the structure of the standards. They thought we should restructure the standards around the stages of research:

• data collection
• data analysis
• data reporting

The rationale for this structure is that it is more applicable to a research project. The Code of Practice ‘pillars’ of trustworthiness, quality and value could then sit within each of these stages.

Finally, one respondent thought that case studies would be useful. The case studies could highlight the benefits that high quality data collection brings.

Ethnicity categories and harmonisation

23 respondents made comments relating to ethnicity categories including:

• what categories organisations should or might use
• how and when using harmonised categories is appropriate

For example, there might be some occasions when harmonisation might not be appropriate. It might hide differences between ethnic groups when sample sizes are small. It might also not be appropriate if a user is comparing data over a long period of time, during which harmonised standards had changed. One respondent said that the purpose of the data is also important here. This purpose might justify using an ethnic group not in the harmonised standard.

One respondent said there were different purposes that organisations collect and use data. For example:

• private and public sector organisations
• large and small organisations

It might not be beneficial for some organisations to use harmonised standards because of these differences. A ‘one size fits all’ approach for private sector organisations might not work. For example, because of the different size of organisations, and their availability of resources.

Respondents also said that users might need to analyse and report data for:

• more than 5 aggregated groups or less than 19 Census groups – for example, 7 groups that include ‘white other’ and ‘prefer not to say’
• ethnic groups outside of either list, and the data standards should reflect that
• 2 groups, such as ‘white British’ and ‘ethnic minorities’

A respondent said that using 2 groups could still have value in some contexts. They could have uses in statistical modelling, alongside detailed categories. For example, they could help measure the likelihood of someone experiencing discrimination if they are from an ethnic minority group.

Respondents felt that adding the detail of any extra groups can be useful. A user might miss trends or outcomes for some groups without this extra detail. One respondent said that mapping  detailed categories to harmonised standards would be useful. This could help with consistency of analysis between organisations.

Some respondents said that the 4 countries in the UK use different ethnicity categories. They commented that the standards should make these differences clearer. The standards should also show how to compare data across the 4 countries.

A small number of users also highlighted the need to compare UK ethnicity data with that collected for countries outside of the UK.

Finally, some respondents provided suggestions for changes to the harmonised standards. These included:

• adding Latin American
• adding Cornish
• changes to the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller categories

Intersectional data

13 respondents commented on the importance of intersectional data in the standards. That is analysing ethnicity data with other demographic characteristics.

Some of the comments raised included:

• more explicit references on the need to consider intersectionality
• how to analyse religion and national identity data with ethnicity
• a greater emphasis and stronger guidance on collecting and reporting data on religion
• the importance of the interplay between ethnicity and disability
• being clear on the purpose for collecting data on other demographic characteristics

Self-identification of ethnicity and proxy reporting

The section on third-party (proxy) ethnicity reporting generated comments from 12 respondents.

There were concerns from some respondents that this section was in the standards at all. They believed that self-reporting was the only way to collect ethnicity data. One respondent said that there was a failure to flag the risks in proxy reporting in the standards. There was also no guidance in the standards to mitigate these risks.

Some respondents said that proxy reporting could be useful or required, as a ‘last resort’. Another respondent said the standards could provide more guidance for these situations.

Finally, some respondents said that the standards should give guidance on:

• reporting levels of ethnicity proxy response in a dataset
• reporting levels of ethnicity self-identification
• ways to improve the accuracy of ethnicity proxy reporting

They regarded this as an important data quality measure.

Inclusivity, barriers to participation and accessibility

12 respondents provided comments on inclusivity. Some of these respondents said data collections can be affected by limitations of:

• accessibility
• comprehension
• language

For example, the design of surveys or data collections should take into account the nuances of ethnic identification in different contexts (and other contextual inequality factors).

They felt the standards should reflect these points.

Another respondent said the standards should include more about acknowledging cultural sensitivities. Survey questions should not have unintended connotations depending on language and cultural contexts. To analyse what data shows, the standards should reflect the need to understand these sensitivities.

Some respondents said the standards should include more information about encouraging different ethnic groups to take part in surveys. This could make data collections more inclusive.

Finally, 2 respondents said that taking into account lived experiences of different groups is important when deciding:

• what questions about ethnicity to research
• how to collect ethnicity the data
• how to present the results of ethnicity research
• how to develop these standards for ethnicity data

Legal, ethical and confidentiality considerations

11 respondents said that legal and ethical data considerations should be clearer in the standards. Respondents said that the standards should include more information about:

• organisations being clear on the purpose of collecting ethnicity (and other personal) data
• compliance with data protection principles and the UK GDPR
• how data protection principles apply to the collection of ethnicity data
• data protection concepts such as the requirements to process special category personal data
• the best approaches for collecting ethnicity data
• capturing acceptable levels of ethnicity data
• storing ethnicity data

Another respondent said the standards should suggest the use of different privacy methods to keep data confidential. The same respondent also welcomed the section about GDPR as being essential.

Finally, one respondent asked whether we could link the standards to the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Statistical considerations

10 respondents said we could expand some technical considerations in the standards, including:

• mentioning the need for a professional statistician to help with some aspects
• more guidance on how to assess the accuracy of datasets – for example, when linking data
• justifying the decision to link data, and the ethics of data linkage
• matching data or analysis with the 2021 Census data
• how to design data collections to increase their representativeness
• that weighting needs good quality data
• including analysis of people who had missing ethnicity data in analysis
• the use of different comparators, such as ‘white British’

Our response

The Equality Hub welcomes the many constructive comments we received on possible improvements. As a result, we have revised the standard in the following broad ways:

• changed the ordering of the sections to start with trustworthiness
• incorporated some information from some of the links into the main text
• simplified some of the language in some places
• provided more guidance on how to implement the standards in other places
• amended the harmonisation section to make Equality Hub expectations around harmonisation clearer
• provided more guidance on international ethnicity comparisons
• provided more guidance on comparing ethnicity between the 4 countries of the UK
• strengthened the guidance around analysing ethnicity data with data on other characteristics
• removed references to proxy (third party) reporting of ethnicity
• added more information on GDPR in different parts of the standards
• adding a framework for the standards in the research project structure – data collection, analysis and reporting

We have also made some other smaller text changes to reflect some of the feedback we have received.

Section 2: monitoring the use and impact of the standards

This section asked respondents about the following proposal:

Do you agree or disagree with our proposal for monitoring the use and impact of the Standards for Ethnicity Data?

Respondents who disagreed with this statement were then asked for further information.

We proposed that the Equality Hub will monitor the use and impact of the standards. This would be in collaboration with the OSR.

OSR can review how producers and users of ethnicity data are following the standards. They can also give guidance on improving ethnicity data collection, analysis and reporting.

There were 36 online responses to this question:

• 29 (81%) of respondents agreed that we should monitor the standards in the way we proposed
• 4 (11%) respondents disagreed
• 3 (8%) did not know

There were also 5 supporting statements for this proposal from email responses. They saw value in monitoring, with the level of scrutiny being an important part of the standards.

Respondents said some of the following areas for improvement:

• more detail on how the Equality Hub might do this
• responsibility for the standards
• implications of this work

More detail on monitoring the use and impact of the standards

15 respondents wanted more detailed information on how this would happen including:

• a plan or framework for reviewing the standards including timelines, acknowledging that it might take time to see an impact
• how these standards tie in with others, in particular the Code of Practice for Statistics
• how organisations can commit to adhering to the standards
• more detail on how we and OSR would enforce the standards
• how this could be different for organisations at different stages of their data journey, as some organisations might have started collecting ethnicity data, and others might have established processes for collection, analysis and reporting
• how the standards have changed based on the result of any review

Suggestions on how we could monitor the standards were also given. These included:

• regular surveys of data producers
• using the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Equality Data Audit to ask people if they used the standards

Some respondents wanted more consultation on the content of the standards in the future. This could be with ONS, OSR and other stakeholders.

Responsibility for the standards

6 respondents commented about where the responsibility for the standards should lie. The Equality Hub has drafted and published these standards. 3 respondents commented whether the Equality Hub was the correct place for the standards to sit. Respondents queried whether the standards would be better owned by OSR. OSR is an independent organisation who already have responsibility for assessment of statistics. This independence could help with implementation of the standards. It could increase confidence in their use.

One respondent said that OSR could also extend its remit into the private sector. But OSR scrutiny might deter some private sector organisations. In particular if they did not have time to put the standards in place.

Implications of monitoring the standards

4 respondents wanted to understand more about the implications for organisations who did not meet the standards. In particular because the standards would not be mandatory to follow.

Another respondent said it is crucial to have a clear understanding of the audience for the standards. Expectations of outcomes could be different for different audiences.

Our response

Most respondents to the consultation agreed that monitoring the standards is important.

The Equality Hub and OSR will review how the standards are being used. OSR will do this by:

• reflecting the standards in a planned 5-year stocktake of the Code of Practice for Statistics
• including a review of compliance when OSR’s assessors conduct individual assessments of statistics
• reviewing a range of data producers and types of statistics 1 or 2 years after the launch of the standards

The Equality Hub will not make the standards mandatory. But making producers of statistics aware of the standards through OSR’s work will help to embed them across government.

The Equality Hub will also get feedback on the standards in other ways. For example, from the Government Statistical Service  Champions Networks, and informally from other users.

The Equality Hub will use the information gathered to review the content of the standards in the future to understand:

• how much the standards are being used
• whether to promote the standards more
• whether and how to change the content

The Equality Hub will remain as the owner of the standards for now. This could be part of any review in a year’s time.

Section 3: standards for other personal characteristics

This section asked respondents about the following proposal:

Do you agree or disagree with us producing standards for data on other groups of people?

Respondents who disagreed with this statement were then asked for further information.

There were 36 online responses to this question:

• 29 (81%) agreed that we should publish standards for other groups
• 3 (8%) respondents disagreed
• 4 (11%) did not know

There were also 7 comments supporting this proposal from responses by email.

Standards for other groups

Respondents said a particular need for standards for gender and for disability data. One respondent said that the question asked about ‘personal’ characteristics. This could lead to 2 possibilities for developing standards for other characteristics:

• protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010)
• personal characteristics, beyond the characteristics protected under the Equality Act 2010

Benefits

4 respondents also said that standards for other population groups could help:

• organisations with performance monitoring
• better understand intersectionality of different characteristics
• give analyses for these groups a higher level of attention

Respondents also suggested that Equality Hub consult relevant stakeholders when developing other standards.

Our response

There was clear support for publishing data standards for other groups. Many issues highlighted in the standards are relevant to other groups, for example:

• using harmonised standards where possible
• increasing representation of the groups in surveys
• analysing small groups using appropriate statistical methods

Some aspects of standards for other groups will need a tailored approach, for example:

• how to maximise representation of different groups in data collections
• comparing data across the countries of the UK and abroad

The Equality Hub will consider developing another set of data standards. This could cover one personal characteristic within the remit of the Equality Hub. It might be a set of standards covering more than one protected characteristic. We will:

• develop these new data standards working with other internal and external stakeholders
• develop a plan for reviewing any new standards, as outlined in section 2

Other suggestions

Other improvements to the standards

19 respondents gave other suggestions to improve the standards in the consultation questions. These include:

• being clear who the standards apply to
• being clear whether the standards apply to government’s own employees and practices
• explaining the difference between race and ethnicity
• providing more background on the Race Disparity Audit and Ethnicity Facts and Figures
• providing more guidance on training courses to use ethnicity data better
• showing the importance of ethnicity data when developing action plans to address disparities
• updating the Government Digital Service standard to reflect the 2021 Census classifications
• stating that the ethnicity question should always be optional, or that it should be mandatory

Our response

We have made some other text changes to reflect the feedback we have received in this section.