Independent report

Foreword, introduction, and full recommendations

Updated 28 April 2021

Foreword from the Chair

Last summer, the Prime Minister asked if I would be willing to chair a Commission to investigate race and ethnic disparities in the UK. He felt that the UK needed to consider important questions about the state of race relations today, and that there needed to be a thorough examination of why so many disparities persist. We needed to work out what can be done to eliminate or mitigate them. I readily agreed: I have spent all my working life as an educationalist, dedicated to this cause.

The Commission was established with 10 of us drawn from a variety of fields spanning science, education, economics, broadcasting, medicine, and policing. And, with one exception, all from ethnic minority backgrounds. Tasked to look at race and ethnic disparities in education, employment, crime and policing and health, we first met virtually in July. Like so many of you in your own family and work situations during this time of COVID-19, the Commission has never met face to face.

Our diverse group, with our different areas of expertise, enabled us to challenge conventional approaches. The debates around the table were invigorating and led to stimulating discussion. Collectively, over the past few months, we have put our shoulders to the wheel and pushed this endeavour forward.

All the while we have been supported by the Cabinet Office’s Race and Disparity Unit (RDU) which was set up in 2016. It has accumulated all the important data on race and ethnicity, in one database. For the first time we have been able to use this dataset to understand the impact of ethnicity and other factors on outcomes. That also means, unlike previous reviews focused on particular issues such as the workplace or criminal justice, we have been able to look more widely and investigate the deeper underlying causes of key disparities.

Sifting through a mass of data, reading the evidence from experts and speaking to communities, we soon realised, given the time constraints or the limitations of available data, we could not address every subject and every issue. We also identified individual ethnic minority groups that have a significant presence and separate identity, though not large enough for their own categories like Sri Lankan, Somali or East African Asian. We acknowledge the work that has been done on anti-Muslim prejudice and antisemitism – even though it is beyond the scope of this report.

The word mistrust was repeated often as some witnesses from the police service, mental health, education and health services felt that the system was not on their side. Once we interrogated the data we did find some evidence of biases, but often it was a perception that the wider society could not be trusted. For some groups historic experience of racism still haunts the present and there was a reluctance to acknowledge that the UK had become open and fairer.

The data also revealed many instances of success among minority communities. These have often been ignored or have been seen to be of little interest (to the media). But we wanted to understand the reasons for the success and whether there were any lessons to be drawn.

This is also the first government-commissioned study on race that seriously engages with the family.

In many areas of investigation, including educational failure and crime, we were led upstream to family breakdown as one of the main reasons for poor outcomes. Family is also the foundation stone of success for many ethnic minorities.

Another revelation from our dive into the data was just how stuck some groups from the White majority are. As a result, we came to the view that recommendations should, wherever possible, be designed to remove obstacles for everyone, rather than specific groups.

It has been quite a journey of discovery. As we met with people in round table discussions, in our versions of the ‘Moral Maze’ and listened to people from all sections of society, we were taken by the distinctions being drawn between causes that were external to the individual and those that could be influenced by the actions of the individual himself or herself. As our investigations proceeded, we increasingly felt that an unexplored approach to closing disparity gaps was to examine the extent individuals and their communities could help themselves through their own agency, rather than wait for invisible external forces to assemble to do the job.

Poet and activist Linton Kwesi Johnson describes the early mass Black presence in the UK as having 2 phases or eras. The first was the 1950s Windrush arrival from the Caribbean, this he called the ‘heroic’ period, when literally doors were closed in the faces of the new Black settlers who heroically battled in the face of adversity. The children of those settlers, my generation, who came of age in the 1970s and 1980s he calls the ‘rebel’ generation, this featured running battles with police and a breakdown in community relations, which continues to have a negative legacy. The spirit of rebellion continued last summer during the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests. This was a revolt that engulfed the world. We have to acknowledge the spirit of BLM was the original trigger for our report.

But this report speaks to a new period, which we have described as the era of ‘participation’. We can only speak of ‘participation’ if we acknowledge that the UK has fundamentally shifted since those periods in the past and has become a more open society. We have spoken in this report about how the UK is open to all its communities. But we are acutely aware that the door may be only half open to some, including the White working class. In this regard we have pointed out how in education, employment, health and crime and policing the UK can be a more inclusive and fairer landscape.

Participation, however, is not just about fully opening the doors, we also speak to the need for communities to run through them and grasp those opportunities. We have found that some ethnic minorities have been able to ‘participate’ better than others. We were impressed by the ‘immigrant optimism’ of some of the new African communities. They are among the new high achievers in our education system. As their Caribbean peers sit in the same classrooms, it is difficult to blame racism in education for the latter’s underachievement.

The new challenge of ‘participation’ is best illustrated in the policies that face police recruitment. The police need to demonstrate that they are truly a more welcoming organisation and Black communities need to overcome the legacy of mistrust. We have put forward recommendations that will hopefully bridge this gap. Our findings on Black youth homicide are distressing reading, with young Black men 24 times more likely to die of homicide than their White counterparts. It is this data that has led us to supporting a reconceptualised idea of stop and search.

In health, we need more Black and Asian people to participate in health trials so that medical research will be based on data that comes from the whole population. Our new Office for Health Disparities will be tasked to respond to the specific health and wellbeing of ethnic groups.

The ‘Making of Modern Britain’ teaching resource is our response to negative calls for ‘decolonising’ the curriculum. Neither the banning of White authors or token expressions of Black achievement will help to broaden young minds. We have argued against bringing down statues, instead, we want all children to reclaim their British heritage. We want to create a teaching resource that looks at the influence of the UK, particularly during the Empire period. We want to see how Britishness influenced the Commonwealth and local communities, and how the Commonwealth and local communities influenced what we now know as modern Britain. One great example would be a dictionary or lexicon of well known British words which are Indian in origin. There is a new story about the Caribbean experience which speaks to the slave period not only being about profit and suffering but how culturally African people transformed themselves into a re-modelled African/Britain.^{[footnote 1]}

I wanted to call one of the chapters ‘The end of BAME (Black, Asian and minority ethnic)’. The term ‘BAME community’ feels like a group that is held together by no more than what it is not. The Commissioners were not impressed by those companies that pointed to their ‘unconscious bias’ training as proof of their progressive credentials. We were impressed by more conscious attempts to foster talent from a wide range of backgrounds.

Put simply we no longer see a Britain where the system is deliberately rigged against ethnic minorities. The impediments and disparities do exist, they are varied, and ironically very few of them are directly to do with racism. Too often ‘racism’ is the catch-all explanation, and can be simply implicitly accepted rather than explicitly examined.

The evidence shows that geography, family influence, socio-economic background, culture and religion have more significant impact on life chances than the existence of racism. That said, we take the reality of racism seriously and we do not deny that it is a real force in the UK.

The Commission was keen to gain a more forensic and rigorous understanding of underlying causes of disparities. However, we have argued for the use of the term ‘institutional racism’ to be applied only when deep-seated racism can be proven on a systemic level and not be used as a general catch-all phrase for any microaggression, witting or unwitting.

The purpose of this report is to provide the UK with a road map for racial fairness. There are still real obstacles and there are also practical ways to surmount them, but that becomes much harder if people from ethnic minority backgrounds absorb a fatalistic narrative that says the deck is permanently stacked against them. Armed with the rich data from the RDU, we have aimed to dispel some myths and reach a more nuanced view.

Creating a successful multicultural society is hard, and racial disparities exist wherever such a society is being forged. The Commission believes that if these recommendations are implemented, it will give a further burst of momentum to the story of our country’s progress to a successful multicultural community – a beacon to the rest of Europe and the world.

Introduction

This report comes at a pivotal moment for our nation’s race debate. We need to place that debate on objective and democratic foundations – ones that include people of goodwill, of all races and ethnicities.

The purpose of this report is to lay the ground for a country built on the full participation and trust of all communities. We envisage a country more at ease with itself because it can recognise where progress has been made. One that is confident that, where unequal access to opportunity persists, whether among inner city ethnic minorities or the left-behind from the ethnic majority, it is being addressed.

We do not believe that the UK is yet a post-racial society which has completed the long journey to equality of opportunity. And we know, too many of us from personal experience, that prejudice and discrimination can still cast a shadow over lives. Outright racism still exists in the UK, whether it surfaces as graffiti on someone’s business, violence in the street, or prejudice in the labour market. It can cause a unique and indelible pain for the individual affected and has no place in any civilised society.

But we have ensured our analysis has gone beyond these individual instances, to carefully examine the evidence and data, and the evidence reveals that ours is nevertheless a relatively open society. The country has come a long way in 50 years and the success of much of the ethnic minority population in education and, to a lesser extent, the economy, should be regarded as a model for other White-majority countries.

There is a salience and attention to race equality in the UK in policy-making, and in the media, which is seldom found in other European countries. And there is an expectation of ethnic minority voices at the top of politics – across the political parties, and in law, education, medicine, business, media and culture – that did not exist a generation ago and is still too rare elsewhere.

Yes, there are still some ‘snowy white peaks’ at the very top of the private and public sectors, and not all of that can be accounted for by the fact that members of the ethnic minorities have not, by definition, been embedded in the country’s human networks and institutions for as long as the White majority.

But some of that snow is melting. Consider the greater presence of ethnic minorities in the current government and opposition, this time occupying top positions such as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Attorney General, Business Secretary and Home Secretary. Or the onward march of minorities into positions of power and responsibility in professions such as the law and medicine. Ethnic minorities are also now well represented in the highest social class and ethnic minority students represented nearly a quarter of those from the UK offered a place at Oxford in 2019.^{[footnote 2]}

In addition, our enquiries have also underlined to us that the roots of advantage and disadvantage for different groups are complex, and often as much to do with social class, ‘family’ culture and geography as ethnicity. We have tried to understand the drivers of ethnic difference in the UK and, where necessary, propose ways to address them. The data collected over 5 years now by the government’s Race Disparity Unit has given us a new opportunity to be led by the evidence.

Multiple reviews relating to racial and ethnic disparity have been commissioned by successive governments since 2010, covering a range of topics relevant to the areas of focus for this Commission. They have tended to look at specific problems, and sometimes have sought swift fixes. Successive governments have made – and continue to make – sincere efforts to implement those recommendations where they have been accepted. This Commission has taken a different starting point: to look at the underlying causes of disparities to better understand why they have come about, and what can be done to address them over the long run.

We have sought to build upon the detailed work that those reviews have done, and discussed the findings with each reviewer. Many we broadly agreed with, and all should be acknowledged and recognised for the significant contributions they have made to the national conversation and growing the evidence base.

These reviews, which we refer to in the relevant chapters of this report, include:

• The Timpson Review of School Exclusion
• The Children’s Commissioner’s ‘Best beginnings in the early years’ report
• The McGregor-Smith Review: Race in the Workplace
• The Parker Review: Ethnic diversity of UK boards
• The Lammy Review: An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System
• The Angiolini Review: Deaths and serious incidents in police custody
• The Marmot Review: Fair Society, Healthy Lives
• The Wessely Review: Modernising the Mental Health Act

In the main chapters of this report, we look at 4 key areas:

• education and training
• employment, fairness at work and enterprise
• crime and policing
• health

We examined the intersection of some of the most pertinent causes holding back equality of opportunity, namely:

• ethnicity
• socio-economic background
• geography
• culture and degree of integration

We found that most of the disparities we examined, which some attribute to racial discrimination, often do not have their origins in racism.

Racism has become one of the most potent taboos in the UK, which was not the case 50 years ago. Some argue this has just driven it underground where it operates as powerfully as ever to deny equality to ethnic minorities. That assumption is at odds with the stories of success that this report has found, together with survey evidence of dwindling White prejudice.

It is certainly true that the concept of racism has become much more fluid, extending from overt hostility and exclusion to unconscious bias and microaggressions. This is partly because ethnic minorities have higher expectations of equal treatment and, rightly, will not tolerate behaviour that, only a couple of generations ago, would have likely been quietly endured or shrugged off. The fact that this generation expects more is a positive aspect of integration.

However, there is also an increasingly strident form of anti-racism thinking that seeks to explain all minority disadvantage through the prism of White discrimination. This diverts attention from the other reasons for minority success and failure, including those embedded in the cultures and attitudes of those minority communities themselves.

There is much evidence to suggest, for example, that different experiences of family life and structure can explain many disparities in education outcomes and crime. Early years experiences, including stability and security at home, matters to children more than anything else. There are many different family structures that can provide a happy childhood, including millions of single parents doing a loving and effective job in difficult circumstances. It is clear, however, that there continues to be a need for more explicit public policy promotion of parental and family support. We reject both the stigmatisation of single mothers and the turning of a blind eye to the impact of family breakdown on the life chances of children.

The work of the Commission has been carried out under the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the evidence that some ethnic minority groups have faced a disproportionate impact from the virus. As the analysis of why this is the case has emerged, the significance of a wide range of interlocking factors (including geography, occupation, deprivation and pre-existing health conditions) has become clear. However, when examining the overall health of the UK population, it is also evident that there is more than one story to tell. As we report in the Health chapter, life expectancy or overall mortality shows that ethnic minorities do better overall than the White population and actually have better outcomes for many of the 25 leading causes of death.

This report seeks to approach the issues of racial and ethnic disparities in a balanced way, highlighting both the success stories that the data reveals as well as delving into what lies beneath some of the most persistent and enduring ones. As such, its findings and recommendations may be surprising to some and thought-provoking to others. Either way, we have gone as far as the available evidence and time would allow.

Full recommendations

Led by evidence, the Commission has put forward 24 recommendations that will improve the lives and experiences of individuals and communities across the UK. The Commission recognises that health, education, training and skills, justice and policing are reserved matters for the devolved administrations. Any action taken to implement them will, therefore, need to be mindful of these considerations.

These recommendations work to forward 4 overarching aims:

• to build trust between different communities and the institutions that serve them
• to promote greater fairness to improve opportunities and outcomes for individuals and communities
• to create agency so individuals can take greater control of the decisions that impact their lives
• to achieve genuine inclusivity to ensure all groups feel a part of UK society

Theme 1: Build trust

Recommendations that will help build trust and understanding for individuals and communities in public services and institutions.

Recommendation 1: Challenge racist and discriminatory actions

The Commission recommends that, to aid endeavours to drive out race-based discrimination and prejudice:

• the EHRC receives additional, ring-fenced funding from the government to use their compliance, enforcement and litigation powers to challenge policies or practices that either cause significant and unjust racial disadvantage, or arise from racial discrimination
• separately, the government should consider the complex issue of online abuse, and the platforms that are used to perpetuate such, as a public policy priority

Recommendation 2: Review the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) inspection process

The Commission recommends that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) commission a review into the CQC’s approach to scoring employee diversity and inclusion in their inspections.

The Commission recommends that this review is chaired by an expert with close knowledge of the health care system and CQC internal processes, ideally a former inspector or inspector of an alternative inspection body. The review team should work closely with the NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard team and the disciplinary bodies of the medical professionals to ensure that the views of these bodies feed into this work.

Recommendation 3: Improve the transparency and use of artificial intelligence

The Commission supports the recommendations of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (CDEI) and calls on the government to:

• place a mandatory transparency obligation on all public sector organisations applying algorithms that have an impact on significant decisions affecting individuals
• ask the Equality and Human Rights Commission to issue guidance that clarifies how to apply the Equality Act to algorithmic decision-making, which should include guidance on the collection of data to measure bias, and the lawfulness of bias mitigation techniques

Recommendation 4: Bridge divides and create partnerships between the police and communities

Noting the key concerns in relation to communication, transparency and consistency in approach for stop and search, the Commission makes a two-part recommendation:

a) The College of Policing, working alongside the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC), and National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC), develop a minimum standard framework for community ‘Safeguarding Trust’ groups that will not only have a function to scrutinise and problem-solve alongside policing, but also to ensure there is a minimum level of engagement with communities in every police service area.

The framework for the minimum standard should include, but not be limited to:

• a requirement for stop and search data to be made more granular and publicly available for groups to scrutinise
• a requirement for groups to be independently chaired and representative of their communities
• a duty for Safeguarding Trust group minutes to be published
• an ability for groups to scrutinise and hold police services to account on policing activity and disparities in stop and search, use of force, workforce mix and internal misconduct
• and, an ability for groups to review stop and search authorisations made under section 60 (S.60) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, where police will be required to provide the Safeguarding Trust group with a rationale as to why a S.60 was authorised

Once a year, Safeguarding Trust groups should write to, and receive a response from the Chief Constable and Police and Crime Commissioner to update on progress. Police forces should also be required to demonstrate how they have responded and implemented changes as a result of scrutiny or challenge by the community.

Throughout the framework development phase, there should be engagement with independent experts in community engagement and scrutiny external to policing. Consideration should be given to how members of Safeguarding Trust groups are adequately enabled to undertake their roles.

Where required, the Home Office should also provide support in identifying the areas where trustworthiness is low and set targets to close the confidence gap, with Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners to publish delivery plans to achieve that improvement. Progress against these delivery plans should be presented and discussed at the Safeguarding Trust group meetings.

b) Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) inspect each police service area against the minimum standard framework, reviewing police services on their efficacy, relationship building and a requirement for services to demonstrate the actions they are taking to build positive relationships with all communities within their police service area.

Recommendation 5: Improve training to provide police officers with practical skills to interact with communities

The Commission recommends that the College of Policing, working alongside the NPCC and APCC, develop a strategy to improve the efficacy and implementation of stop and search, and de-escalation training, ensuring a consistent person-centred approach is taken by all police service areas.

De-escalation training will be required for all new police officers joining the service, and upscaled to include all current serving officers who are expected to interact with the public as part of their role. This would be a requirement not just at the point of initial police training, but as a key aspect of continual professional development within different stages and levels of policing.

Theme 2: Promote fairness

Recommendations that will contribute to fairer practices and improved outcomes for individuals and communities.

Recommendation 6: Replicate the factors of educational success for all communities

The Commission recommends for the Department for Education (DfE) to invest in meaningful and substantial research to understand and replicate the underlying factors that drive the success of the high performance of pupils from different ethnicities, backgrounds and communities. For example, the level of educational success experienced by Black African, Chinese, Bangladeshi and Indian ethnic groups.

Recommendation 7: Invest in proven interventions through better targeted funding

The Commission calls for the government to deploy additional funding to systematically target the entrenched and persistent disparities in education outcomes between disadvantaged pupils and their peers. It is right that in delivering this funding, the DfE should adopt a more holistic definition of need as well as consider ethnic, gender and socio-economic status. The additional funding should support proven interventions in early years, the transition between primary to secondary school, family hubs and careers provision among other key areas listed in the chapter.

It is imperative for the funding to consider geographical variations, identifying disparities by regions or local areas including drilling down to individual school level where necessary. DfE should seek to avoid viewing disparities using national data which do not identify geographical variation in the performance of particular groups.

For example, funding allocation should consider how to best meet the needs of specific ethnic groups from low socio-economic status backgrounds who are scoring substantially below the average for all students including White British, Black Caribbean, and Mixed White and Black Caribbean.

This recommendation is not an attempt to alter the work of the recently-introduced national funding formula (NFF). The full benefits of NFF have not yet had a chance to materialise.

Recommendation 8: Advance fairness in the workplace

a) The Commission calls on organisations to now move away from funding unconscious bias training. The existing training should be replaced with new interventions that when implemented, can be measured or evaluated for their efficacy, such as:

• the use of sponsorship to ensure wider exposure of ethnic minority individuals to their peers, managers and other decision makers
• training and routine skills support for all employees in their professional and personal lives (for example on collaboration, confidence, communication, and presentation skills), which could disproportionately benefit more disadvantaged groups

b) The Commission also calls on the government to work with a panel of academics and practitioners to develop resources and evidence-based approaches of what does work to advance fairness in the workplace. The landscape of diversity training is highly mixed, and the government can play a role in guiding organisations to high quality materials and resources.

These resources should include guidance for employers, and be piloted in the Civil Service to replace the use of unconscious bias training.

Recommendation 9: Investigate what causes existing ethnic pay disparities

The Commission recommends that all employers that choose to publish their ethnicity pay figures should also publish a diagnosis and action plan to lay out the reasons for and the strategy to improve any disparities. Reported ethnicity pay data should also be disaggregated by different ethnicities to provide the best information possible to facilitate change. Account should also be taken of small sample sizes in particular regions and smaller organisations.

To support employers undertaking this exercise, the Commission recommends that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is tasked with producing a guidance for employers to draw on.

Recommendation 10: Improve understanding of the ethnicity pay gap in NHS England

The Commission recommends that NHS England as a whole should commission a strategic review of the causes of disparate pay and, where discrimination is pinpointed, spell out the measures that might meaningfully address it. Such a review would shine a light on the barriers to in-work progression and how to overcome them – for example, in promotion, are foreign qualifications equally validated yet informally seen as inferior? It would ask how the NHS performs on pay gaps compared with international comparators and if other metrics than pay gaps reveal barriers better.

Recommendation 11: Establish an Office for Health Disparities

This Commission recommends that the government establish a new office to properly target health disparities in the UK. This Office would be an independent body which would work alongside the NHS, as part of, or in place of, the redesigned Public Health England, to improve healthy life expectancy across the UK and in all groups and reduce inequalities. As most of the causes of health inequalities (deprivation, tobacco, alcohol, unhealthy diet and physical inactivity) are not due to differences in healthcare, addressing them will involve multiple government departments and so the office would need to be cross-cutting across government.

a) Increase programmes aimed at levelling up health care and health outcomes

• Use existing data and evidence to target the most deprived communities for tailored health interventions, health education and communications. This function would work alongside existing local health workers and would utilise best practice examples from local authorities and public health regional offices and charities.

b) Improve the data, guidance and expertise in the causes and solutions for health disparities for specific groups:

• Fund further research into health conditions which adversely impact specific groups. This would include a large focus on research into health disparities relating to ethnic minorities, considering genetic and biological differences, cultural practices and social economic drivers.
• Provide best practice for the inclusion of known health disparities, including those experienced by ethnic minorities, in clinical care guidelines. Work closely with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and other bodies, to ensure all guidance includes information on disparities as standard.
• Provide expertise in how the health of different ethnic minority groups are affected by underlying conditions, cultural and linguistic practices, geography, and occupation. This expertise would be disaggregated to avoid unhelpful grouping of different ethnicity and to ensure proper tailoring of health services.

Recommendation 12: Prevent harm, reduce crime and divert young people away from the criminal justice system

The Commission wants to urgently address the disproportionate number of ethnic minority young people going into the criminal justice system as a result of low-level Class B drug possession. The Commission is not advocating or endorsing the legalisation of Class B drugs, however, it points to examples such as the Thames Valley and West Midlands Police drug diversion models to keep these young people away from gaining a criminal record, while trying to address the root cause of their drug use.

The Commission recommends a multi-agency approach bringing together the College of Policing, National Police Chief’s Council, Home Office and Ministry of Justice to develop an evidence-based pilot to divert offences of low-level Class B drug possession into public health solutions.

It is suggested that the pilot is trialled in 4 of the 6 police force areas where almost half (48%)^{[footnote 3]} of all arrests for drug offences took place in the year ending March 2020: the Metropolitan Police, Merseyside, West Yorkshire, and Humberside (noting that Thames Valley and West Midlands are already undertaking police drug diversion pilots). The aim is that following evaluation of the pilot by the College of Policing, a consistent approach is adopted nationally.

Under this diversion scheme, individuals committing the offence of ‘possession of a Class B drug’ will automatically be considered for a drugs referral in lieu of traditional criminal justice routes. In accordance with current Out of Court Disposals guidance, individuals committing the offence must admit guilt to be eligible for this referral mechanism. The Commission also notes that information about those referred into this programme should not be disclosed to potential employers, education providers or voluntary sector organisations, in order to preserve opportunities for young people – once they have completed their course – to pursue further or higher education or employment without being held back by a criminal record.

The responsibility for developing operational guidance for the new drug diversion approach should sit with the CoP, working alongside the NPCC, Home Office and MoJ, and drawing from the evidence of what has worked from models such as the Thames Valley Police pilot approach.

Recommendation 13: Build social and cultural capital – enrichment for all

The Commission recommends that the Secretary of State for Education, in collaboration with the government’s education recovery commissioner, urgently consider phasing in an extended school day. Led by evidence showing the positive impact of a longer school day for disadvantaged pupils, the phasing of the extended school day should, at first instance, prioritise the most disadvantaged areas and communities. The additional hours must provide all pupils with the opportunity to engage in physical and cultural activities, including working with local activity clubs. Participation in such activities will improve pupils’ health and social capital, allowing such pursuits to be more accessible to the most disadvantaged students.

Imperative for a successful extended school day is for the Department for Education (DfE) to secure ongoing additional funding allocation that will establish this recommendation as a permanent change in the way that schools operate. In order to overcome the significant operational challenges of delivering an extended school day, advice should be sought from education practitioners, parents, pupils and key stakeholders.

This is a unique opportunity for DfE to improve current practices and ensure education practitioners are best equipped and rewarded for their time. Consideration should be taken on how the change in additional school hours can allow for the school day to be a different length for older years, support flexible working arrangements (which could make the profession more attractive to many), ensure staff are paid to teach the after-school time they currently deliver and retain their holiday period.

This includes, for example, DfE to explore working with post-16 and post-18 institutions such as UCAS to change the application submission dates for higher education institutions, as well as Ofqual to move the GCSE and A level results days from the summer holiday.

Recommendation 14: Increase legitimacy and accountability of stop and search through body-worn video

There is a strong presumption that in all police services body-worn video (BWV) cameras will be switched on if the officer is in a situation which they believe could lead to a stop and search, or as soon as it is practicable to do so during that encounter. Building on the recommendations made by HMICFRS, the Commission recommends that for instances where BWV cameras are not switched on during a stop and search, the officer is required to provide a written explanation as to why it was not switched on. Operational guidelines for this requirement should be developed by the College of Policing, and included in the authorised professional practice for stop and search.

Officers must include this written explanation on the stop and search record slip, and it must be available for the individual who was stopped and searched to access following the encounter. The written explanation should be reviewed by a supervising officer to confirm whether the explanation provided is reasonable, and appropriate action should be taken where the rationale provided is of concern. This can, for example, be through performance or misconduct procedures.

The BWV footage of stop and searches should also be scrutinised at 2 levels through dip-sampling:

a) First, external scrutiny through community Safeguarding Trust groups (a recommendation for the formation of these groups is found in the crime and policing chapter) who should be able to request BWV camera footage from a specified date for review.

b) Second, police services must implement an internal performance framework that includes dip-sampling review of BWV footage by supervising officers. Feedback should then be given to officers conducting stop and search, and appropriate action should be taken where interactions require improvement. For example, individual officers may be directed to further training or, in most serious instances, be referred to appropriate misconduct procedures.

Theme 3: Create agency

Recommendations that will create opportunities to empower individuals to exercise greater control over their lives and make informed choices that lead to better outcomes for themselves.

Recommendation 15: Empower pupils to make more informed choices to fulfil their future potential

The Commission proposes improvements to the quality of, and access to, careers advice for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Stronger guidance should be issued by the Office for Students (OfS) to higher education institutions on funding outreach programmes and placing university outreach staff in schools to help reduce disparities in applications at an earlier stage. Funding should be informed by evidence-led practice and targeted at the Gatsby benchmarks (8 elements of good careers support) to ensure that more children are able to apply to high-tariff institutions. This funding should be evaluated and monitored to assess whether it is having an impact on application rates. If guidance from OfS does not lead to strengthened funding for such initiatives, then OfS should look to regulatory or legal changes to ensure improved access and participation to higher education institutions.

Recommendation 16: Open up access to apprenticeships

The Commission recommends that the government conducts a highly-targeted apprenticeships campaign to persuade young people to do apprenticeships in growth sectors. Our view is that such a campaign could be of particular benefit to young people who face discrimination or disadvantage and currently lack access to in-depth information about the full range of career pathways.

Such a campaign could use a range of mechanisms to attract young people, such as relatable young role models, employer testimonies, data on potential earnings and career progression. It could explore the impact of factors that influence a young persons’ career choices such as: parental engagement, peer influence, access to information on different career routes, employer links with students, and ‘people like me’ and be delivered in partnership with further education colleges, Jobcentre Plus, youth hubs in community spaces, and careers hubs in schools.

A two-phased approach to roll out is proposed: first, pilots to be undertaken and evaluated in left-behind areas across England; and second, a national roll out of a well-evidenced, highly-targeted campaign which focuses on getting young people into a new job as part of an apprenticeship, and rewards providers for successfully achieving this.

DfE and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) should work in partnership with the Youth Futures Foundation to:

• co-fund the design of the campaign
• put out a call for further education colleges working in partnership with local employers and the community to apply to be considered for pilots
• commission an independent evaluation of the pilots, one which includes identifying ‘what works’ as part of its findings

Recommendation 17: Encourage innovation

The Commission recommends that HSBC UK works in collaboration with universities across the UK to pilot a competitive enterprise programme that will target aspiring entrepreneurs from under-represented and low-income backgrounds.

The universities that would be considered to take part in the pilot will be those who would benefit most from an increased endowment that would: 1) bolster their offer of support to aspiring entrepreneurs; and 2) further enable them to nurture entrepreneurial talent.

The programme will support participants in the development of their proposals through the provision of advice, mentorship and access to networks, and provide financial backing towards the winning entrant’s enterprise. The Commission envisages that participants of the programme will form an alumni community that will act as an additional source of support.

This should act as a model for other banks and financial institutions to emulate in collaboration with universities as a way to nurture talent, encourage innovation, and offer support to aspiring entrepreneurs from underrepresented and low-income backgrounds across the UK.

Recommendation 18: Improve safety and support for children at risk

The Commission recommends that the Youth Justice Board (YJB), working with partners across government with expertise in child criminal exploitation, develops a digital solution that can be accessed and used by children and young people before or at the point of crisis.

The government will be required to secure and deploy additional resourcing to the YJB to ensure that the YJB is appropriately resourced to deliver and implement this recommendation.

The digital solution, which for example may take the form of a mobile application, text line or chatbot, will act as an entry point to signpost and refer those at risk of, or already experiencing criminal exploitation, to appropriate local organisations who can support them. The services will be driven and implemented at a local level, for example, through youth offending teams.

This recommendation will help empower young people with the agency and ability to escape criminal behaviours and exploitation without the need to go to the police. The solution, based on existing technology innovations, will need to reach young people at critical points in their journey, intervening at an early stage for those at risk of criminal exploitation and preventing those already in the criminal justice system from being drawn deeper into criminality.

Recommendation 19: Undertake a ‘support for families’ review

The Commission recommends that the government undertake a ‘support for families’ review to further investigate issues highlighted by this Commission as follows:

• collecting data about ‘family strain’ (the negative impact of economic and social pressure on households) in different ethnic groups
• academic research into cultural attitudes and parenting styles which may be distinct within ethnic communities and what role they play in shaping life outcomes
• the impact of employment and working practices on parenting outcomes in different ethnic groups
• more complex understandings of fatherhood in different ethnic groups that analyses similarities and differences and reasons for variance
• the role culture and religion can play in family outcomes

The review should also look to develop a series of actions on:

• education – how early years settings and schools can provide better support services for parents, and the potential role of school-parent contracts in helping build relations between schools and parents
• employment – encouraging employers to look at flexible working for single parents
• crime and policing – how parents can be involved and supported to prevent youth crime, including potential for increased interactions between police and parents during out of court disposal processes
• health – mental health services encouraging more family therapy and group support in the event of family breakdown, which may disproportionately benefit ethnic minority groups.

Theme 4: Achieve inclusivity

Recommendations that will promote genuine, positive integration between citizens and communities, and weave in the identity and cultures of all communities into everyday life in the UK.

Recommendation 20: Making of modern Britain – teaching an inclusive curriculum

The Commission recommends that DfE works with an appointed panel of independent experts to produce high-quality teaching resources to tell the multiple, nuanced stories of the contributions made by different groups that have made this country the one it is today. The resources should be embedded within subjects in the statutory curriculum. These should include lesson plans, teaching methods and reading materials to complement a knowledge-rich curriculum. Using these examples, DfE, supported by the panel of experts, should design and produce a credible, high-quality, online national library that is continually updated. This online library will be available for all schools to use, complementing and enhancing the content and quality of lessons taught, so that all children can learn about the UK and the evolution of our society.

Recommendation 21: Create police workforces that represent the communities they serve

The Commission recommends that the London policy to recruit locally is upscaled across all police force areas in England and Wales, with the College of Policing (CoP) developing guidance for police services on the implementation of the residency requirement.

The Commission notes that the residency requirement will likely drive more significant change in specific services where both the workforces and the populations are larger. For example, in September 2020 the Metropolitan Police employed around 25% of all police officers full-time equivalent in England and Wales^{[footnote 4]}, and around 15% of the population reside there (based on the 2011 Census). This compares to police force areas such as Warwickshire or Dyfed-Powys, who employed less than 1% of all police officers and have around 1% of the population of England and Wales living there.

Therefore, the guidance produced by the College will need to take into consideration the different nuances of each police force area, including circumstances where the prospective local candidates eligible to apply for a role in policing is reduced – for example, due to the age demographic of the area’s population.

The Commission also suggests that police services address the pipeline of candidates applying for policing through extensive engagement and outreach with communities, for example through cadet programmes. Due consideration should also be given to incentivise new recruits to remain with their police force for a minimum period of time, to establish their careers.

The progress and efficacy of the residency requirements should be monitored and evaluated at a national level by the Home Office, working in partnership with the CoP, APCC and NPCC. There is also a need for reporting mechanisms to be incorporated within this process, with HMICFRS inspecting forces on their progress in regular periods.

Recommendation 22: Equip the police service with skills to serve the needs of their local communities

The Commission recommends that the College of Policing (CoP) work with police services to design and evaluate recruitment pilots that match candidates’ life skills with the needs of the communities they serve in their local areas.

By September 2021, the CoP working alongside services should identify a lead for the project, and outline timelines for the progression of these pilots. Following the evaluation of the pilot, the CoP should then introduce evidence-based guidance for police services about how to include questions about life skills and local understanding into the post-assessment centre recruitment process. This guidance should include the introduction of questions into the bank of post-assessment centre questions for each police force to adapt to local circumstances.

In an instance where, based on the evaluation results, the CoP is not able to progress with this recommendation, it will be required to write to the Home Secretary and the Home Office to outline the reasons why the pilots cannot be upscaled.

Recommendation 23: Use data in a responsible and informed way

The RDU should work with the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) to develop and publish a set of ethnicity data standards, building on the existing Government Data Quality Framework and the Code of Practice for Statistics. Monitoring compliance against the Standards, for example through the OSR’s programme of regulatory reviews, will improve the way that data on ethnicity is assessed to be fit for purpose.

The RDU should work with the OSR, DCMS and the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) to apply the ethnicity data standard across all media and public communications channels.

Recommendation 24: Disaggregate the term ‘BAME’

The Commission recommends that the government move away from the use of the term ‘BAME’, to better focus on understanding disparities and outcomes for specific ethnic groups.

This recommendation is further linked to that relating to data, with the related quality improvement plans and actions necessary to make this move under a data standard or charter.

A fundamental aspect of the data standard or charter will be the harmonisation of ethnicity categories in government departments and other organisations at the most detailed level, and should be promoted for use in analyses across organisations.

The Commission agrees with advice provided by the RDU in that when reliable data for the full, harmonised set of classifications is not available, then the 5 aggregated groups (White, Black, Asian, Mixed and Other) can be used. It is further agreed that users should note the limitations of the analysis, in particular that data for an aggregated group (the Black group, for example) can mask differences in outcomes for detailed ethnic groups (the Black Caribbean and Black African groups, for example). Users should avoid, unless it is absolutely necessary, binary analysis for example comparing White and ‘Other than White’ because of the lack of analytical value this gives.

Furthermore, if it is possible to show data for some of the detailed groups, then the RDU encourages consideration of this, a suggestion that the Commission also supports, noting that every level of disaggregation adds analytical value providing that it remains possible to draw meaningful comparisons.

Further note – Social Mobility Commission

In December 2020 the Commission made an interim recommendation to move the sponsorship of the Social Mobility Commission (SMC) to the Cabinet Office. The rationale for doing so being that many disparities are driven by differences in age, sex, class and geography. As such, a more holistic approach to equalities policy and research in government – which united entities established to look at geography, class, race, disability, gender and so on – would ensure better outcomes in the long-term.

The government accepted this recommendation, and a machinery of government change is underway, which will now see the SMC sponsored by the Cabinet Office from 1 April 2021.

What lies behind disparity?

The idea that all ethnic minority people suffer a common fate and a shared disadvantage is an anachronism.

Yet both the reality and the perception of unfairness matter. The nationwide BLM marches last year were catalysed by a shocking case of police brutality in the USA that resulted in the death of George Floyd. Many British citizens – particularly young adults – felt compelled to protest and call for change here too. The countries are different, and face different race-related challenges. But in some places in the UK, especially in Black inner-city communities, historical wrongs by the state and police have left a deep legacy of mistrust too.

We understand the idealism of those well-intentioned young people who have held on to, and amplified, this inter-generational mistrust. However, we also have to ask whether a narrative that claims nothing has changed for the better, and that the dominant feature of our society is institutional racism and White privilege, will achieve anything beyond alienating the decent centre ground – a centre ground which is occupied by people of all races and ethnicities.

‘What lies behind disparity?’ is a key question to answer. We recognise the lived realities, and sometimes trauma, of racial disadvantage. Our thinking also looks hard at the evidence and the multiple causes in play, and seeks to come up with relevant measures, for example, to deal with the disproportionate effect of our Class B drug laws on young Black people or problems in mental health provision for those ethnic minority groups that struggle to access services when they need them.

This Commission finds that the big challenge of our age is not overt racial prejudice, it is building on and advancing the progress won by the struggles of the past 50 years. This requires us to take a broader, dispassionate look at what has been holding some people back. We therefore cannot accept the accusatory tone of much of the current rhetoric on race, and the pessimism about what has been and what more can be achieved.

The more recent instances where ethnic minority communities have rightly felt let down – such as the Grenfell tragedy or the Windrush scandal – sparked genuine national grief over the traumatic loss of lives, and widespread anger and remorse over the mistreatment of fellow citizens. Likewise, the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on some ethnic minority groups is partly explained by the prevalence of ethnic minorities who work on the frontline and provide unpaid care in multi-generational households. Outcomes such as these do not come about by design, and are certainly not deliberately targeted. But, when they do occur, every step needs to be taken to ensure that the reasons why they happened are understood fully, and the causes then acted on to ensure that they are not repeated.

Open Britain

This report is not just a report card on how badly or well the UK has served its ethnic minorities. It is underpinned by an ideal for a modern UK best encapsulated by what we saw in the opening ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics. We saw an array of people and cultures from the sleepy English countryside to the frenetic music of the inner city. It not only featured British icons like James Bond and the monarchy, there was also a joyful expression of the contribution made by the Windrush generation as well as the working class contribution to the country’s history and industrial might. One highlight was Dizzee Rascal belting out his hit Bonkers. Danny Boyle managed to create a vision of the UK which united all communities. He gave us an ideal of an open, optimistic UK, refreshed with new communities. On that day the whole nation was proud to be British.

But the Commission has also been keen to understand what happened when everyone went home after the Games ended. Did the UK return to its separate worlds, where we live parallel lives? A world where your talent and potential contribution are limited by which postcode you live in, your race or your socio-economic background?

We recognise that building a confident, successful multi-ethnic society is a huge and difficult endeavour. It is not an end in itself but it is a way to strengthen the whole team.

When the current reality changes, so too must our approach. All the data tells us that the UK is far more open to minority advancement than 50 years ago. And while some doors at the top remain hard to lever open, people from some minority backgrounds are successfully taking up opportunities. In fact, as of 2019, the ethnicity pay gap – taking the median hourly earnings of all ethnic minority groups and the White group – is down to just 2.3% and the White Irish, Chinese and Indian ethnic groups are on average earning notably more than the White British average.^{[footnote 5]}

Professor Yaojun Li^{[footnote 6]} undertook bespoke research for the Commission on ethnic minority social mobility. Going back 50 years he found that, while many groups experienced a first generation downward mobility, “the second generation have been making rapid progress and have caught up with and, in some cases, surpassed, White people”. Additionally, there is no evidence of the blocking of ethnic minority advancement into professional-managerial positions in Britain “as was the case in the USA in the 1960s against African Americans”.

Much of this advance has only happened in the past 2 or 3 decades, and the story remains imperfect and mixed. Until COVID-19 struck, the vast majority of people aged under 25 from all ethnic backgrounds were in permanent employment, although those from minority groups were more likely to be unemployed and on zero-hours contracts. Additionally, it’s clear that job opportunities and labour market conditions vary based on where you are in the UK. One advantage that ethnic minorities have is that they are disproportionately based in London – around 40% of the UK’s ethnic minority population live in London (compared with just 9% of the White British population) and this mitigates the country’s significant challenges with regional inequality.^{[footnote 7]}

This is one reason why we believe it is important to look beyond race to other causes of disadvantage, even when considering issues of race and ethnicity. The life chances of the child of a Harrow-raised British Indian accountant and the child of a Bradford-raised British Pakistani taxi-driver are as wide apart as they are, partly because of the UK’s economic geography. Meanwhile, the numerically largest disadvantaged group is low income White boys, especially those from former industrial and coastal towns, who are failing at secondary school and are the people least likely to go to university. Unlike many other reports on race and ethnicity we have included the White group in our deliberations. For a range of outcomes, White working-class children trail behind their peers in almost all ethnic minority groups, although the extent of these disparities vary by area.

Perceptions and realities

Overt and outright racism persists in the UK. Examples of it loom larger in our minds because we witness it not just as graffiti on our walls or abuse hurled across our streets, but also in the more private setting of our phones and tablets. The rise of social media platforms mean racist incidents can go viral in hours. What is too often dismissed as ‘trolling’ means many prominent ethnic minority people routinely receive racist abuse from people who cannot be traced and held to account. Making anonymous abuse harder online is a complex issue but should be a public policy priority.

Speech resonates long after it is heard. Being made to feel that you do not belong, that no matter how patriotic, law-abiding and hard-working you are, you can be treated differently because of your skin colour, stands against everything this country holds dear. A multi-ethnic democracy like ours cannot function properly if people can denigrate their fellow citizens in such deplorable terms on the grounds of their race.

One of the most concerning side effects of social media is that it enormously amplifies racist views and online commentary. Almost every day the newspapers report racist abuse of celebrities, and polling by the British Future think tank for the Commission finds that while 13% of White people say they have been subject to racist or prejudiced insults on social media, the figure rises to 19% for people from the Pakistani ethnic group and 22% for Black people.^{[footnote 8]}

The gravitational force of dominant narratives tends to point our attention in negative directions, such as racist abuse on social media, and away from positive ones, the fact, for example, that 40% of NHS consultants are from ethnic minorities.^{[footnote 9]}

And too much of public debate is ill-informed or uninformed – hate crime being an example. It is widely believed that hate crime is worsening. Some argue that it is because of Brexit, others that it is exacerbated by the prevalence and visibility of racism online. Every case is unacceptable and a body-blow struck against a decent society, especially the small proportion of cases involving physical violence.

But police-recorded hate crime figures are rising because of improved police recording processes, and a greater awareness of what constitutes a hate crime.^{[footnote 10]} The total of police recorded race-related hate crime for England and Wales has leapt up in recent years, increasing by 131% in the 9 years to March 2020.^{[footnote 11]}

By contrast, responses to the Crime Survey of England and Wales (CSEW), which is considered more reliable than police-recorded crime, show that the number of racially-motivated hate crimes reduced from 149,000 (in the years ending March 2010 to March 2012) to 104,000 (in the years ending March 2018 to March 2020) .^{[footnote 12][footnote 13]} This is still far too many incidents, and the trends are subject to change, but it does suggest that hate crime, like racist attitudes, is on the decline.

Another example of overly pessimistic narratives, heightened by the COVID-19 pandemic, has been on race and health. The increased age-adjusted risk of death from COVID-19 in Black and South Asian groups has widely been reported as being due to racism – and as exacerbating existing health inequalities.^{[footnote 14]}

However many analyses have shown that the increased risk of dying from COVID-19 is mainly due to an increased risk of exposure to infection. This is attributed to the facts that Black and South Asian people are more likely to live in urban areas with higher population density and levels of deprivation; work in higher risk occupations such as healthcare or transport; and to live with older relatives who themselves are at higher risk due to their age or having other comorbidities such as diabetes and obesity.^{[footnote 15]}

Also, if it were true that Black and South Asian groups were suffering from systemic racism throughout their lives – adversely affecting their health, education, income, housing, employment (the key determinants of health) – this would be reflected in overall mortality figures across the life-course.

In fact, Black and Asian groups have had lower mortality rates from all causes,^{[footnote 16]} and data for Scotland suggests Asian ethnic groups groups have higher life expectancy than White ethnic groups.^{[footnote 17]} This is particularly surprising as ethnic minority groups are more likely to live in the most overall deprived neighbourhoods in England.^{[footnote 18]} Even over the course of the pandemic, despite the higher COVID-19 death rates, overall mortality in Black and South Asian groups has not been higher than for White groups.

So, instead of focusing solely on race and ethnicity, we need to consider the key underlying risk factors (which are mainly socio-economic) that are causing the higher death rates, and which will therefore reduce the risk of death in all ethnic groups – including White groups.

The Commission has also been particularly concerned to understand how it is that as outcomes have been improving for ethnic minority groups, and majority attitudes have become increasingly open-minded, that a more fatalistic narrative – which claims that nothing has really changed – seems to have gripped popular perception.

Sunder Katwala, the head of the British Future think tank, says that “Britain is doing much better on race than on class”. The reason why this does not seem more apparent is because:

there is now a split between academic, media and political environments and the lived experience of the rest of the country … the problem is that the race discourse is dominated by people who spend all their time on it, we don’t hear enough from people who just get on with their everyday lives and are not defined by race.^{[footnote 19]}

However, he also notes that many disadvantaged Black and Muslim groups do feel defined by their race, whereas fewer middle-class professionals from Indian and Chinese ethnic groups feel the same.

We suggest that pessimistic narratives about race have also been reinforced by a rise of identity politics, as old class divisions have lost traction. Well organised single-issue identity lobby groups also help to raise the volume. These organisations can do good work protecting the vulnerable, but they also tend to have a pessimism bias in their narratives to draw attention to their cause. And they tend to stress the ‘lived experience’ of the groups they seek to protect with less emphasis on objective data. It is not surprising therefore that mainstream public debate about race sensitises minorities to discrimination, but does less to highlight minority self-reliance and resilience.

Immigrant optimism

We commissioned new research from the University of Oxford^{[footnote 20]} that explores the range of factors that combine to influence educational outcomes in ethnic groups. These factors include sex, ethnicity and socio-economic status. Our analysis defines socio-economic status as parental education, occupation and family income.

It is the Commission’s belief that educational success should be celebrated, replicated and used as an exemplar to inspire all pupils across the UK. Evidence shows that certain ethnic groups such as Black African, Indian and Bangladeshi pupils perform better than White British group, once socio-economic status is taken into consideration. This outstanding performance is in part due to what is termed ‘immigrant optimism’: a phenomenon where recent immigrants devote themselves more to education than the native population because they lack financial capital and see education as a way out of poverty.^{[footnote 21]}

In practice, this means there are significant factors at play that can help groups overcome their socio-economic status and succeed.

Research by the Centre for Longitudinal Studies and the Runnymede Trust also finds higher aspirations among ethnic minority children at 14 years old compared with White children.^{[footnote 22]} White boys gave themselves an average probability of going to university of 60.9%, while for White girls the estimation was higher, at 68.3%. This compared starkly with the Black African (boys, 81.7%; girls 88.8%), Indian (81.3%; 85.3%), Pakistani (74.9%; 82.4%), and Bangladeshi (77.8%; 80.2%) ethnic groups. Black Caribbean boys were the only group with lower expectations than the White boys group at 58.5%, while Black Caribbean girls gave themselves a 73.3% probability of going to university.

There are conflicting views on what drives immigrant optimism, whether it is an internal drive or a response to external discrimination. However, it is evident that ethnic minority groups have agency to overcome obstacles and achieve success.

Why ‘BAME’ doesn’t work

Use of the term BAME, which is frequently used to group all ethnic minorities together, is no longer helpful. It is demeaning to be categorised in relation to what we are not, rather than what we are: British Indian, British Caribbean and so on. The BAME acronym also disguises huge differences in outcomes between ethnic groups. This reductionist idea forces us to think that the principle cause of all disparities must be majority versus minority discrimination. It also allows our institutions and businesses to point to the success of some BAME people in their organisation and absolve themselves of responsibility for people from those minority groups that are doing less well. Like the UK’s White population, ethnic minority groups are far from monolithic in their attitudes towards British social norms and their inclusion in different walks of life.

It is time we dropped the term and talked about people from particular ethnic backgrounds and if we do sometimes need to distinguish between all White and non-White populations we should use the term ‘ethnic minority’, ‘ethnic group’, or ‘White ethnic minorities’ where appropriate, which we have used throughout this report wherever the data enables us to do so. Indeed, the use of ‘White’ as a standalone term is as unhelpful as other aggregated labels, as it masks the diversity of groups within – such as White Irish, Gypsy, Roma and Travellers and Eastern Europeans – and the unique experiences and outcomes they also face.

British Future has also looked at the language of race and whether people felt, as we do, that an aggregate term like BAME has outlived its usefulness. There was no clear majority among either White or ethnic minority respondents for preserving BAME. Among ethnic minorities, 40% said it was still useful, 36% said it was out of date and 25% didn’t know.^{[footnote 23]} The term ethnic minority was more popular among ethnic minority respondents than either BAME or people of colour.

Recognition of the differences between groups requires a new and more granular approach to data and how it is collected and used. Too much data continues to be collected at the level of the ‘big 5’ ethnicity classifications: White, Black, Asian, Mixed and Other, which in some instances merges together ethnic groups with vastly different experiences and outcomes.

We also need more sensitivity to differences within racial or ethnic groups, such as urban middle-class Gujaratis vs rural Mirpuri, which are arguably bigger than most differences between ethnic groups. There is also an urgent need for individual level data, and analysis that accounts for the many factors that come together to influence outcomes, such as age, class and region. The government’s new Equality Hub data project, announced in December 2020, should ensure that this new, multivariable approach becomes the standard for collecting and presenting data in a nuanced way.

The language of race

The public debate on race is sometimes hampered by the fact that there is no consensus on the meaning of even fundamental words like racism and discrimination. The word racism can apply to such a wide a range of human behaviour, from the stereotyping of a stranger to the horror of genocide. It is used so differently in debate that people will often argue at cross purposes.

We have sought to examine the practical causes of undesirable disparities between groups and put forward how to narrow them. However, we have also looked at the way disparities are discussed in mainstream discourse and have been concerned with the use of imprecise and often misleading language around race and racism.

The linguistic inflation on racism is confusing, with prefixes like institutional, structural and systemic adding to the problem. It is a sad reality that racism still exists in every country, but we cannot afford for the term to become misunderstood or trivialised.

In the call for evidence, the Commission noted a tendency to conflate discrimination and disparities; whilst they sometimes co-exist they often do not. The Commission believes this is symptomatic of a wider, repeated use and misapplication of the term ‘racism’ to account for every observed disparity. This matters because the more things are explained as a result of racial bias, the more it appears that society is set against ethnic minorities, which in turn can discourage ethnic minority individuals from pursuing their goals. If more precise language does not become a feature of our national conversation on race, we can expect to see tensions increase across communities – despite determined action by government and civil society to reduce discrimination.

The Commission was especially concerned with the way the term ‘institutional racism’ is being applied in current discourse on racial disparities. We noted the evolving definitions of institutional racism during the 18 years between the Scarman Report in 1981 and the Macpherson report of 1999.^{[footnote 24]}

The late Sir William Macpherson gave the following definition, which we believe has stood the test of time:

The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.

One of the key justifications for the Macpherson report’s finding of institutional racism was the under-reporting of racist crime (now known as hate crime), reflecting a lack of trust in the police on the part of ethnic minorities. The term described a set of practices and behaviours that were commonplace, sanctioned by authorities, and which unduly harmed ethnic minority groups﹘even if unintentionally. That is largely no longer the case, given that reporting hate crime and race-related incidents is now widely encouraged by police forces.

The term is now being liberally used, and often to describe any circumstances in which differences in outcomes between racial and ethnic groups exist in an institution, without evidence to support such claims.

The Commission therefore feels that misapplying the term racism has diluted its credibility, and thus undermined the seriousness of racism, where it does exist, in contemporary Britain. Where ‘institutional racism’ is used too casually as an explanatory tool, it can also lead to insufficient consideration of other factors which are also known to drive such differences in outcomes.

If accusations of ‘institutional racism’ are levelled against institutions, these should – like any other serious accusation – be subject to robust assessment and evidence, and show that an institution has treated an ethnic group differently to other groups because of their ethnic identity. What might such evidence look like? Imagine a world with just 2 groups in which both are equally prejudiced, but the minority forms just 10% of the population. When it comes to hiring, the potential prejudice faced by a minority applicant will be much greater than the potential prejudice against an applicant from the majority. But this structural imbalance is measurable through using surveys of individual prejudice, and tests of aggregate prejudices, such as curriculum vitae (CV) studies.

Another example could be one in which most members of an institution are not personally prejudiced, but feel social pressure to act in such a manner towards the minority, because they believe that most others are prejudiced and their workplace expects them to discriminate. Again, surveys can assess the extent to which beliefs about such expectations exist.

In the last 30 years, attitudes towards racism and hate crimes have changed dramatically, and there is a much greater awareness and willingness to record and monitor such incidents by the authorities.

Yet, the advent of social media seems to have partly undermined this apparent march of progress. The spread of mobile phone use and social media in particular has allowed the proliferation of most negative messages and attitudes. There are hundreds of millions of tweets sent every day. Less frequent occurrences in the offline world can happen numerous times a day online. This amplifies the toxic messages of a small number of hard-core racists far beyond any sort of audience they would ever have had in the past, and is likely contributing to the fear that racism is increasing, despite evidence to the contrary. We return to this issue in more detail in the crime and policing chapter.

Just as racist behaviour and racist messages are being amplified, so are accusations of racism that are harder to prove, open to interpretation, or even vexatious. The internet has also exposed the problems inherent in a subjective definition of a racist incident. We can have a situation where the exact same action can be racism or not racism – depending on how someone perceives it. This means there is no clarity or consistency in identifying examples. It is now possible for any act, including those intended to be well-meaning, to be classified as racist. Without clearer definitions, it will be harder to measure the true extent of racism.

Perceptions matter. As we see in policing, trust has to be earned and reciprocated, and this means being seen to be fair as well as having fair processes. To limit the widening charge of racism, and further dilution of its importance, we suggest assessing the intent of the perpetrator as well as the perception of the victim. Victims’ voices must be heard, however to secure the justice they deserve for the pain caused and suffered, the racists’ responsible need to be unequivocally identified and exposed.

To aid this we also need clear, standard definitions of the terms institutional racism, structural racism or systemic racism. Right now they are used interchangeably, which creates further confusion and reduces the likelihood of perpetrators being caught and punished.

References to ‘systemic’, ‘institutional’ or ‘structural racism’ may relate to specific processes which can be identified, but they can also relate to the feeling described by many ethnic minorities of “not belonging”. There is certainly a class of actions, behaviours and incidents at organisational level which cause ethnic minorities to lack a sense of belonging. This is often informally expressed as feeling ‘othered’. However, as with hate incidents, this can have a highly subjective dimension for those tasked with investigating the claim.

It is very difficult to measure the extent to which an organisation’s culture is inclusive or biased, but we feel it is important to shift discussions about systemic or structural racism onto more objective foundations. Rooting these terms in observable metrics gives us the chance to not only measure how people feel, but also analyse both the causes and where things are getting better. Institutions need to also acknowledge improvements and use both quantitative and qualitative evidence transparently, to show a fuller picture. Terms like ‘structural racism’ have roots in a critique of capitalism, which states that racism is inextricably linked to capitalism. So by that definition, until that system is abolished racism will flourish. Many are using ‘structural racism’ to mean deep-seated exclusion rather than the tearing down of capitalism.

These are issues that can only be partly addressed by the government, and will need cooperation in particular from business, the media, civil society and other non-state actors who influence the way in which we discuss race.

The Commission therefore proposes the following framework to distinguish between different forms of racial disparity and racism:

1. Explained racial disparities: this term should be used when there are persistent ethnic differential outcomes that can demonstrably be shown to be as a result of other factors such as geography, class or sex.
2. Unexplained racial disparities: persistent differential outcomes for ethnic groups with no conclusive evidence about the causes. This applies to situations where a disparate outcome is identified, but there is no evidence as to what is causing it.
3. Institutional racism: applicable to an institution that is racist or discriminatory processes, policies, attitudes or behaviours in a single institution.
4. Systemic racism: this applies to interconnected organisations, or wider society, which exhibit racist or discriminatory processes, policies, attitudes or behaviours.
5. Structural racism: to describe a legacy of historic racist or discriminatory processes, policies, attitudes or behaviours that continue to shape organisations and societies today.

Another term that is highly controversial and contested is ‘White privilege’. The phrase, coined in the USA, is undoubtedly alienating to those who do not feel especially privileged by their skin colour. Phrases like ‘White privilege’ and ‘White fragility’ imply that it is White people’s attitudes and behaviours that primarily cause the disadvantage experienced by ethnic minorities. It also reinforces the perception that being an ethnic minority in the UK is to be treated unfairly by default. The evidence we have studied does not support this. The Commission rejects this approach, believes it fails to identify the real causes for disparities and that it is counterproductive and divisive.

There is something, however, in the idea that even in a relatively open society like today’s UK a psychological comfort can be derived from looking like the majority of people around you. A better term, which usefully captures the tendency for groups to favour their own, is the concept of ‘affinity bias’.

Racism is not just about words. Bias, bigotry and unfairness based on race may be receding, but they still have the power to deny opportunity and painfully disrupt lives.

If we are to build trust in institutions and organisations, we must be willing to investigate evidence of racism, and be prepared as a society to root it out. This means using all the levers at our disposal. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), is charged with investigating breaches of the Equality Act and it is important that it has the resources to do so.

Recommendation 1: Build trust – Challenge racist and discriminatory actions

The Commission recommends that, to aid endeavours to drive out race-based discrimination and prejudice:

• the EHRC receives additional, ring-fenced funding from the government to use their compliance, enforcement and litigation powers to challenge policies or practices that either cause significant and unjust racial disadvantage, or arise from racial discrimination
• separately, the government should consider the complex issue of online abuse, and the platforms that are used to perpetuate such, as a public policy priority

Geography, class and ethnicity

The UK suffers from acute geographical inequality. That is hardly news. But the scale of the gulf in opportunity is seldom appreciated. According to Professor Philip McCann of Sheffield University about half the population in the UK live in areas where prosperity is no better than the poorest parts of the old East Germany or the poorest states in the USA, like Mississippi or West Virginia. For 30 years, says McCann, the country has been decoupling. London and the South East plus pockets of affluence and dynamism elsewhere have been pulling away from the rest.^{[footnote 25]}

The core cities outside London, with the exception of Bristol, have been underperforming, but it is the ex-industrial and mining areas, and towns on the coastal periphery, which are the poorest and least productive places. Towns like Barnsley in South Yorkshire, Dudley in the West Midlands, Middlesbrough in the North East or Blackburn in the North West.^{[footnote 26]}

In simple numerical terms, this is overwhelmingly a White British problem.^{[footnote 27]} But it is also the case that ethnic minority Britons are more likely to live in persistent poverty and overcrowded housing.^{[footnote 28][footnote 29]} Geographical inequalities also afflict a significant section of the South Asian population who live in the former mill towns and ex-industrial Midlands.^{[footnote 30]}

The most concentrated pockets of deprivation are found among ethnic minority groups, particularly Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Black groups.^{[footnote 31]} And in many aspects related to quality of life, ethnic minorities, particularly among the latter groups, are placed below the White British group – due in part to the lack of a substantial affluent group for those minorities.

However it is the poorer White people, outside London, who are the largest group to be found in areas with multidimensional disadvantages, from income to longevity of life. The English region with the worst life expectancy is one of the Whitest – the North East. And the number of years people can expect to live in good health is generally lower in the northern parts of England compared with the south.^{[footnote 32]}

The most recent Index of Multiple Deprivation for England finds that the local authorities with the highest number of deprived neighbourhoods are all in the north: Middlesbrough, Liverpool, Knowsley, Hull and Manchester. All except Manchester have a disproportionate representation of the White British population. The proportion of deprived neighbourhoods in London is falling.^{[footnote 33]}

The overall percentage of White British people living in the 10% of most deprived neighbourhoods is 9.1%, which is disproportionately low and below several groups, most notably Pakistani (31.1%), Bangladeshi (19.3%), Mixed White and Black Caribbean (17.4%) and Black African (15.6%).^{[footnote 34]} But it is also worth noting that the White British percentage translates into nearly 4 million people. The Pakistani ethnic group is the next highest group, with 346,000 in absolute numbers.

There is a sense of stagnation about the fate and life chances of poorer White groups, which is less the case with ethnic minority groups. Until the recent focus on the ‘left behind’ towns and ‘levelling up’, there was no national narrative encouraging the advancement for this group in the way there has been for ethnic minorities. White children on free school meals lag behind every other group in Progress 8 attainment levels at secondary school.^{[footnote 35]} They are also least likely to progress to university. Poor White groups, and especially poor White boys, do badly in the education system everywhere, whereas in some areas at least, especially London, poor ethnic minorities are improving rapidly.^{[footnote 36]}

The Social Mobility Commission has a Social Mobility Index which looks at education attainment from primary level to university for those from poor backgrounds; and then adds in adult opportunity in terms of incomes, availability of professional jobs, prevalence of low pay and so on.^{[footnote 37]}

Nearly 70% of all the social mobility ‘hotspot’ success stories are in London and the South East. There are none in the North East, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the West Midlands. The top 65 worst performing local authority areas are almost all overwhelmingly White British places. Of the worst performing local authorities, Nottingham at 15, Oldham at 31, Bradford at 48 and Wolverhampton at 62 are the only local authorities with significant ethnic minority populations.

It is a similar story with the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) score. The worst 5 areas with IDACI scores of around 30% are all overwhelmingly White British places: Middlesbrough, Blackpool, Knowsley, Liverpool and Hull.^{[footnote 38]} And in those areas further down the list with significant ethnic minority populations the minority performance on Progress 8 attainment is in almost all cases far ahead of the White British.^{[footnote 39]}

The figures on Progress 8 educational advancement are startling, and underline the significant divergence between the poor White British and poor ethnic minorities. Poor White people score between minus 0.6 and minus 0.8 in each of the 9 major regions of England. For ethnic minorities only one region, the South West, is slightly worse than minus 0.4. Most other regions are only just in minus – apart from London which is plus 0.2.^{[footnote 40]}

The ‘opportunity areas’ announced by the Department for Education combined the Social Mobility Index with the department’s own ‘achieving excellence areas’, aimed at those places with underperforming schools.^{[footnote 41]} 12 locations came up which are, with the exception of Oldham and Bradford, overwhelmingly White places: West Somerset, Norwich, Blackpool, North Yorkshire coast, Derby, Oldham, Fenland and East Cambridgeshire, Hastings, Bradford, Stoke on Trent, Doncaster and Ipswich.

When considering this data, and noting the profound disparities that it highlighted, the Commission was even more firmly of the view that its recommendations should focus on improving outcomes for all – not centre on specific ethnic groups alone.

Ethnicity wealth gap and home ownership

People from ethnic minority backgrounds are more likely to live in households with persistent low income (after housing costs). 28% of people in Black households were on persistent low income, the highest of all groups, compared with 25% of Asian households and 12% of White households.^{[footnote 42]}

Aside from that disproportionate representation of minorities among those on persistent low incomes, the income story has been largely a progressive one in recent decades with movement towards, or even an overtaking of, the White British median. It is a less encouraging story with wealth and property ownership, but one would expect wealth accumulation to take longer in generational time.

According to an ONS survey (2016 to 2018),^{[footnote 43]} median total wealth for all households was £286,000 with medians ranging from £34,000 for households with a Black African head to £314,000 for the White British group with the Indian ethnic group close behind. Unlike on the earned income spectrum, Pakistani households do well on household wealth at just over £200,000, while the Chinese ethnic group – despite being high income earners – lags behind all major ethnic groups on household wealth apart from the Bangladeshi and Black African groups.

In the UK property is the main, but not the only, source of wealth. Households with an Indian, Pakistani or White British head had the highest net property wealth (taking into account how much of a property is owned or still covered by a mortgage) with medians of £176,000, £115,000 and £115,000 respectively.

A total of 63% of all households own their own home with slightly more than two-thirds of White British households being home owners compared with two-fifths for all other ethnic groups combined.

There is significant variation between ethnic minority groups with the Indian ethnic group way out in front at 74%, with Mixed White and Asian on 70% and White British on 68%. Black Caribbean households have double the rate of home ownership as Black African households, at 40% compared with 20%, reflecting their longer history in the UK. Pakistani households have a rate of 58%, way ahead of Bangladeshi households on 46% and Chinese households on 45% which partly explains the latter group’s lowly rating on median wealth.^{[footnote 44]}

White British households are less likely to rent either privately or from a social landlord than all other households: 16% of them rent from a social landlord, compared with 22% of all other households, and a further 16% rented from a private landlord compared with 37% of others.

Overcrowding, which reflects both family sizes as well as the nature and affordability of the local housing stock, was more common among ethnic minority households in general. Overcrowding affected 30% of Bangladeshi households in the year to March 2016, 16% of Black African and 7% of Black Caribbean compared with just 2% of White British households. However White British households made up almost half of the 660,000 overcrowded households in England. Compared with all other regions, London had the highest rates of overcrowding, affecting 13% of ethnic minority households and 3% of White British households.

People in the most deprived neighbourhoods tend to be disadvantaged across multiple aspects of life. Pakistani and Bangladeshi people were overrepresented in the most deprived neighbourhoods in England: 31% or around 346,000 of the Pakistani population and 28% or around 113,000 of the Bangladeshi population lived in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods in England. All the Black ethnic groups were also disproportionately likely to live in the most deprived neighbourhoods. Only Indian, White British, White Irish, Chinese and White Other ethnic groups were not disproportionately likely to live in these most deprived neighbourhoods.

One quarter of Bangladeshi households’ income came from benefits and tax credits (excluding the State Pension) as did 18% of Pakistani and 17% of Black people’s incomes: these were larger proportions than for other ethnic groups. Over half of households in these ethnic groups were in receipt of state support, particularly Child Tax Credit. Chinese people were the least likely to be in receipt of state support with just 3 in 10 claiming any.^{[footnote 45]}

Cultural traditions, family and integration

If it is possible to have racial disadvantage without racists then we need to look elsewhere for the roots of that disadvantage. Racial disadvantage often overlaps with social class disadvantage but how have some groups transcended that disadvantage more swiftly than others?

There has been a revolution over the last half century in the family structure. Much of this has been welcome; more accepting attitudes towards divorce and more autonomy for women has increased human freedom, and we know that many variations beyond the traditional nuclear family can work. However, as these freedoms have grown, there is also greater stress on families and the prevalence of breakdown has increased.

The Commission is not passing judgement about how people live their lives, nor is it saying ‘two parents are always better than one’. Lone parent families may face greater strain but, if they have the right resources and support available, they can provide just as good a start in life. The support, nurture and care that family networks provide are something that no government intervention can match in practical or emotional power. But the need for support is inevitably greater amongst lone parent families. In those ethnic minority groups where family breakdown is more prevalent, the need for support from either extended family or community groups is even greater.

During the course of its work, the Commission noted with great concern the prevalence of family breakdown. In 2020, 14.7% of families in the UK were lone parent families (2.9 million).^{[footnote 46]} 63% of Black Caribbean children were growing up in lone parent families, as were 62% of children in the Black Other ethnic group. High instances of lone parenthood were also experienced by Mixed ethnicity Black children. Black African people have a lower rate of single parenthood but at 43% are still well above the average. South Asian and Chinese ethnic groups are much lower than other groups with the Indian ethnic group the lowest at just 6%.^{[footnote 47]}

Lone parent families have become more common since the 1970s, a result of an increase in divorces as well as an increase in never married lone mothers.^{[footnote 48]} There may be a number of underlying reasons for this: cultural change relating to male responsibility, the welfare state and growing affluence making it possible to bring up children alone. The lower rate of family breakdown among Asian families is notable, pointing to different cultural values or expectations.

The academic Dr Rakib Ehsan wrote of his own upbringing:

Many of Britain’s South Asian … communities, at varying degrees of affluence, are deeply family-oriented and intergenerationally cohesive. Civic associations within such communities continue to flourish, with places of worship providing a spiritually-uplifting sense of belonging. Whether it was at the local newsagents or the Asian greengrocers, my community elders would take an interest in how I was performing at school, college, and university. Not only does this make a young person feel valued, it provides a healthy pressure where one does not want to disappoint one’s own parents, but also wishes to avoid potential embarrassment in the wider local community. Personal pride and family honour are important in this context.^{[footnote 49]}

It should also be pointed out that differences in socio-economic status between groups complicate the picture, with high rates of family breakdown found among poor White people too. For families with children (of all ethnicities) only 45% of those in the bottom income quintile are married compared with 84% in the top quintile, according to the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ).^{[footnote 50]}

There is a wealth of evidence from the academic literature pointing to a greater likelihood of negative outcomes tied to family breakdown, although these are largely focused on the USA. A study in the USA by Sara McLanahan et al (2013) was able to show that father absence was tied to children’s worse educational performance, emotional development, and adult mental health.^{[footnote 51]} Research has also linked father absence to increased likelihood of youth incarceration, although this could in part be attributed to poverty.^{[footnote 52]} Research for the CSJ shows that children who experience family breakdown are more likely to underperform at school.^{[footnote 53]}

This ‘family strain’ manifests itself as adverse effects on communication, parenting, and struggles with special needs; the strain of parental breakup; and may go on to have a negative impact on children’s emotional and social competence.

To repeat: this is not about allocating blame, but simply pointing out that children require both time and resources, and that is more likely to be available when both parents play active roles in their upbringing. Governments cannot remain neutral here. We would urge the government to investigate this issue further and look at initiatives that prevent family breakdown.

Another area where cultural traditions may play an important role is in attitudes to integration and mixing with other ethnic groups. Baroness Casey’s ‘Review into Opportunity and Integration’ (2016)^{[footnote 54]} looked at issues of integration and segregation, particularly through the lens of gender and language. Here, she confronted some uncomfortable truths about behaviour and attitudes among some ethnic minority groups that actively hold back integration, a theme first raised by Trevor Phillips in his lecture ‘Sleepwalking into Segregation?’ in 2005. Casey noted that more than half of women in the Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups are economically inactive, compared with a quarter of White women. This helps explain why Pakistani and Bangladeshi families are disproportionately represented in lower income deciles.

The Race Disparity Audit also revealed that in England, adults from a Bangladeshi and Pakistani background were the most likely not to speak English well or at all. Among 45 to 64 year olds, 17.4% of Bangladeshi women and 9.0% of Pakistani women were unable to speak English at the 2011 Census.^{[footnote 55]} This clearly is an obstacle to economic advance and broader integration. One reason for this issue being most pronounced among people from Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic backgrounds is that they tend to live somewhat more separately from the mainstream, both physically and in terms of social norms, and are 2 of the groups most likely to bring in spouses from their ancestral homes, especially the Pakistani group.^{[footnote 56]}

This produces the so-called ‘first generation in every generation’ issue, with full integration constantly being restrained by one parent with a foot in another country.

Recommendation 19: Create agency – Undertake a ‘Support for Families’ review

The Commission recommends that the government undertakes a ‘Support for Families’ review to further investigate issues highlighted by this Commission as follows:

• collecting data about ‘family strain’ in different ethnic groups
• academic research into cultural attitudes and parenting styles which may be distinct within ethnic communities and what role they play in shaping life outcomes
• the impact of employment and working practices on parenting outcomes in different ethnic groups
• more complex understandings of fatherhood in different ethnic groups that analyses similarities and differences and reasons for variance
• the role of culture and religion in family outcomes

The review should also look to develop a series of actions on:

• education – how early years settings and schools can provide better support services for parents, and the potential role of school-parent contracts in helping build relations between schools and parents
• employment – encouraging employers to look at flexible working for single parents
• crime and policing – how parents can be involved and supported to prevent youth crime, including potential for increased interactions between police and parents during out of court disposal processes
• health – mental health services encouraging more family therapy and group support in the event of family breakdown, which may disproportionately benefit ethnic minority groups

The Children’s Commissioner of England should be part of the review team to ensure the experiences and interests of children and young people are taken into account. We note that the Children’s Commissioner’s Office has recently announced a new survey for children called ‘The Big Ask’. The findings of this survey should be considered as part of this work.

I welcome the Commission’s focus on the importance of supporting parents and families right from the early years so that children can get the very best start in life and the support they need to thrive as they grow up

(Dame Rachel de Souza DBE, Children’s Commissioner of England)

What we think about race

What has been happening to beliefs about race and racism over recent years?

There is now near universal acceptance that the UK is a multi-ethnic society and people of immigrant backgrounds can be British. Polling conducted recently (2020) by Ipsos Mori found 93% of Britons disagree that “to be truly British you have to be White”, up from 82% in 2006.^{[footnote 57]} Those who agree have declined from 10% to 3% over the last 14 years. Ipsos Mori also found in 2020 that 89% would be happy for their child to marry someone from another ethnic group, up from 75% in 2009.^{[footnote 58]}

Despite this, people believe there remain tensions between ethnic groups. Ipsos Mori found that 69% say there is “at least a fair amount of tension” in 2020 (1 in 5 say there is a great deal), but a slight improvement is registered since 2008 when 76% felt there was a fair amount of tension . Moreover, polling from Opinium found that rather than uniting the country against racism, 55% of adults believe that BLM protests have increased racial tension, including among 44% of ethnic minority Britons.^{[footnote 59]}

Polling by British Future for the Commission found encouraging consensus in attitudes between ethnic groups, with the exception of perceptions on anti-Black prejudice.^{[footnote 60]} 69% of Black respondents saw “a lot” of prejudice against Black people compared with just 44% of ethnic minority respondents overall. Only 30% of Indian respondents saw “a lot” of prejudice against Black people, which was quite close to White respondents (25%).

Yet when asked about specific instances of discrimination those numbers often shrink. Research by Policy Exchange based on the Citizenship Survey found that the majority of ethnic minority people considered themselves not to have been discriminated against in promotion or hiring in the last 5 years.^{[footnote 61]} Overall just under 12% of ethnic minority people thought they had been discriminated against, compared with just under 6% for the White British. That figure rises to 18.2% for Black Caribbean people and 14.9% for Black African people.

Racism is both real and socially constructed. Society has ‘defined racism down’ to encompass attitudes and behaviours that would not have been considered racist in the past. This is one reason for the rising sensitivity, the language of microaggressions and safety, and stretching the meaning of racism without objective data to support it.

There is also the question of the relative success of different groups. Those groups, particularly Indian and Chinese ethnic groups, who have the most success in British society tend to see fewer obstacles and less prejudice. And those groups that do less well, Black people and Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims, tend to see and experience more of both, though Black African people are considerably more positive than Black Caribbean people.

76% of Black people believe there is ‘White privilege’ compared with 59% of all ethnic minorities and 29% of White people.^{[footnote 62]} Almost as many White people are unfamiliar with the term (21%).

Almost exactly half of ethnic minority Britons do not think their race has been an obstacle to their personal advancement. Responding to the question ‘Do you think your race has or has not directly prevented you from being able to succeed or pursue opportunities in your own personal life?’, 40% of ethnic minority people said it has and 38% said it has not.^{[footnote 63]}

Despite this, a majority of ethnic minority Britons agree that race relations have improved over the last 50 years and this view is held by 3 times as many people as those who believe race relations have got worse.^{[footnote 64]}

The British Future polling suggests that there is no big divide on the things that most concern us between White and ethnic minority people, with race and class background seen as being of similar importance to life chances.^{[footnote 65]}

To better assess how far the UK has become a multi-ethnic society at ease with itself, the Commission also wanted to compare developments in the UK with international experience.

The Minority Rights Group International (MRG), published a report in 2016 assessing the condition of minorities worldwide. It documented challenges and discrimination facing minorities in a broad and representative sample of countries.^{[footnote 66]} Issues ranged from socio-economic inequalities, economic marginalisation, and land disputes, to cultural contestations, negative stereotyping and prejudice in these states. These tensions show treating minorities fairly is a universal challenge and one that the UK, in the view of the Commission, manages comparatively well as a democratic state with a welfare system and robust anti-discrimination laws.

Another study in 2019 by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights on ‘Being Black in the EU’ revealed the percentage of Black respondents who experienced racial harassment in the past 5 years.^{[footnote 67]} The figure was 63% in Finland, 52% in Luxemburg, 51% in Ireland, 48% in both Germany and Italy, and 41% in both Sweden and Denmark. In comparison, 21% of Black British respondents reported such harassment, the second-lowest result in the countries surveyed. The UK had the lowest figure for Black respondents who experienced discrimination in job seeking, education (either themselves or as parents), health, housing, public administration or other public or private services such as restaurants, bars or shops within the past 12 months.

Although the continued presence of discrimination gives cause for concern, it is important to see how the UK has improved race relations more rapidly than in other countries. The fact that the UK is more active in collecting data on ethnicity and discrimination suggests a willingness to address racial inequalities compared with the rest of Europe, where data-gathering is less comprehensive, ad hoc, or even illegal.

Yet despite the UK comparing well internationally there is still a powerful current of unease and even anger that bubbled up in last summer’s BLM protests. Minorities, even after several generations, often feel a detachment and unease relative to majorities and tend to remain sensitive to their group’s relative status in the society. Notwithstanding what we have argued about the relative openness of British society, the Commission accepts the scholarly consensus that a ‘psychological asymmetry’ unavoidably characterises majority-minority relations across different cultures, including in the UK.^{[footnote 68]}

Younger ethnic minority people in the UK may identify more strongly with their ethnicity and heritage than older generations, reflecting a new desire to adopt multiple identities rather than ‘to assimilate’. This needs to be understood and factored into ongoing British race relations strategies. Strong ethnic identities should also not be considered in and of themselves as an inherent obstacle to British nation-building. People are evidently capable of juggling multiple identities in their everyday lives. What matters is for the British identity to evoke positive emotions of trust and affection in the country’s minorities.

In the UK, the best way to build trust is to emphasise to every ethnic group that we treat individuals fairly, and not on the basis of their ethnicity. We respect ethnic identities but also share a common, unifying, civic identity as British citizens.

We must continually reflect on how to reinforce the symbols of Britishness which signal to minorities that they are considered full members of the British family while retaining their own distinctive identities.

Data

This country has never been reluctant to collect data on people’s self-declared ethnic, racial and national identities. It is one reason why this report is able to make with confidence the sometimes controversial arguments that it does – both about ethnic minority progress, and the highlighting of continuing areas of concern. Arguments about discrimination almost always start with data but how that data is framed and selected is crucial, and differences in outcomes need understanding and explaining. Differences – or ‘disparities’ – are not always sinister and do not always arise from discrimination.

Throughout the report we express various concerns about the way that data is collected and used by public authorities. One concern is the lack of precision in some data collection. The Census has gradually increased its granularity of ethnicity over recent decades and for 2021 has 19 tick-box categories for ethnic self-identification, with Roma added since 2011. Yet too much data continues to be collected at the level of the so-called ‘big 5’ classifications: White, Black, Asian, Mixed and Other – and this is further compounded by small sample sizes, which make meaningful analysis at lower granularity unviable.

We know that broad categories like Black or Asian hide hugely different outcomes between different sub-groups and can therefore be very misleading. This is pertinent in the crime and policing chapter where there are inconsistencies in the ethnicity categories being used. For example, where the most recent stop and search data provides a breakdown of the 2011 Census 18+1 detailed ethnicity categories, many other data sets do not – instead providing either broad categories such as ‘Black’ and ‘Asian’ or Census 2001 16+1 detailed ethnicity categories. One of the main differences between the 2001 and 2011 Census ethnic categories is the Chinese ethnic group moved from the ‘Other’ ethnic group (in 2001) to the ‘Asian’ ethnic group (in 2011). This poses challenges in comparing disparities across different datasets, and when using broad groups only, it can hide differences between ethnic groups that fall within a broader category. So, we would urge public authorities, where practical, to use the most disaggregated categories possible.

The Race Disparity Unit (RDU) has added clarity and transparency to these debates by pulling much of the ethnicity data onto one official website, but too much of the RDU data is still, through no fault of its own, provided only in the big 5 categories.^{[footnote 69]}

The ONS has its own processes for determining which new categories should be included in the Census but 2 categories that could in future be helpfully sub-divided are White Other which does not distinguish between West Europeans and East Europeans, and Black African which does not distinguish between sub-Saharan African people in general and Somalis who are now a substantial group in their own right.

Then there is the broader issue of the way data is presented. We should, where possible, be reporting net disparities not gross disparities. So, for example, most ethnic minority groups are on average younger and more likely to live in inner city areas than the White population, and because crime is disproportionately committed by young people and people in big cities this needs to be adjusted for when looking at the raw data on crime.

This would use a regression analysis – meaning adjusting for relevant factors to get a more realistic comparison on a like for like basis. This is used by the ONS, for example, in its analysis of pay and wealth by ethnicity.

There is also the issue of relevant benchmarks for ethnic minority representation. The general population benchmark often presents a more negative picture of minority achievement than is justified. Different groups have different histories, periods of residence in the country, class and educational backgrounds, average ages, so there are many reasons, apart from discrimination, why you would not expect that representation in a given profession, say, should match a group’s share of the general population. This is especially the case for representation in elite jobs. Around 16 per cent of the UK population belong to ethnic minorities.^{[footnote 70]}

We would also ask for a more responsible use of statistics in general in the sometimes emotional field of race and ethnicity. The reporting of hate crime figures, which is touched on more than once in the report, should, for example, make clear that recent increases are in incidents reported to the police and more reliable national survey evidence suggests that actual hate crime incidents are falling.

It is worth considering whether a set of ethnicity data standards might be useful to raise standards along the lines described above for all organisations in receipt of public money.

The Commission agrees with advice provided by the RDU in that when reliable data for the full, harmonised set of classifications is not available, then the 5 aggregated groups can be used. It is further agreed that users should note the limitations of the analysis, in particular that data for an aggregated group (the Black group, for example) can mask differences in outcomes for detailed ethnic groups (the Black Caribbean and Black African groups, for example). Users should avoid, unless it is absolutely necessary, binary analysis for example comparing White and ‘Other than White’ because of the lack of analytical value this gives.

Furthermore, if it is possible to show data for some of the detailed groups, then the RDU encourages consideration of this, a suggestion that the Commission also supports, noting that every level of disaggregation adds analytical value providing that it remains possible to draw meaningful comparisons.

Recommendation 24: Achieve inclusivity – Disaggregate the term ‘BAME’

The Commission recommends that the government move away from the use of the term ‘BAME’, to better focus on understanding disparities and outcomes for specific ethnic groups.

This recommendation is further linked to that relating to data, with the related quality improvement plans and actions necessary to make this move under a data standard or charter.

A fundamental aspect of the data standard or charter will be the harmonisation of ethnicity categories in government departments and other organisations at the most detailed level, and should be promoted for use in analyses across organisations.

Recommendation 23: Achieve inclusivity – Use data in a responsible and informed way

The RDU should work with the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) to develop and publish a set of ethnicity data standards, building on the existing Government Data Quality Framework and the Code of Practice for Statistics. Monitoring compliance against the Standards, for example through the OSR’s programme of regulatory reviews, will improve the way that data on ethnicity is assessed to be fit for purpose.

The RDU should work with the OSR, DCMS and the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) to apply the ethnicity data standard across all media and public communications channels.

Fixing the problem for everyone

Finally, a word on our approach to policy solutions. In the past, the analyses of racial disparities have tended to follow a 3-part formula:

• binary White and BAME distinction
• the idea that all racial and ethnic disparities are negative
• the idea that policy formulation should be focussed on targeting aspects of minority disadvantage

However, as previously noted, we think that, with some exceptions, the best and fairest way to address disparities is to make improvements that will benefit everyone, targeting interventions based on need, not ethnicity.

If not enough young Black people are getting the professional jobs they expected after graduating, then we need to examine the subjects they are studying and the careers advice they are receiving. If you improve the careers service for everyone then all groups will benefit. This approach is not only seen to be fair, it would be more effective than diversity training for teachers.

Similarly, if diversity and inclusion training is only focused on White discrimination this risks alienating the very people whose behaviour may need to change. The Commission wants inclusive workplaces, but training which focuses narrowly on behaviour around race can run counter to that. Far better to focus on the biases, nepotism, in-group favouritism and motivated reasoning that people of all races are susceptible to. The Commission does, however, recognise the role that diversity and inclusion training has had in moving the dial and creating a space for conversations in organisations to redress actual and perceived discrimination. It is important to build on this, whilst focusing on interventions that produce concrete outcomes.

The model for this ‘aim at everyone’ approach is spelled out in a paper ‘Diversity is Important. Diversity-Related Training is Terrible’ by Musa al-Gharbi.^{[footnote 71]} Diversity training, according to al-Gharbi, should not be focused on avoiding and policing misunderstandings or conflict, but on helping people build relationships and collaborate despite inevitable disagreements, and on leveraging divergent perspectives in order to advance collective goals. The same might be said for the UK’s entire race conversation.

In that vein, this report takes an ‘optimisation’ rather than a ‘maximisation’ approach to group inequality. That is, rather than judging success by how far society can maximise minority outcomes – even at the expense of discriminating against majorities – it moves to a balanced outlook that seeks to optimise outcomes across all groups and dimensions in society. This also means that an open climate of debate must be encouraged in which it is as legitimate to question explanations based on discrimination as it is to make them.

In a sporting match, we care about penalties, but we also care about referees who call too many fouls or players who claim they have been fouled when they have not been.

Equalities policy has traditionally focused on giving additional help to historically marginalised groups. This made sense when ethnic minorities were heavily disadvantaged in all spheres and virtually all prejudice came from White people. Yet times have changed, and the picture, as we show, is now more complex. Some ethnic minority groups are doing better on average than White people. Discrimination in favour of one group, as with the use of quotas, would mean discrimination against other groups. It is hard to see how this would foster a more unified and fair society that all groups could trust.

Meanwhile, new innovations like name-blind CVs, using more diverse recruitment channels to identify candidates for jobs, or family-friendly policies that enable more labour market participation for more ethnic minority women could make a practical difference that does not disadvantage any group.

Another way of looking at the idea of fixing the problem for everyone, is to look at ethnic minority ‘participation’ in employment, health trials or top universities as the barometer for wider policies of fairness. Put simply, if we are getting it right for marginalised groups then we are getting it right for the majority.

One of the best examples of this has been the policy changes that have impacted comprehensive schools, since the introduction of academies and schools becoming more self-managed entities. The pressure for this change came from the poor performance of London education authorities like Hackney and Southwark, where Black students were underachieving at record levels. These boroughs led the successful pilots of Academies, like Mossbourne school in Hackney, and so became the flagship for a wider UK take up. We can see the same kind of change happening in the police force as a result of The Macpherson Report. The message is clear: the ethnic minority experience is part of the whole, what works for a Black boy in Brixton will work for a White girl in Barnsley.

1. To clarify, this is to say that in the face of the inhumanity of slavery, African people preserved their humanity and culture. This includes the story of slave resistance. One such example is documented in: Buckridge, S. O., (2004), ‘The Language of Dress: Resistance and Accommodation in Jamaica, 1750-1890’, University of West Indies Press. ↩

2. University of Oxford (2020) ‘Undergraduate admissions statistics current - Ethnicity’. Available at: https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/ethnicity ↩

3. Excluding British Transport Police and Greater Manchester Police. Home Office, (2020), ‘Police Powers Procedures year ending 31 March 2020: Arrests open data tables’. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-powers-and-procedures-england-and-wales-year-ending-31-march-2020 ↩

4. Home Office, (2021), ‘Police workforce, England and Wales, 30 September 2020: data tables’, Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-workforce-england-and-wales-30-september-2020 ↩

5. Office for National Statistics (2020) ‘Ethnicity pay gaps: 2019. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/ethnicitypaygapsingreatbritain/2019 ↩

6. Evidence commissioned by the Commission received on 24 December 2020 ↩

7. Office for National Statistics (2013) ‘2011 Census: Key Statistics and Quick Statistics for local authorities in the United Kingdom - Part 1, Table KS201UK’, accessed 15 February 2021. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/2011censuskeystatisticsandquickstatisticsforlocalauthoritiesintheunitedkingdompart1 ↩

8. Katwala, S., (2021), ‘Race and Opportunity in Britain: How can we Find Common Ground?’, British Future, UK. ↩

9. UK Government, (2021) NHS Workforce. Available at: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/workforce-and-business/workforce-diversity/nhs-workforce/latest ↩

10. Home Office, (2020), ‘Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2019 to 2020: data tables’, Table 2.1 and Figure 2.5 in Data Tables. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2019-to-2020/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2019-to-2020 ↩

11. Home Office, (2020), ‘Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2019 to 2020’, Table 2.1. Excluding figures for Greater Manchester. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/925257/hate-crime-1920-hosb2920-tables.ods ↩

12. The CSEW is a household population survey so the number of hate crimes in a single survey year is too small to report on. Therefore, 3 annual datasets have been combined in order to provide a larger sample which can be used to produce more robust estimates for hate crime and compare over time. ↩

13. Home Office (2020) ‘Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2019 to 2020 appendix tables’, Appendix table 7. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2019-to-2020 ↩

14. Qureshi, K., Hill, S., Meer N. & Kasstan, B. (2020) ‘Covid-19 and BAME inequalities- The problem of institutional racism’. Available at: https://chpi.org.uk/blog/covid-19-and-bame-inequalities-the-problem-of-institutional-racism/ ↩

15. Office for National Statistics, (2020) ‘Coronavirus (COVID-19) related deaths by ethnic group, England and Wales: 2 March 2020 to 15 May’. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/coronaviruscovid19relateddeathsbyethnicgroupenglandandwales/2march2020to15may2020 ↩

16. Public Health England (2020), ‘Disparities in the risk and outcomes of COVID-19’. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/908434/Disparities_in_the_risk_and_outcomes_of_COVID_August_2020_update.pdf ↩

17. Gruer L, Cezard G, Clark E, et al. (2016), ‘Life expectancy of different ethnic groups using death records linked to population census data for 4.62 million people in Scotland’, Epidemiol Community Health; 70:1251-1254. ↩

18. UK Government, (2020), ‘People living in deprived neighbourhoods’. Available at: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/demographics/people-living-in-deprived-neighbourhoods/latest#overall-most-deprived-10-of-neighbourhoods-by-ethnicity ↩

19. Adekoya. R., (2021), ‘Biracial Britain: A Different Way of Looking at Race’, Little, Brown Book Group ↩

20. Strand, S., (2020), ‘Effects of Ethnicity and Socio-economic Status on Attainment’, University of Oxford. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-report-of-the-commission-on-race-and-ethnic-disparities-supporting-research/ethnic-socio-economic-and-sex-inequalities-in-educational-achievement-at-age-16-by-professor-steve-strand ↩

21. Strand, S., (2008), ‘Minority Ethnic Pupils in the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England’, Institute of Education, University of Warwick ↩

22. Centre for Longitudinal Studies and the Runnymede Trust, (2018), ‘Occupational aspirations of children from primary school to teenage years across ethnic groups’. Available at: https://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/Occupational%20aspirations%20of%20children.pdf ↩

23. Evidence commissioned by the Commission received on 18 February 2021: Katwala, S. (2021) ‘Beyond BAME: What is in a label?’, British Future, UK ↩

24. MacPherson, W., (1999), ‘The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry’. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277111/4262.pdf ↩

25. McCann, P. (2016), ‘The UK Regional-National Economic Problem: Geography, Globalisation and Governance’, London: Routledge. ↩

26. ibid. ↩

27. UK Government, (2020), ‘Regional ethnic diversity’. Available at: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/national-and-regional-populations/regional-ethnic-diversity/latest#download-the-data ↩

28. UK Government, (2020), ‘Persistent low income’. Available at: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/pay-and-income/low-income/latest ↩

29. UK Government, (2020), ‘Overcrowded households’. Available at: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/housing-conditions/overcrowded-households/latest ↩

30. UK Government, (2019), ‘National Statistics- English indices of deprivation 2019’. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2019 (file 11) ↩

31. UK Government, (2020), ‘People living in deprived neighbourhoods’. Available at: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/demographics/people-living-in-deprived-neighbourhoods/latest ↩

32. Office for National Statistics, (2021), ‘Health state life expectancies, UK: 2017 to 2019’. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/bulletins/healthstatelifeexpectanciesuk/2017to2019 ↩

33. UK Government, (2019), ‘National Statistics- English indices of deprivation 2019’. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2019 (file 11) ↩

34. UK Government, (2020), ‘People living in deprived neighbourhoods’. Available at: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/demographics/people-living-in-deprived-neighbourhoods/latest ↩

35. UK Government, (2019), ‘Pupil progress between 11 and 16 years old (‘Progress 8’)’. Available at: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/11-to-16-years-old/pupil-progress-progress-8-between-ages-11-and-16-key-stage-2-to-key-stage-4/latest ↩

36. FFT Education Datalab, (2018), ‘Long term disadvantage, part four: Our friends in the north’. Available at: https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2018/02/our-friends-in-the-north/ ↩

37. UK Government, (2016), ‘Social mobility index’. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-mobility-index ↩

38. Office for National Statistics, (2020), ‘Child poverty and education outcomes by ethnicity’. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/compendium/economicreview/february2020/childpovertyandeducationoutcomesbyethnicity#child-poverty-education-and-ethnicity ↩

39. UK Government, (2019), ‘Pupil progress between 11 and 16 years old (‘Progress 8’)’. Available at: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/11-to-16-years-old/pupil-progress-progress-8-between-ages-11-and-16-key-stage-2-to-key-stage-4/latest ↩

40. FFT Education Datalab, (2018), ‘Long term disadvantage, part four: Our friends in the north’. Available at: https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2018/02/our-friends-in-the-north/ ↩

41. UK Government, (2020), ‘People living in deprived neighbourhoods’. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-mobility-and-opportunity-areas ↩

42. UK Government, (2020), ‘Persistent low income’. Available at: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/pay-and-income/low-income/latest ↩

43. Office for National Statistics, (2020), ‘Household wealth by ethnicity, Great Britain: April 2016 to March 2018’. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/articles/householdwealthbyethnicitygreatbritain/april2016tomarch2018 ↩

44. UK Government, (2020), ‘Home ownership’. Available at: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/owning-and-renting/home-ownership/latest#by-ethnicity ↩

45. UK Government, (2020), ‘Race Disparity Audit Summary Findings from the Ethnicity Facts and Figures Website’ (p30). Available at: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/static/race-disparity-audit-summary-findings.pdf ↩

46. Office for National Statistics, (2021), ‘Families and households in the UK: 2020’. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/202 ↩

47. Office for National Statistics, (2021), ‘Proportion of children in lone parent families by ethnic group, England and Wales, 2019’. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/adhocs/12947proportionofchildreninloneparentfamiliesbyethnicgroupenglandandwales2019 ↩

48. ESRC Centre for Population Change, (2014), ‘The changing demography of lone parenthood in the UK’. Available at: http://www.cpc.ac.uk/docs/2014_WP48_The_changing_demography_of_lone_parenthood_Berrington.pdf ↩

49. Eshan, R., (2021), ‘White working class kids are being left behind – we need to be honest about why’. Available at: https://capx.co/white-working-class-kids-are-being-left-behind-we-need-to-be-honest-about-why/ ↩

50. Centre for Social Justice, (2020), ‘Facing the facts: ethnicity and disadvantage in Britain.’ Available at: https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/CSJJ8513-Ethnicity-Poverty-Report-FINAL.pdf ↩

51. McLanahan, S., Tach, L. Schneider, D., (2013), ‘The Causal Effects of Father Absence’, Annual Review of Sociology 39:1, 399-427. Available at: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145704#_i23 ↩

52. Harper, C., McLanahan, S., (2004), ‘Father Absence and Youth Incarceration’, Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14(3), 369 to 397. Available at: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.519.2721&rep=rep1&type=pdf ↩

53. The Centre for Social Justice, (2020), ‘Family Structure Still Matters’. Available at: https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/CSJJ8372-Family-structure-Report-200807.pdf ↩

54. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, (2016), ‘The Casey Review: a review into opportunity and integration’. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-casey-review-a-review-into-opportunity-and-integration ↩

55. Ethnicity Facts and Figures, (2020), ‘English language skills’. Available at: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/demographics/english-language-skills/latest#by-ethnicity-sex-and-age ↩

56. Home Office, (2020), ‘Why do people come to the UK? For family reasons’. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-september-2020/why-do-people-come-to-the-uk-for-family-reasons ↩

57. Kaur-Ballagan, K., (2020), ‘Attitudes to race and inequality in Great Britain’, Ipsos MORI. Available at: https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/attitudes-race-and-inequality-great-britain ↩

58. ibid. ↩

59. Opinium, (2020), ‘Black History Month – Black Lives Matter Report’. Available at: https://www.opinium.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Perceptions-of-the-Black-Lives-Matter-movement-Report.pdf ↩

60. Evidence commissioned by the Commission received on 19 November 2020: Katwala, S. (2020) ‘Race and in Britain: How can we Find Common Ground?’, British Future, UK ↩

61. Saggar.S, Norrie.R, et al, (2016), ‘Bittersweet Success? Glass ceilings for Britain’s ethnic minorities at the top of business and the professions’. Available at: https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/PEXJ5011_Bittersweet_Success_1116_WEB.pdf ↩

62. Evidence commissioned by the Commission received on 19 November 2020: Katwala, S. (2020) ‘Race and Opportunity in Britain: How can we Find Common Ground?’, British Future, UK ↩

63. YouGov, (2020,) ‘YouGov/Renie Anjeh Survey Results.’ Available at: https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/1pzum49xb7/Copy%20of%20RenieAnjeh_BAME_Aug2020_website.pdf ↩

64. ibid. ↩

65. Evidence commissioned by the Commission received on 18 February 2021: Katwala, S. (2021) ‘Beyond BAME: What is in a label?’, British Future, UK ↩

66. Minority rights group international (2016), ‘State of the World’s Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2016’. Available at: https://minorityrights.org/publication-types/state-of-worlds-minorities/. Countries included: Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bolivia, Botswana, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, Italy, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Libya, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Taiwan, Turkey, Ukraine, United States, Uzbekistan and Venezuela ↩

67. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, (2019), ‘Being Black in the EU Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey’. Available at: https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2019/being-black-eu-summary ↩

68. Bilali, R, Celik A.B, et al, (2014), ‘Psychological asymmetry in minority–majority relations at different stages of ethnic conflict’. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147176714001096 ↩

69. UK Government, ‘Ethnicity facts and figures.’ Available at: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/ ↩

70. ONS, (2011), ‘Ethnicity and National Identity in England and Wales: 2011’. Available at https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/articles/ethnicityandnationalidentityinenglandandwales/2012-12-11 ↩

71. al-Gharbi, M., (2020), ‘Diversity is Important. Diversity-Related Training is Terrible’. Available at: https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/diversity-training-doesnt-work-this-might/ ↩