Executive summary

• At the final assessment of the 339 IDTF commitments, 88% were reported to be either completed (55%) or on track to be achieved (33%). A delay to the scheduled work was reported for 8% of the commitments, while an additional 3% were assessed as significantly delayed or paused altogether.
• Looking across the Inclusive Data Principles, the areas with the highest proportions of projects completed or on track to deliver focus on ensuring UK data and evidence are equally accessible to all while protecting the identity and confidentiality of those sharing their data (IDP8 with 98% of projects completed or on track); and ensuring appropriateness and clarity over concepts being measured (IDP5 with 94% of projects completed or on track).
• Across the Inclusive Data Principles, the areas where delivery has perhaps been most challenging are about creating an environment of trust and trustworthiness, encouraging everyone to count and be counted in data and evidence (IDP1 with 19% of projects delayed, severely delayed or paused); and broadening the range of methods used and creating new approaches to understand experiences across the UK population (IDP6 with 16% delayed or paused).
• Focusing in on the key commitment projects, those deemed capable of having the most significant impacts across the statistical system disproportionately sat within IDP3 (ensuring all groups are robustly captured across key areas of life in UK data and review practices regularly) and IDP4 (improving UK data infrastructure to enable robust and reliable disaggregation and intersectional analysis across the full range of relevant groups and populations, and at differing levels of geography). At final reporting, these principles were the only ones to have severely delayed or paused key commitments but also contained the most completed key commitments.
• For most projects experiencing moderate or significant delays, there is an intention to continue progressing them in future. Consistent with this, there are plans in place or underway for most of these as to how the work will be progressed and when.
• Regarding the small group of projects with a significant delay and no expectation of further progress, this was attributed to lack of resource such as insufficient funding, de-prioritisation of work due to changes in ministerial priority, or an assessment of limited user need.
• An evaluation was also undertaken involving collection of stakeholder views of what worked well and not so well in the process of implementing the IDTF recommendations (Annex). Although initial positive engagement about the IDTF initiative and Implementation Plan was reported, this waned over time as necessary shifts in priority and associated reduction of resource within ONS impacted upon communications and governance structures, which were also perceived to be disconnected from any operational mandate. Recommendations within the evaluation report will be used to guide future planning to support progress towards meeting the IDTF recommendations.