Annual report on progress towards the implementation of the Inclusive Data Taskforce recommendations

1. Introduction

This report provides the latest and final review of progress towards the delivery of the Inclusive Data Taskforce commitments. The monitoring of IDTF commitments was in place until the end of the 2020-2025 Spending Review period. A retrospective evaluation of what’s worked well and not so well in the process of implementing the IDTF recommendations, from the perspectives of a range of stakeholders most directly involved, is presented as a separate Annex, with key findings summarised in this report. In recognition of the fact that improving the inclusiveness of our data and evidence is an ongoing journey rather than a destination, we aim to learn the lessons of early implementation and take these forwards in developing further steps to embed inclusiveness in our workforce, data and analysis moving forward.

As well as being published alongside all papers relating to the IDTF on the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) website, this report will also be shared with the National Statistician’s Inclusive Data Advisory Committee (NSIDAC).

A full list of acronyms used in this report is given in Appendix A.

2. The Inclusive Data Taskforce initiative

‘Inclusive’ is one of the four pillars of the UKSA strategy, Statistics for the Public Good, covering the 5-year period from 2020 to 2025. The strategy envisages inclusiveness as encompassing both our workforce and our data, statistics and analysis, with the goal of ensuring:

“…we reflect the experiences of everyone in our society so that everyone counts, and is counted, and no one is forgotten.”

To better understand how we could improve the inclusiveness of our data and evidence, the (then) National Statistician, Sir Ian Diamond, invited a group of independent experts to form the IDTF in 2020. They researched, consulted with stakeholders and reflected for just under a year before formally providing their recommendations to the National Statistician in the Autumn of 2021.

Their report, Inclusive Data Taskforce recommendations report: Leaving no one behind – How can we be more inclusive in our data? (2021), created a blueprint for improving the inclusiveness of our data and evidence focusing on eight Inclusive Data Principles, with specific recommendations for action under each.

The report was followed by a publication of the Response by the National Statistician to the Inclusive Data Taskforce (IDTF) Report and recommendations (2021) and a subsequent Inclusive Data Taskforce Implementation plan in 2022 which summarised a high-level cross-government work programme consisting of 205 commitments for action under the 8 Inclusive Data Principles, with the collective aim of producing a step-change in the inclusivity of UK data and evidence. This was later expanded to 339 commitments, reflecting new inclusive data developments during this time. Two annual progress reports which outlined progress against the 205 and 339 commitments respectively, were also published: Embedding Inclusivity in UK data (2023) and Inclusive Data Taskforce commitments: Annual Progress Report (2024).

3. Measuring progress in inclusivity of UK data and evidence

The Inclusive Data Taskforce called for a systemic approach to implementation of their recommendations, encouraging action to be taken in a co-ordinated way across the UK statistical system. To that end, the development of the Implementation Plan collated information about a wide range of projects happening across government and more widely. These individual projects were mapped to the Inclusive Data Principles proposed by the Inclusive Data Taskforce to better identify where greater or lesser progress was made. The aim was to identify and share information about potentially disparate activities across the system in an effort to inspire more joined-up working and realise greater collective benefits towards inclusivity than might be made through more isolated efforts.

Monitoring progress

As this involved co-ordination of information across many areas of government and many individual projects, a measurement framework was established in 2023 for monitoring progress across all Inclusive Data Principles. This focused on the period from 2022 when the Implementation Plan was published until spring 2025, the end of the Spending Review period during which many of the initial IDTF commitment projects were expected to come to an end. It was hoped that the monitoring framework would facilitate communication across the Government Statistical Service (GSS) and governing bodies associated with the implementation of the IDTF recommendations, as well as enabling more strategic action and course correction where possible. Management information on progress using this framework was collated and shared internally in ONS as strategic risk metrics provided bi-monthly, with cross-GSS and independent advisory bodies quarterly, and in published progress reports annually.

Every year since the framework was introduced, a progress update on the status of the project has been requested from nominated ‘commitment owners’ across UK government departments, the devolved governments and civil society organisations. Quarterly updates focused on a selection of 43 projects designated as ‘key commitments’ as they were among projects deemed most likely to help produce a step-change in inclusivity of UK data and evidence. Once a year, we asked for updates across the full range of 339 IDTF commitments and this was the case for our final update of progress. This report focuses on the update of progress for 2024/25.

Between November 2024 and March 2025, all commitment owners were asked to assess progress for each commitment in their area during that quarter, including:

• Status of the commitment and its progress compared to the expected timetable
• Summary of the project’s progress to date
• Any expected update on the timescale for completion of each commitment.

Commitment statuses throughout this report follow a traffic light system, in which:

• complete signifies the work the commitment set out has been achieved
• green signifies the work is on track to be achieved as planned
• amber signifies the work has been delayed
• red signifies the work has been significantly delayed or paused.

As this is the final follow-up of progress on the initial IDTF commitment projects, the expected future trajectory of projects assessed as either amber or red was also explored via an online survey among commitment owners, where this information had not already been provided through their final update. Findings from this analysis can be found in What stopped or delayed delivery of IDTF commitments.

4. Progress by the end of 2024/25

Overall progress across all IDTF commitments

Between the 2024 and 2025 monitoring periods, the proportion of completed projects has increased from 43% to 55%. Over the same period, the proportion of projects with significant delays or which have been paused decreased from 6% in 2024 to 3% in 2025. Comparison has not been drawn with 2023 reporting figures as these were based on the 205 commitments at that time. Additional commitments added after the 2023 annual report means the total commitments for 2024 and 2025 were both 339.

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.

When assessing progress, it’s important to note that improving the inclusivity of the UK statistical system is a long term, ongoing mission, while the outcomes reported here are based on milestones for individual projects achieved at a particular point in time. It is perhaps the broader trajectory and ongoing efforts across the system that indicate sustained and impactful change. Progress for individual projects may not be linear. Across the GSS, reprioritisation associated with changing policies and resource realignment can lead to pauses and discontinuities in particular projects or workstreams. This does not necessarily imply that work in that area has stopped altogether or won’t be resumed at a later date and indeed there are examples from among the IDTF commitment projects where this has been the case.

Progress achieved by ‘key commitment’ projects

Across the portfolio of 339 IDTF commitments, some were identified as potentially having the capacity to have a bigger impact on inclusivity of UK data and evidence. These were referred to as ‘key commitments’, identified from among the original commitments published in the IDTF Implementation Plan (2022). They include the initiatives (work strands, projects, programmes) assessed as potentially helping to make structural step change in inclusive data across the UK statistical system, based on the following criteria:

• sustainable: likely to be sustained over time (longevity)
• ambitious: breadth of the initiative (programmes of work vs individual projects)
• radical: unique / groundbreaking work on a key issue /group
• timely: must have clear deliverable(s) before end March 2025

Using this approach, 43 key commitments were identified and monitored on a quarterly basis. At the time of the final assessment, 83% of these key commitments were reported to be either completed (53%) or on track for delivery (30%, green).

The key commitments were not distributed evenly across the IDP areas. The majority of key commitments sat within IDP3 (18 commitments) and IDP4 (9 commitments), while only 1 key commitment was included in each of IDP7 and IDP8.

IDP3 included commitments focussed on ensuring all groups are robustly captured across key areas of life in UK data and reviewing practices regularly, while IDP4 commitments focussed on improving the 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.

Progress across the Inclusive Data Principles

Mapping of the 339 commitments to the 8 Inclusive Data Principles has shown that more activity is happening in some IDPs compared to others, and that delivery has been more successful in some areas compared to others. Breakdowns of commitment delivery progress for each IDP can be found in Appendix B.

Looking at the success of delivery across the projects in each of the Inclusive Data Principles, the areas with the highest proportions of projects completed or on track to deliver focus on ensuring appropriateness and clarity over concepts being measured (IDP5 with 94% completed or on track); and ensuring UK data and evidence are equally accessible to all while protecting the identity and confidentiality of those sharing their data (IDP8 with 98% completed or on track). These findings are shown in Figure 5.

The areas where delivery has perhaps been most challenging focus on creating an environment of trust and trustworthiness encouraging everyone to count and be counted in data and evidence (IDP1 with 19% 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). These findings are shown in Figure 6.

5. What stopped or delayed delivery of IDTF commitments?

To better understand why some IDTF commitments were delayed or paused and the plans put in place for getting the projects back on track, further analysis was undertaken focusing on those assessed as amber or red. The RAG status was self-assessed by the individual identified as the ‘owner’ of the commitment with responsibility for reporting to the ONS Inclusive Data Monitoring and Reporting Team.

Research methods

To better understand the factors contributing towards delays or discontinuation of projects, thematic analysis of the 39 projects assessed as either amber (28) or red (11) was undertaken to identify patterns within the reasons provided by commitment holders for an amber or red project status.

To better understand future plans for overcoming barriers to progress, thematic analysis of commitment holder updates, discussions with commitment owners and analysis of survey responses relating to the 39 amber or red assessed commitments were conducted.

See Appendix C for further information about the research methods used.

Factors contributing to delays or discontinuation of projects

Resource constraints, reprioritisation and dependencies were the key factors identified as contributing to delays or discontinuation of projects, as summarised below.

Resource constraints

Resource constraints were given as important reasons why projects were delayed or could not proceed, resulting in an amber or red assessment. This included:

• Monetary constraints involving a lack of resource to do the work either currently, for example due to a reduction in funding or awaiting funding, or in the past where a previous lack of funding caused delays in project timelines.
• Other resource constraints were also sometimes cited which included staff vacancies, although details were often not provided.

Changing priorities

Reprioritisation was another contributor to projects being delayed or stopped, where resources have had to be redeployed due to shifting priorities and resources being needed more urgently elsewhere. This includes reprioritisation linked to changes in policy direction and ministerial priorities and the need to avoid duplication of work across government. Reprioritisation could also result in delays to original timescales possibly making it difficult to recover anticipated project delivery or indefinitely pausing work.

Dependencies

Dependencies were also cited as contributing to a red or amber status update. Examples of dependencies causing delays to IDTF commitment projects included:

• delays in accessing data (including permission to use datasets and awaiting data transfers),
• delays in formal approval for work to progress,
• reliance on other programmes of work which are delayed
• decisions clarifying strategic direction

In these cases, although there may be capability and resources to do the work, progress is hindered by reliance on inputs from elsewhere in the system.

Overcoming barriers to progress

Analysis was also undertaken looking at plans for getting back on track for IDTF commitments assessed as red or amber.

The majority of IDTF commitment projects experiencing moderate or significant delays are expected to continue beyond the 2024/25 financial year (i.e., the end of the monitoring period). Of the 39 red and amber projects included in the analysis:

• 32 are expected to carry on
• 4 are not expected to continue
• 3 remain uncertain as to whether the work will continue.

The majority of amber and red projects do have plans to put work back on-track. Among those expected to continue, next steps to progress IDTF commitment projects from red/amber to green or completion included both specific ways in which projects would be reviewed and re-launched as well as new ways of approaching the work such as through greater collaboration. Figure 7 summarises findings from the thematic analysis of responses from commitment owners:

Figure 7: Routes to getting IDTF commitment projects back on track

Thematic analysis also explored why some red/amber projects were not expected to continue beyond the monitoring period. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these were the same as the initial reasons given as to why projects were assessed as amber or red: i.e., lack of resource, reprioritisation, and dependencies. What is less clear is why a route forward to overcome these issues has been identified in many cases but not all. Responsibility for getting these commitments back on track lies with each of the organisations who own them.

6. Summary of progress

The IDTF Implementation Plan and achievements aligned to it have relied on collective contributions from across the statistical system, including a range of government departments, the devolved administrations and other organisations. The IDTF recommendations have provided an important framework to identify and understand where progress has been achieved in inclusive data across the system and where further work is needed. For many organisations, the recommendations have also been utilised as leverage to provide the ongoing momentum and rationale to improve the inclusivity of their data.

Work programmes linked to IDTF commitments have improved data inclusivity in both survey and administrative data collections for under-represented groups in UK statistics. For example, Welsh Government, Scottish Government and departments such as the Department for Education, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, HM Revenue and Customs, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, as well as the Office for National Statistics (ONS), have collectively made progress towards commitments that have improved data and insights for diverse groups including children and young people, refugees and those experiencing homelessness.

In response to the IDTF recommendation to broaden our traditional methods used to generate new insights into statistically under-represented groups, pioneering qualitative research has been undertaken with a range of groups identified by the Taskforce as ‘largely invisible in published statistics’. This has led to research with and publications about the lives of: women survivors of domestic abuse, displaced young people, Gypsy and Traveller communities, children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, disabled adults and ongoing work with people who identify as Roma. This programme of work has involved close collaboration with government departments and devolved administrations with responsibility for policies affecting these groups, as well as service providers, and crucially, community members themselves. This has also led to new approaches to sharing data and evidence more accessibly with those with additional needs, such as limited English or literacy, as well as identifying ways to improve perceived trust and trustworthiness among these communities about sharing information about their lives with government organisations.

Recent progress has also included greater data granularity with more local level data improvements. For example, the Explore local statistics (ELS) service was launched in March 2024 to improve accessibility by consolidating a wide range of subnational statistics into a single, user-friendly digital platform, making it easier for people to find, visualise, compare and download data about local areas across themes like population, economy, health, education and life satisfaction in the United Kingdom. Additionally, the Build a custom area profile tool, updated and re-designed in March 2025, incorporates non-census datasets alongside Census 2021 data, allowing people to draw their own area on a map and find relevant local data for England and Wales.

Advancements in the consistency and coherence of measurement of reporting have also been made, including ongoing work to review harmonised standards, as recommended by the IDTF. An update to the GSS Harmonisation Team workplan was published in 2024, and this work continues to progress and improve, acknowledging the importance of testing among specific communities and the population as a whole, using respondent centred designs to develop questions that provide coherent and measurable data.

While these examples demonstrate that much has been achieved, the ongoing journey towards inclusive data is not linear. There have been discontinuities in plans due to re-prioritisation or new learning which have inspired new directions. For example, the UKSA recommendation on the Future of Population and Migration Statistics in June 2025 was to commission a mandatory questionnaire-based census in 2031 – building on the success and lessons of the last census in 2021 – and alongside this, to continue to develop the ONS’s work on population and migration statistics based on administrative data to provide more frequent and timely estimates. A census in 2031 will provide an important new opportunity for collecting inclusive population statistics against which other surveys and statistics can be benchmarked, including administrative data.

Given funding and resource constraints, many departments and organisations across the statistical system will face difficult choices and possible re-prioritisation moving forward. In this context, it will be even more important to work collectively across the system to embed inclusive principles in business as usual and strive to ensure that new data developments are inclusive by design in future.

7. Evaluation summary

A process evaluation was also undertaken focusing on the implementation of the IDTF initiative to learn lessons for ongoing work towards inclusive data. This drew on interviews with stakeholders involved in the initiative and data from monitoring statistics of IDTF commitment projects. The findings, published in Annex, show that the IDTF initiative was successful in stimulating awareness, action and thinking about inclusive data and has been used by stakeholders to successfully nudge progress forward.

At the same time, stakeholders also felt that the initial momentum of the initiative was not maintained throughout the 3-year monitoring period. This was associated with a perceived reduction in communication and updates about the initiative and was seen by some as an indication that the IDTF recommendations were becoming less prominent and visible over time. In turn, the perceived effectiveness of the initiative overall was seen as limited.

It was also felt that the governance supporting the initiative did not have the authority to mandate action or course correction, nor was it linked to any direct responsibility in relation to delivery of the IDTF commitment projects. This also contributed to a sense of limited effectiveness and impact.

Going forward, the evaluation highlighted a range of important lessons and suggestions for strengthening both the process of implementation and governance arrangements to support it. The report demonstrated that the IDTF initiative, despite a drop in momentum after its initial launch, has been positively engaged with throughout the GSS, strongly influencing the direction of travel towards inclusive data within numerous organisations. As a GSS initiative, the IDTF needs to continue to be actively supported and promoted. Additionally, realistic and appropriate ways to measure impacts moving forward need to be identified and put in place, as well as support for departments to continue embedding IDTF aims and commitments within their workplans. The journey towards inclusive data remains ongoing and the GSS has an important role to play in holding the statistical system to account for its progress in this space.