Annex: Evaluating the Implementation and outcomes of the IDTF Recommendations

The evaluation of the approach taken to implement the Inclusive Data Taskforce (IDTF) recommendations compliments the picture of progress achieved across the IDTF commitment projects in the 2025 Annual Progress Report. The purpose of the evaluation was to:

• Review the understanding of the vision of the IDTF and how well this has been shared.
• Understand the process of implementing the recommendations and document the learnings from this.
• Gather indicative evidence of outcomes.

The evaluation was jointly led and conducted by the Central Evaluation Function based in the Finance, Planning and Performance directorate at the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the Centre for Equalities and Inclusion at ONS. The evaluation methodology was approved by the Chief Economist and registered on the Evaluation Taskforce Registry.

The evaluation focuses on the initial implementation of the IDTF recommendations covering the period from 2021 with the publication of the IDTF report to end of March 2025 when the Spending Review period during which many of the IDTF commitment projects were started came to an end. Appendix A gives a full timeline of the stages of development of the Inclusive Data Taskforce from initial reporting to annual monitoring.

In recognition of the fact that improving the inclusiveness of data and evidence is an ongoing journey rather than a destination, we aim to learn the lessons of early implementation and take these forward in developing further approaches to embed inclusiveness in our workforce, data, and analysis.

1. Aims of the Inclusive Data Taskforce Initiative

The Inclusive Data Taskforce (IDTF) was launched in 2020 by the National Statistician at that time, Sir Ian Diamond, in response to the UK Statistics Authority five-year strategy Statistics for the Public Good which had inclusivity as one of its four principles.

The National Statistician asked the Taskforce to make recommendations about how to improve the inclusivity of UK data and evidence.

The IDTF recommendations and response to them

The Taskforce undertook extensive research and consultation to inform their work on data gaps and needs for inclusive data which culminated in their final Recommendations Report (2021). This presented the IDTF vision under eight ’Inclusive Data Principles’ summarising the fundamental elements they felt were required to achieve a step-change in inclusive data across the UK statistical system. Flowing from each Inclusive Data Principle was a set of recommendations for action.

The National Statistician endorsed the recommendations and called on ONS and others across the Government Statistical Service (GSS) to create an implementation plan for progressing them.

The Inclusive Data Taskforce Implementation Plan was published in January 2022, setting out a high-level work programme of ongoing and planned initiatives linked to the 8 Inclusive Data Principles. This initially included 205 specific projects (referred to as IDTF commitments) across the UK government, devolved governments, charity and academia. As additional inclusive data initiatives from across government were shared with ONS, a further 134 commitments were added to the total set as inclusive data commitments in 2023, taking the total number to 339. Each commitment had a nominated Commitment Holder who was responsible for monitoring and reporting on progress towards delivery of that commitment. The IDTF Initiative is the name given to the overall set of activities monitored to understand progress towards the IDTF recommendations.

Governance and monitoring to support implementation

In their recommendations report, the Taskforce highlighted the importance of working in partnership with others to improve the inclusiveness of UK data and evidence. Specifically, they said that:

“ONS should establish a clear mechanism and timetable for monitoring and reviewing the recommendations of the Taskforce, reporting on how far they have been implemented and outlining strategies to ensure their implementation going forward.”

In response, a team at ONS was tasked with responsibility for suggesting and seeking agreement on governance mechanisms to support the implementation process, establishing the governance groups, providing them with ongoing secretariat support, and regularly collating and reporting information about progress towards the cross-government IDTF commitments. Progress updates were shared bi-monthly, quarterly and annually with senior leaders and advisors in the following ways:

• As part of the formal bi-monthly organisational risk monitoring in ONS in relation to the inclusive data pillar of the UKSA strategic vision. Strategic Risk 8 focused on Inclusivity in our statistics and analysis and specifically, ‘The risk that the UKSA’s presentation of society is not inclusive and reflective of all aspects of the UK’s rapidly changing economy, demographics and policy priorities;’
• Across the civil service via the cross-GSS Inclusive Data Subcommittee set up as part of the IDTF implementation process specifically for the purpose of providing a government peer network to support progress towards the IDTF commitments;
• In quarterly and annual reports to the independent experts comprising the National Statistician’s Inclusive Data Advisory Committee, established to provide scrutiny on progress towards the IDTF recommendations and advise the National Statistician accordingly;
• For transparency, annual monitoring reports in 2023 and 2024 were also published on the UKSA website in addition to the final progress report (2025) and this evaluation.

For clarity, the implementation of the IDTF initiative was not established or run as a formal programme with a budget and resources allocated for delivery of the IDTF commitments. The earmarked funding for the initiative was provided by ONS to resource the team responsible for establishing the governance bodies, providing secretariat support, and for collating and sharing management information about progress towards the IDTF commitments.

The individual IDTF commitments were resourced, governed, and delivered in a variety of ways across ONS, other UK government departments, the devolved administrations, academic institutions and more widely and were not connected to each other in any formal sense as a coherent programme with one Senior Responsible Owner invested with overall responsibility and accountability.  As such, the team in ONS were responsible for collecting and sharing information across the system via the governance mechanisms but none of the governance bodies (individually or collectively) had strategic responsibility and accountability for delivery of the portfolio of projects comprising the IDTF commitments.

Theory of Change underpinning the approach to implementation

The Taskforce envisaged that greater inclusivity of data and evidence could be achieved through coordinated effort across the statistical system in relation to a number of important areas referred to as the Inclusive Data Principles (IDP’s).

Inclusive Data Principles (IDP’s)

In their blueprint for more inclusive data, the Taskforce identified these areas as fundamental to improvement. As a task and finish group established to achieve a particular purpose, the Taskforce itself was thanked for their service and disbanded in 2021 after delivering their recommendations. As such, the IDTF was not expected to play an ongoing role in delivering the changes they called for. However, as part of their recommendations, they called on ONS to regularly monitor progress and outline strategies to ensure their implementation going forward. Details on this can be found in the 2025 Annual Report.

To this end, the team at ONS mapped projects identified as IDTF commitments to the Inclusive Data Principles to enable monitoring of overall progress towards each Principle. The quarterly and annual reporting presented the latest progress status for the collection of IDTF commitments mapped to each Inclusive Data Principle enabling oversight of where greater or lesser progress was being made across the blueprint for progress provided by the Taskforce. This was shared with the governance groups for information and advice, as well as suggested prioritisation and ‘course correction’. However, as noted above, none of the governance groups had any formal assurance role in relation to the portfolio of projects linked to each principle, meaning they could observe and advise, but there was no formal mandate for their advice to translate into action.

The initial Theory of Change for the initiative (see Appendix C) focused on making improvements in the individual areas highlighted by the Inclusive Data Principles which, if delivered, was expected to lead to 4 key impacts: (1) increasing public trust in participation in government data collection and data sharing activities; (2) broadening participation in government surveys and data sharing activities; (3) government producing higher quality data through collaborative, systemic approaches to including more groups and producing insights into the full UK population; and (4) more data users, including the public, having access to the data and evidence needed from government. These impacts were in turn expected to lead to the goal of improved inclusivity of UK data and evidence to enable everyone to count and be counted.

The 2025 annual progress report evidences progress against these impacts, which is measured through the individual commitments under the inclusive data principles. Each of the 8 inclusive data principles are linked to the 4 key impacts outlined in the ToC: Impact 1 links to IDP1; Impact 2 links to IDP3; Impact 3 links to IDP2, IDP4, IDP5, IDP6 and IDP7; and impact 4 links to IDP8. Please refer to Evidence of Progress and perceived outcomes for further evaluation of the evidenced progress against these outcomes.

2. Evaluation Approach and Methodology

The purpose of this evaluation was to assess how well the implementation of the Inclusive Data Taskforce (IDTF) recommendations has thus far delivered against the vision to improve the inclusivity of UK data and evidence and the reasons for this. It sought to review how well the vision of the Taskforce was shared and understood, examine the delivery of the recommendations, and gather indicative evidence of early outcomes. It specifically aimed to:

• Explore awareness and understanding of the IDTF vision and aims.
• Examine the effectiveness of implementation processes.
• Gather early evidence of progress and perceived outcomes.
• Generate lessons to inform future strategic interventions to improve the inclusivity of UK data.

The research methods used include primary qualitative data collection and analysis of administrative data from the regular monitoring and reporting of the IDTF commitments.

Qualitative Interviews with key stakeholders

To explore awareness of the IDTF vision and aims, perceptions of early implementation approaches and outcomes, and suggested changes for the future, qualitative interviews were undertaken with key stakeholders, including the following:

• Members of the Inclusive Data Taskforce
• IDTF commitment holders from across UK government, including devolved administrations and the (former) Cabinet Office Equality Hub
• Members of the National Statistician’s Inclusive Data Advisory Committee
• Senior ONS staff involved in governance and strategic oversight of progress towards the IDTF recommendations

The approach to the research was approved by the National Statistician’s Data Ethics Advisory Committee and a total of 18 interviews were completed in the spring of 2025, out of 28 participants originally invited. A diverse mix of stakeholders took part including those involved in delivery, governance, and implementation. Of the 18 participants interviewed, 16 took part virtually via Microsoft Teams, one by phone, and one provided a written response.

Interviews followed a topic guide focusing on key questions to be addressed by the evaluation. Participants were recruited via an official invitation letter, and all were provided with a participant information sheet outlining the purpose of the evaluation, how their data would be used, and their rights as interviewees.

All qualitative data were analysed thematically using NVivo data analysis software. A shared coding framework was developed iteratively to reflect the evaluation questions and emergent themes.

Secondary data analysis

Secondary data analysis using data from commitment monitoring submissions and progress summaries, as captured in the 2025 annual report, has also informed this report.

Evaluation questions

The evaluation questions were grouped into three broad areas:

1. Awareness and understanding of the IDTF vision and aims including how clearly participants felt these were articulated over time.
2. Perceived achievements and progress towards the vision and aims including to what extent any achievements are perceived as attributable to the IDTF initiative versus other factors.
3. Views about what worked in the process of implementation of IDTF recommendations including resourcing, monitoring progress, the publication of progress reports and the role of governance bodies.

3. Evaluation findings

Awareness and understanding of the IDTF vision and aims

There was a sense across ONS staff and wider civil service participants that initial engagement with the IDTF and awareness of its aims was strong at the outset but diminished over time. Lack of resources for ongoing communications and lack of time to engage with the key messages from the Taskforce were cited as reasons for a possible fall in engagement and awareness.

Participants generally believed that messaging around the IDTF was strong and consistent, with its simplicity noted as a particular strength, but that while the initial findings from the IDTF were clear, the drive to push them forward may have waned.

Conversely, some participants felt that the consistency and simplicity of the IDTF aims and vision were part of the reason that its momentum dropped from its initial high, as communications largely focussed on collection of monitoring information. It was felt that while setting and completing short-term targets is useful, signalling continuous improvement towards the vision matters more and may be more appropriate.

To contextualise these findings, in 2023 the Equalities and Inclusive Data Division in ONS was disbanded, and the responsibility for monitoring the IDTF implementation and promoting inclusive data were embedded within the Future of Population and Migration Statistics Programme at ONS. The aim of this organisational change was to mainstream inclusive data approaches within population statistics. However, the discontinuity in staffing, reduction in resources and reprioritisation towards mainstreaming inclusive data may have contributed to the reduction in communications, messaging and sense of momentum noted by interview participants.

Effectiveness of implementation processes

The perceived effectiveness of the IDTF implementation plan in delivery

The IDTF implementation plan, developed collaboratively across government as well as incorporating research projects from academic and civil society organisations, relied on collating and mapping existing initiatives into a coherent approach to address the Inclusive Data Principles. This largely involved aligning existing initiatives into a framework for inclusive data to better understand what was happening across the system rather than taking new and additional actions to address the Inclusive Data Principles.

The Implementation Plan was widely acknowledged as a necessary step to ensure the IDTF recommendations were acknowledged and actioned across government, recognising the complexity of a disaggregated and complex statistical system. Others saw the development of the plan as a turning point in cross-government ownership.

Although the recommendations report (2021) set out clear areas of change as highlighted by the Inclusive Data Principles, the call to action for implementing specific recommendations fell generically to ‘data producers’ in many cases. In the complexity of the statistical system, this may have meant that taking action was seen as something for everyone but no one’s clear responsibility.

This lack of clarity could have been addressed by the Implementation Plan, which assigned specific projects to IDTF ‘commitment owners’. However, this focused on responsibility for reporting progress in relation to specific projects rather than responsibility for delivery of the projects themselves. A perceived lack of precision and coherence within the initial plan was noted and some participants highlighted areas of duplication and overlap between commitments which impacted the ability to monitor who owned different parts of the plan.

Participants also suggested the approach to implementation may also have curated and consolidated existing practice across government rather than introducing new approaches. While this could be seen to help map the existing inclusive data landscape and build shared understanding, it is unclear how this, on its own, could deliver an aspirational step-change in inclusivity of UK data and evidence.

A number of projects were initiated as a result of the IDTF recommendations, including the introduction of a programme of qualitative research at the ONS to better understand the lived experiences of statistically underrepresented groups.

Perceived effectiveness of governance and oversight of implementation

As a time-limited Taskforce, the recommendations of the IDTF were commissioned by the National Statistician to provide a blueprint for others to act on. For sustainable changes towards more inclusive data to develop and be sustained, many different actors across the statistical system would need to be involved. This was recognised by the Taskforce and reflected in their second Inclusive Data Principle which called on ONS and other data producers to, ‘take a whole system approach, working in partnership with others to improve the inclusiveness of UK data and evidence.’

To create the kind of changes called for across a complex system relies on sustained and shared leadership, focus, ability and determination to build awareness and co-ordinated action across multiple actors with different priorities, knowledge and expertise.

In line with the recommendations report, the Implementation Plan put in motion the creation of two committees, the National Statistician’s Inclusive Data Advisory Committee (NSIDAC) and the cross-government Inclusive Data Subcommittee. The aim of these committees was to monitor and advise on ongoing progress.

The National Statistician’s Inclusive Data Advisory Committee

NSIDAC is a key element of the governance structures introduced as part of the implementation of the IDTF recommendations involving independent experts providing advice about specific initiatives to improve data inclusivity to the National Statistician and to colleagues from ONS and other government departments. The committee has also provided views about progress made towards the recommendations in response to quarterly RAG status reports of the key commitments and the annual reports. A briefing from the Chair of NSIDAC to the National Statistician is also submitted every quarter. As an advisory committee, NSIDAC does not have the authority to prescribe action and ensure that it is carried out in the way that an assurance committee would nor is there a requirement for new or existing projects to seek the advice of NSIDAC about their plans and approaches. There is no link between NSIDAC and existing assurance panels at ONS such as MARP (Methodological Assurance Review Panel).

This lack of mandate may have led to the perception interview participants held that seeking advice from and responding to NSIDAC was optional but also may have undermined NSIDAC’s perceived commitment to inclusive data.

The Inclusive Data Subcommittee

An Inclusive Data Subcommittee (IDSC) was also added to the governance strategy to provide senior level input and sharing of information about inclusive data initiatives from across the Government Statistical Service. The Subcommittee was largely comprised of GSS and GSR Heads of Profession, with their departments and administrations also leading on specific IDTF commitments.

This cross-government network was viewed by some participants as a positive way to engage departments in the wider agenda to improve data inclusivity and share learning.

Perceived coherence and effectiveness of the governance arrangements

Due to organisational restructuring at ONS and resource constraints, the Inclusive Data Subcommittee was launched after NSIDAC, then paused during re-structuring of the team providing secretariat support, and later re-launched. This discontinuity meant that planned feedback loops between the two key committees never materialised as set out in the original governance design.

Additionally, although both committees had a remit to advise on priorities for more inclusive data and help to support the delivery of the IDTF recommendations, participants reflected that the work felt disconnected from the Implementation Plan, and that the committees were not always seen as spaces to strategically assess progress or direct meaningful change. Instead, they could be perceived as isolated discussion spaces, with little clarity about how information or evidence shared with the committees would lead to concrete action or results. This disconnect between individual contributions and wider oversight structures created a sense that the process was fragmented and lacking coordination.

There was also some uncertainty around the specific roles and distinctions between NSIDAC and the IDSC. It was felt that this lack of clarity regarding governance structures and their responsibilities may have further limited opportunities for wider engagement across the system.

Despite the existence of the IDSC, it was also felt that encouraging greater cross-departmental collaboration would have increased opportunities for shared learning, which could have benefitted capability across government to deliver the commitments. This may highlight a lack of awareness of the IDSC, or reflect the discontinuities involved in the Committee being set up, paused and re-launched.

The IDTF monitoring and governance team in ONS was also asked to provide bi-monthly metrics about progress in relation to inclusive data to help with internal monitoring of strategic risks in relation to the inclusive pilar of the UKSA strategic vision. Although this was an opportunity for senior leaders to engage regularly with information about inclusive data, there was no link between scrutiny at this level and the wider governance around the implementation of the IDTF recommendations. There was also no feedback loop from the committee receiving this information back to the IDTF monitoring and governance team providing it. This was perhaps a missed opportunity for joining up across the different committees considering progress towards inclusive data.

The qualitative interview findings support this assessment of a disconnect between the overarching vision, governance, and actual implementation. The analysis found that the IDTF was perceived as having been established to guide strategic thinking rather than delivery and had no authority to direct operational mandate.

The role of management information in supporting implementation and delivery

Annual progress reports

Annual progress reports were published each year to provide transparent updates on the status of all of the IDTF commitments included in the Implementation Plan. Throughout the annual progress reports published in 2023 and 2024, progress was described in relation to the eight Inclusive Data Principles, as well as highlighting new inclusive data projects and strategies for enacting longer-term change.

As noted earlier, there were 205 projects included in the initial set of IDTF commitments and this was subsequently expanded to 339 as information was received about relevant new initiatives. Summarising the latest progress across an extensive range of activities, the annual reports were the principle means of creating and sharing a coherent narrative assessing the pace and nature of change in the initiatives comprising the IDTF Implementation Plan. They were shared with the governance groups for the IDTF initiative, as well as published more widely on the UKSA website for transparency.

Interview participants reported that their familiarity with the annual progress reports was limited. Some felt that the wider IDTF initiative was less relevant to their role or team, so would focus on the specific commitments of relevance to them. Often, when communications from the IDTF were received, they were deprioritised due to capacity or competing demands.

Those who did engage more fully with the annual progress reports described them as being useful for confirming commitments and maintaining direction and found it reassuring to demonstrate continuous progress. However, some participants noted issues with format and online accessibility that they felt hindered engagement with the annual reports.

The effectiveness of quarterly monitoring and management information

Delivery of the Implementation Plan from a programme management perspective was also discussed, with many feeling the plan lacked a sufficiently clear delivery framework. Some cited uncertainty around budgets as a key constraint in setting concrete commitments over clearly specified timeframes. The need for an accompanying accountability framework was also raised.

Reporting on progress to the monitoring team varied significantly, shaped by departmental leadership, resourcing, competing priorities, and the willingness of commitment holders to engage.

In addition to a perceived lack of authority to effect change, there was also said to be a notable gap between the ambition of the recommendations and the capacity to act on them as outlined in the Implementation Plan, both in terms of time and resources. Commitments such as changing major surveys, for example, were said to be much longer term ambitions and therefore regular reporting felt unrealistic.

Participants also noted how the shift from a dedicated Division in ONS focusing on inclusive data to a position where implementation of the IDTF recommendations was embedded within an ONS business area complicated internal coordination and added difficulty to the implementation process.

Perceived priorities and leadership in relation to IDTF implementation

There were mixed views across the interviews about whether inclusive data and the implementation of the IDTF recommendations had been treated as a strategic priority. While some participants described a clear sense of support from leadership, especially early on, others felt the implementation lacked senior-level advocacy, operational ownership, and sustained focus over time.

Participants noted that while the IDTF recommendations had visibility, its ambitions weren’t consistently prioritised within day-to-day delivery teams. Meanwhile, others saw value in having the IDTF recommendations as an external reference point that supported the ongoing attention to inclusive data within their organisation.

Accounts demonstrate that the IDTF helped provide leverage for inclusive data efforts, though prioritisation depended on individual initiative and local leadership. While the IDTF successfully raised the profile of inclusive data, this did not consistently translate into prioritised activity for delivery. Progress reportedly depended on the motivation of individuals or teams rather than clear and consistent leadership across the statistical system.

Evidence of progress and perceived outcomes

The impacts of the IDTF initiative can be considered in terms of:

• what has been achieved in relation to more inclusive data based on the projects in the Implementation Plan;
• other outcomes linked to the process of implementing the recommendations rather than specific projects (e,g, greater information sharing/ insight across the system); and
• people’s perceptions of an increased emphasis on the importance of inclusive data

Evidence of progress from monitoring information

The publication of annual progress reports, including the most recent 2025 annual progress report, have provided an overview of the delivery of the IDTF commitments included in the Implementation Plan.

Over the Implementation Plan monitoring period, an increasing number of commitments have been delivered or on track to deliver (as shown in Annual Progress Report 2025). At the final count, 55% of commitments were assessed as completed and another 33% as on track. Among the 39 commitments assessed as delayed or significantly delayed/ paused, 32 had plans in place to continue/ resume in future.

The first key impact outlined in the Theory of Change (ToC) (Appendix C) relates to increasing public trust in participation in government data collection and data sharing activities. This relates directly to IDP1, which was shown in the 2025 annual progress report to be most challenging to deliver and monitor effectively. Despite this, 81% of the commitments were completed or on track.

The second, which relates to broadening participation in government surveys and data sharing activities, is linked to IDP3, where 87% of the 70 commitments were completed or on track.

The third ToC impact relates to government producing higher quality data through collaborative, systemic approaches to including more groups and producing insights into the full UK population. This links to IDP2, IDP4, IDP5, IDP6 and IDP7, where the percentage of commitments which were completed or on track ranged from 84% (IDP2 and IDP6) to 94% (IDP5).

The fourth involves more data users, including the public, having access to the data and evidence needed from government. This links to IDP8 where 98% of the 46 commitments were completed or on track. Please refer to the 2025 annual progress report for more detailed reporting on commitment completion by IDP.

This demonstrates that improvements have been made in each of these areas, via the collective achievements of multiple projects moving some aspect of that IDP forward. The trajectory is generally positive, although displays greater progress in some areas than others.

Some of the completed projects involved work to increase the granularity of ethnicity data; departments exploring the feasibility of routinely collecting information on ethnicity and disability for all data collections; and increased engagement and data collection activities with under-represented groups to ensure their needs are reflected in data and evidence. This work outlines the cross-government commitment to improve the inclusivity of UK data and evidence and ensure all groups can be robustly captured in data collection exercises.

Although this helps to shed light on important progress towards more inclusive data in the UK, the projects in the Implementation Plan were partially collated from among initiatives already planned or underway at the time when the IDTF recommendations were made. As such, they do not all represent new activity attributable to the IDTF initiative. What is harder to determine is any effect the Implementation Plan and subsequent monitoring of progress may have had on helping to sustain the priority for continuing with inclusive projects over time. This is something highlighted in examples given by interview participants based on their own experience. However, the framework proposed by the IDTF has helped us to understand how progress has already been made across the system and has given a more strategic indication of where to prioritise efforts moving forward.

Outcomes from the process of implementing the IDTF recommendations

A clearer outcome of the IDTF Initiative is improved knowledge of where work is happening to augment inclusive data across the government statistical system as well as better understanding of the factors which help or hinder progress of inclusive data projects. This represents new information not previously available which could help to promote progress by enabling more joined up working on similar initiatives and inform strategic decision-making about where more efforts are required.

There are examples of government departments working closely together to facilitate access to administrative data sources required to better understand statistically underrepresented groups, and further work to enable opportunities for data linkage. These are a clear indication of a sense of shared ownership across government to improving the inclusivity of data and evidence. However, the extent to which these actions are a result of the IDTF initiative is unclear.

Perceived impacts of the IDTF initiative

Participants’ views of what worked well

Participants felt that the IDTF initiative was successful in amplifying the importance of equality and inclusive data, however, the extent to which it directly influenced the production of more inclusive data was said to be unclear. It was suggested that involving organisations and departments already committed to equality and inclusion in the development of the Implementation Plan helped to push this work forward.

It was also felt that the IDTF initiative was successful in raising the profile of much of the work occurring across government to drive improvements in inclusive data. However, it was suggested that this did not necessarily lead to structural change embedded across government. The IDTF initiative was said to nudge continued action by monitoring and encouraging progress, but against a backdrop of financial constraint, this was not always sufficient to maintain impact and drive improvement on a wider scale.

Participants’ assessments of what worked less well

Similarly to participants’ awareness and understanding of the vision and aims of the IDTF, it was felt that while the initiative was a success in highlighting the equalities agenda initially, as time went on the perceived visibility and impact of engagement about the initiative declined.

Although the Implementation Plan may have helped to create the conditions for more joined-up working across government and beyond and monitoring activities may have encouraged their continuation, momentum for the initiative reduced over time, limiting its perceived effectiveness.

Participants’ suggested improvements

A common challenge discussed by interview participants was around the governance of the initiative not having any perceived way of influencing action. It was suggested that to make the NSIDAC more effective in driving progress it should be embedded within an assurance governance structure that would mandate action.

Similarly, participants suggested there should be a commitment for inclusivity to be a cornerstone of programmes, which can be matched through both funding and a delivery framework. This would have the potential to be an important step forward for overcoming structural issues around governance and yielding greater change that is more embedded in programme delivery and generating greater accountability at a more local level.

Given the restructuring and changes to the team in ONS supporting the governance and monitoring of the IDTF recommendations implementation, there was also a call for greater continuity and coherence for support functions and governance teams moving forward.

Looking to future delivery, the next census was seen as a particular opportunity for focusing on inclusivity of data moving forward.

Key learning and possible future directions

The 2025 annual progress report outlines the progress made in key areas contributing to the impacts sought in the Theory of Change (Appendix C). However, despite the progress demonstrated among the inclusive data principles across the monitoring period, there was a perception among interview participants that momentum and awareness waned after the initial high of the publication of the recommendations report and implementation plan.

In this way, the two evaluation approaches utilised in this report (qualitative interviews with key stakeholders and secondary data analysis) have enabled understanding from two different levels. While the qualitative interviews provide insights from participants own vantage points, the monitoring provides a bigger picture view of the whole system. In conjunction, these provide valuable insights and important lessons on how to move forward across the system.

Among interview participants, the launch and early days of the IDTF initiative was viewed as a success in raising awareness of the aims of the Inclusive Data Taskforce and its blueprint for achieving greater inclusivity of UK data and evidence. It was seen to have extended the focus on inclusivity across government, engaging multiple departments in rethinking some of their own work on inclusive data.

The governance established to maintain oversight of the progress towards implementation of the IDTF recommendations lacked resources, authority, or clear accountability mechanisms, limiting its direct impact on outcomes and wider perceptions of its efficacy and importance.

Restructuring and reduction in resources in the ONS team supporting the governance structures also created discontinuities and limited efforts to engage in cross-government communications and engagement around the IDTF recommendations and inclusive data more generally.

Among those interviewed, key contributions of the IDTF were reported to have been in stimulating thinking about inclusive data, raising expectations, providing a focus for inclusive data as an organisational and governmental priority, and nudging progress.

Although there have been many strong achievements towards more inclusive data among the projects in the Implementation Plan, these were comprised of work already planned or in progress at the time the IDTF made its recommendations. As such, they cannot be seen as direct impacts of the IDTF recommendations.

Instead, the IDTF recommendations sparked a concerted effort to identify where work to improve data inclusivity was happening across government, how well it was progressing and areas of greater or lesser progress in relation to each of the Inclusive Data Principles. Additionally, examples given by interview participants of the monitoring associated with the IDTF Implementation Plan helped to ensure an ongoing focus on the importance of delivering the project.

Arguably, knowledge of what’s happening across a complex system like the GSS is essential for taking strategic action and this improved intelligence may be considered a direct impact of the IDTF recommendations, particularly their emphasis on working jointly across the system.

Additionally, as data were also gathered regarding lack of progress, there is improved information about barriers to progress which may also be helpful in considering ways forward. Resource constraints, reprioritisation and dependency were identified as key factors contributing to delays in inclusivity work. Although some of these issues may be unavoidable, building a stronger network across the GSS system to connect projects focusing on improving data inclusivity and facilitating more joined-up working, sharing of information and possibly resources may help to overcome some of these difficulties.

The challenge now is to move forward in ways which sustainably embed the principles for achieving more inclusive data highlighted by the Taskforce into business as usual.

Future efforts by the ONS, and across the GSS could build on the greater clarity achieved about efforts to improve inclusive data across the statistical system, to identifying specific levers for action.  A key lesson from this evaluation is that a strategic vision for more inclusive data is important for focusing minds, but not sufficient to ensure action and outcomes. The latter requires a clear mandate, resources and accountability.

Moving forward there are a variety of ways in which this might be achieved. For example, consideration could be given to connecting the independent advisory function of NSIDAC more closely to other governance structures with an assurance mandate to ensure its advice is considered and followed through into action where appropriate. It might also involve an organisational mandate to ensure that inclusivity is regularly embedded in the governance and quality standards of key programmes of work, establishing accountability for inclusiveness at a programme level. It is also potentially a leadership challenge to ensure that the importance of continuing the journey towards more inclusive data is regularly communicated, resourced, and evaluated.