The website in question was created as an integrated service from which the public can access government data on racial disparities in the UK. It is a useful tool which allows individuals and organisations to better understand issues surrounding racial discrimination and increases transparency between the government and the public. However, much of the recently proposed changes to the website are problematic and BSWN has voiced these concerns in a government consultation.
One of the proposed changes is to reduce commentary, such as graphs and tables, on the data by prioritising measures based on a government set criteria. The criteria set out by the government are:
Impacted by or important for the analysis of the pandemic
Highlighted or investigated by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities
Top 50 most viewed measure pages
In another high priority policy area for the government
Measures which meet two of these would be ‘high’ priority with full commentary issued. Measures which meet only one would be ‘medium’ with no commentary on geography, age, or gender. Measures that do not fit this criteria will be considered ‘low’ priority with only an Excel data file provided.
The key concern we raised was that by reducing the commentary provided, organisations that work on racial equality and whom often ‘plug gaps’ in government support in a range of areas (e.g., housing, helping carers) would be burdened with additional work. Many smaller organisations which ordinarily lack robust research teams may also lack the resources and capacities necessary to interpret and analyse the extensive data given to them on Excel spreadsheets. Such organisations will have to repeat the work done, thereby creating unnecessary waste in resources that could otherwise be directed to frontline services (and other means of fighting racial inequality).
Moreover, given that many organisations work on a local level, geographical commentary that supplements the data would be vital for proper work. For measures considered ‘medium priority,’ being required to be analysed through a data file would essentially make the analysis more arduous for already overburdened local organisations. Fundamentally, all these indicators should be considered high priority – supplemented with maximum data and commentary – if the government is to present itself as serious about issues of transparency and racial injustice.
Furthermore, the government-set priority criteria is rife with issues. If a measure is not considered to either be in the top 50 most viewed measures (and is unrelated to COVID-19), then it would have to either be considered a government-prioritised measure or have been identified by the commission to be considered high priority. However, the very same commission found no evidence for institutional racism in the UK – placing its credibility as dubious at best. Considering many organisations – such as BSWN – believe that institutional racism still exists, we consider these two criteria problematic. Reducing commentary on the basis that it does not meet this criteria leaves more power in the hands of institutions to decide what data is easily accessible when the website should be geared towards its users.
The criteria in this proposal risks putting key issues (such as use of force on young people in custody and fuel poverty gap) into the lower priority bracket, making data on pressing issues harder to access. We have looked at a range of measures that are proposed to become low priority and medium priority and have argued as to why they should be considered high priority, supplemented with adequate commentary so that the data is easily accessible and understandable.
We recommend expanding the criteria to include: a consideration of the current ‘cost-of-living’, measures that relate to structural inequality, and measures that consider issues inherent in the justice system. Cost-of-living is the biggest crisis facing the UK today and is disproportionately impacting Black and Minoritised communities. Many organisations are working to help ethnic minorities in these arduous times and they need easily accessible data to understand what and who to target that support towards. Burdening them with data analysis in a crisis is simply unacceptable. Tackling structural inequalities in areas such as home ownership, education, employment is the sustainable long-term way to tackle overall inequality in society and gear future generations for wealth-building and success. Finally, there is a disproportionate lack of trust amongst Black and Minoritised communities in the justice system compared to white British people and transparency on these issues is key to understanding them, campaigning for a fairer system and for rebuilding trust within these communities.
Secondly, we propose that the government disaggregate statistics currently only published as either ‘white British’ and ‘Other than white’ into more varied and nuanced ethnic categories where possible. BSWN welcomes this move as data published utilising the current format is often not of great use and hides the wide disparities experienced by different communities of Black and Minoritised people. However, the government also proposes to no longer publish data on areas they do not develop into further categories, which is a step backwards and reduces the data available to the public on many key issues.
The third proposal is to provide additional analysis on the website on some selected measures. Again, we welcomed this move, but we would like to highlight that the criteria used for selecting these measures are problematic. Firstly, ‘levelling-up’ is used as a criterion when it is largely relevant to geography rather than relevant directly to ethnicity. Secondly, considering the website is for users to access data, not for the government’s internal use or analysis, having government priorities as a critierion does not seem appropriate. While we welcome the government publishing any additional analysis they conduct for internal use, it should not be the basis for publishing additional analysis. Instead, the government should consider expanding the criteria with issues like cost-of-living, structural inequality, inequality in the justice system and any present public issue in mind.
We hope that our recommendations are considered by the government and it chooses not to reduce commentary on key issues which will burden organisations, especially those that lack research teams, with more work. Furthermore, providing additional analysis and developing 2-ethnicity categories only measures into a wider range of ethnic groups would be welcome steps. Currently, the government is only planning on providing additional analysis on six measures while reducing commentary on a lot of them. We hope the government recognises the massive talent and analytical capacity it has and expands the number of issues that they provide additional analysis on.
This policy statement is written by Arjun Pai, BSWN Intern.