Justice - ethnicity research and data priorities: academic/researchers survey results

Section 3 – Data Priorities

This section asked respondents for their views about the ethnicity data collected by Justice Organisations across the public sector in Scotland, and how it is currently used in academic research.

Use of ethnicity data in research

The majority of respondents had used ethnicity data from Justice Organisations/ The Scottish Government in their research. Table 5, below, shows that using published data (57%) was more common than using a raw data extract (14%). Over a quarter (29%) indicated that they hadn’t used ethnicity data because it either wasn’t available or did not meet their needs. Around one fifth (19%) indicated that they hadn’t used ethnicity data as their research was qualitative and 5% said ethnicity data wasn’t a priority area for their research.

Table 5: Q5 a). In your research, have you ever used ethnicity data from Justice Organisations / Scottish Government?

Used data?	Percent
Yes – raw data extract	14%
Yes – published data	57%
No – not a priority area for my research	5%
No – data wasn’t available or the available data does not meet my needs	29%
No – my research is qualitative	19%
Don't know	0%
N	21

Satisfaction with ethnicity data and issues and barriers

Table 6, below, shows that of the 12 respondents who had used ethnicity data from Justice Organisations / The Scottish Government, two thirds (67%) were dissatisfied with the data’s ability to answer their research questions (50% fairly dissatisfied and 17% very dissatisfied), compared to only 17% who said they were fairly satisfied.

Table 6: Q5 b) If yes, how satisfied were you with the data’s ability to answer your research questions?

How Satisfied	Percent
Very satisfied	0%
Fairly satisfied	17%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	17%
Fairly dissatisfied	50%
Very dissatisfied	17%
Don't know	0%
N	12

Respondents were then asked if they had faced any issues or barriers when using or attempting to use ethnicity data.

All of the respondents who answered this question and had attempted to access data, indicated that they had faced some sort of issue or barrier in relation to the ethnicity data. The most commonly cited issue was low population coverage (33%), followed by not being aware of what data exists (28%). Around one fifth (22%) of respondents identified a high proportion of “unknown” values, the use of non-standardised classifications, and ethnicity not-being self-Identified as issues they had experienced with ethnicity data. Just under one fifth of respondents (17%) said they had had issues getting access to the data. Other issues that respondents mentioned included inconsistent coding over time; only some data being publicly available; the small numbers of people from minority ethnic communities included in national sample surveys, such as the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey (SCJS); small numbers meaning it is often impossible to disaggregate data beyond white and non-white and therefore missing out on any differences between minority ethnic groups; and a lack of data linkage in administrative data.

Table 7: Q5 c) . Have you experienced any issues or barriers when using/attempting to use ethnicity data from Scottish Justice Organisations, (please select all that apply)

Answer	Percent
Yes – low population coverage (e.g. where the ethnicity field was non-mandatory)	33%
Yes – not aware of what data exists	28%
Yes - high proportion of ‘unknown’ values	22%
Yes- non-standardised classification systems used	22%
Yes – ethnicity was not self-identified so unsuitable	22%
Not applicable – have not attempted to access data	22%
Yes – issues getting access to data	17%
Other, please specify	11%
No – did not experience any issues or barriers	0%
N	18

Potential impacts of improved ethnicity data

Respondents were asked to consider how they might use ethnicity data, if there were improvements in its quality, completeness and availability. Respondents were asked how likely they would be to do certain things if improved ethnicity data was available.

Tables 8-11, below and chart 2, show an appetite amongst respondents to use improved ethnicity data in various ways. However, 60% of respondents also said that they were likely to continue using ethnicity data in the same way as they currently do now. This might indicate that some are already using existing ethnicity data in the ways that they would be likely to use improved ethnicity data.

Chart 2, below combines respondents who said they were “very likely” or fairly likely” to something. The vast majority of respondents (89%) said that they would be likely to use published official statistics on ethnicity data, provided at an aggregate level, as a starting point to identify areas of interest for further research. 71% said that they would be likely to apply to obtain a data extract including ethnicity data, in relation to a specific project. 60% indicated that they were likely to continue to use ethnicity data in the same way as they currently do, and 38% said they were likely to link newly available ethnicity data to previous research projects.

For the questions on using aggregate data as a starting point (Table 8) and applying for a data extract (Table 9), only a low proportion of respondents, or no respondents, said that they were “not likely” to do this, (0% and 6% respectively) with “not applicable” more frequently selected than “not likely” in these questions.

Around a fifth of respondents said they were “not likely” to link newly available ethnicity data to previous research (19%) (Table 10) and “not likely” to continue to use ethnicity data in the same way as they currently do (20%) (Table 11).

Table 8: How likely to: Use published official statistics on ethnicity data, provided at an aggregate level, as a starting point to identify areas of interest for further research?

How likely	Percent
Very likely	56%
Quite likely	33%
Neither likely nor not likely	0%
Not very likely	0%
Not at all likely	0%
Not applicable	11%
N	18

Table 9: How likely to: Apply to obtain a data extract including ethnicity data from the data producer in relation to a specific research project?

How Likely	Percent
Very likely	29%
Quite likely	41%
Neither likely nor not likely	12%
Not very likely	6%
Not at all likely	0%
Not applicable	12%
N	17

Table 10: How likely to: Link newly available ethnicity data into previous research projects?

How likely	Percent
Very likely	19%
Quite likely	19%
Neither likely nor not likely	19%
Not very likely	19%
Not at all likely	0%
Not applicable	25%
N	16

Table: 11: How likely to: Continue using ethnicity data in the same way as you currently do?

How likely	Percent
Very likely	40%
Quite likely	20%
Neither likely nor not likely	0%
Not very likely	20%
Not at all likely	0%
Not applicable	20%
N	15

Respondents were then asked if there was anything else that they would be likely to do if improved ethnicity data was available from Justice Organisations. Nine respondents answered this question. Some said what they would be likely to do with improved data, whilst others used this opportunity to indicate what they would like to happen in order to improve data.

Respondents said that with improved data, they would be likely to: compare statistics with other countries, such as England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the USA; be able to draw stronger conclusions about patterns regarding criminal justice responses and ethnicity, something hampered by high levels of “ethnicity not known” being recorded; publish and disseminate findings to use for learning and to influence policy; and to identify communities requiring support.

Request for what respondents would like to see more of in terms of improvements in data included: more access to and more transparency with data from Justice Organisations; more data on children and young people; and data disaggregated beyond “white” and “non-white” categories.

There was also a call for more reports that draw together information on what is known. There was praise for the recent JAS report “A Study into the Characteristics of Police Recorded Hate Crime in Scotland”, and requests for more reports like this.

Two thirds of respondents (67%) said that they felt they there were key areas or specific research questions where they felt they needed better ethnicity data from Justice Organisations in order to answer those questions (Table 12).

Table 12: Q7. a) Are there any key areas or specific research questions where you feel better ethnicity data is required from Justice Organisations to help you or other researchers answer those questions?

Answer	Percent
Yes	67%
No	5%
Don't know	29%
N	21

Fourteen respondents went on to provide further details about what they considered these keys areas or specific research questions were.

Responses ranged from quite general: that better data was needed in all areas; that it would be good to have the current state of knowledge clearly laid out in a publication; and broad areas such as “health, education and welfare”, to more specific topics and questions, as outlined in Table 13 below.

Table 13: Topic areas and questions where better data is needed

Topic area

Interaction with the Justice System

Questions/ areas of interest within that topic, where specified

“Are those from BAME communities more likely to be subject to justice system contact and, if so, how does this vary across different stages of the justice system (from policing to prison)?”

“Estimates of differential rates at all decision points across the criminal justice process”

“Understanding experiences, identifying barriers, and whether any discrimination in the system, identifying better responses and services etc.)”

Topic area

Hate crime, racism, and prejudice

Questions/ areas of interest within that topic, where specified

“Consistently available data on victim and perpetrator ethnicity would be highly useful in terms of looking at questions around prejudice in Scotland, targeting, motivations, etc. (and also data on religion - racially motivated and religiously motivated hate crime can be highly interlinked).”

“More disaggregated data in relation to BME reports of racism and how they have been handled by the police”

Topic area

Stop and search

Questions/ areas of interest within that topic, where specified

“Historical statistics on Stop and Search under reserved legislation (e.g. Terrorist Act 2000) listed by nation and area as well as ethnicity.”

“Key areas - stop and search and experiences of crime and feelings of safety.”

Topic area

Victimisation

Questions/ areas of interest within that topic, where specified

“Analysing trends in victimization by ethnicity is limited to using coarse categories in available data.”

“Are those from BAME communities more at risk of being victims of crime, or subject to greater exposure to crime as a result of where they lived, their social and economic circumstances, or other factors?”

Topic area

Offending

Questions/ areas of interest within that topic, where specified

“Are those from BAME communities more or less likely to be involved different forms of offending and, if so, in what ways and what factors might explain these differences?"

Topic area

Missing people

Questions/ areas of interest within that topic, where specified

“Data around the ethnicities of people going missing.”

Topic area

Domestic abuse victims with no recourse to public funds

Questions/ areas of interest within that topic, where specified

“Police Scotland in relation to domestic abuse victims/no recourse to public funds i.e. unique circumstances of women from a minority ethnic background”

Topic area

Scottish Crime and Justice Survey and other population surveys.

Topic area

Link between causal factors and ethnicity investigated

Topic area

Experience of crime and feelings of safety

The need for ethnicity data of victims, perpetrators and others, such as people who go missing was flagged up by respondents, as was the need for this data to be disaggregated to a more granular level. Data reported by nation and area, historical data, and data which takes account of intersectionalities such as religion and no recourse to public funds linked to immigration status, was also requested.

Three quarters (76%) of respondents thought that having access to improved ethnicity data would have a positive impact on their ability to answer priority research questions, nearly half (48%) thought it would have a big positive impact. No respondents said that it would have “no impact” or a negative impact, although 14% indicated this wasn’t applicable to them and 10% said they didn’t know (Table 14).

Table 14: Q8. Do you think that having access to improved ethnicity data from Justice Organisations would have any impact on your ability to answer priority research questions?

Name	Percent
Yes, big positive impact	48%
Yes, small positive Impact	29%
No impact	0%
Negative impact	0%
Not applicable	14%
Don't know	10%
N	21

Recording and reporting ethnicity statistics within Justice Organisations

Respondents were asked for their opinions on how important they thought it was for Justice Organisations to do certain things in the recording and reporting of ethnicity statistics.

There were very high, nearly universal levels of support for allowing people to self-report their ethnicity, including ethnicity as a mandatory data collection item and publishing statistics that include ethnicity information, with over 90% of respondents classing these as important. Over half of respondents (60%) thought it was important to use a standard classification for ethnicity, such as the Census Classification (Chart 3).

Nearly all (95%) of respondents thought it was important to allow people to self-report their ethnicity – that is how the individual identifies, rather than reported by how an officer or other professional perceives the person’s ethnicity, with 81% saying it was very important (Table 16). No respondents said that this wasn’t important.

A similarly high proportion (91%) of respondents thought that it was important to include ethnicity as a mandatory data collection item when collecting personal information from service users or members of the public, 62% thought it was very important, and no respondents said that it wasn’t important. Having ethnicity as a mandatory data collection item includes the option for respondents to choose not to disclose their ethnicity (Table 15). 91% of respondents also thought that it was important for Justice Organisations to publish statistics which include ethnicity information, with 57% classing this as very important. Again, no respondents said that this wasn’t important (Table 17).

A lower proportion, but still over half (60%) of respondents thought that a standard classification system such as the Census classification should be used when collecting ethnicity data (Table 18). Almost a third (30%) of respondents classed it as very important. Another almost third (30%) of respondents said that they didn’t know. A small proportion of respondents considered this to be neither important or not important, and not very important (5% each). Although the majority classed this as important, it did not have the same level of near universal support as the other items asked about in this question, and attitudes were slightly more ambivalent towards it.

Table 15: How important is it: For Justice Organisations to include ethnicity data as a mandatory data collection item, when collecting personal information from service users or members of the public they interact with. This would include the option for individuals to choose not to disclose their ethnicity.

How important	Percent
Very important	62%
Important	29%
Neither important or not important	0%
Not very important	0%
Not at all important	0%
Don't know	10%
N	21

Table 16: Q9. How important is it: For Justice Organisations to allow people to self-report their ethnicity (i.e. how the individual identifies, rather than reported by how an officer or other professional perceives the person’s ethnicity)

How important	Percent
Very important	81%
Important	14%
Neither important or not important	0%
Not very important	0%
Not at all important	0%
Don't know	5%
N	21

Table 17: How important is it: For Justice Organisations to publish statistics that include ethnicity information

How important	Percent
Very important	57%
Important	33%
Neither important or not important	0%
Not very important	0%
Not at all important	0%
Don't know	10%
N	21

Table 18: Q9. How important is it: For Justice Organisations to use a standard classification for ethnicity, such as the Census classification

How important	Percent
Very important	30%
Important	30%
Neither important or not important	5%
Not very important	5%
Not at all important	0%
Don't know	30%
N	20

Five respondents took the opportunity to provide explanations for their answers or additional comments at question 10. Three of these responses expressed concerns around the use of the census classification as a standard classification system for ethnicity data. It was commented that within the census classifications some categories were based on skin colour and others on nationality, that the mixed category “does not represent anything accurately”, that some categories such as “Asian” cover multiple countries, whilst there is a lot of differentiation amongst the White British category, and that there is no distinction between recent migrants and those who are long settled.

Another respondent cautioned that “publishing ethnicity data can also have a negative impact on communities and be used negatively”. Whilst another respondent emphasised that ethnicity data needs to be “valid, complete and consistently collected in order to be useful” and highlighted the importance of being able to understand the impact of the criminal justice system on people of different ethnic backgrounds and address inequality.

Justice Analytical Services

June 2021