Publication - Strategy/plan

Scotland’s Equality Evidence Strategy 2023-2025

Published: 24 March 2023
Directorate: Tackling Child Poverty and Social Justice Directorate, +1 more … Equality, Inclusion and Human Rights Directorate
Part of: Equality and rights
ISBN: 9781805256557

This strategy sets out our approach to improving and strengthening Scotland’s equality evidence base over a three year period to the end of 2025.

Supporting documents

Annex C: Equality Evidence Strategy 2023-2025: Analysis of Responses to Consultation

Use of Equality Evidence

Equality evidence collection

Additional comments

Appendix 1: Organisations responding to the consultation

Executive Summary

In April 2021, the Scottish Government launched the first phase of its Equality Data Improvement Programme (EDIP). This aims to put in place a stronger and more complete equality evidence base that will enable more inclusive policy making and support the collective effort across the public sector to fulfil the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED).

The publication of the next Equality Evidence Strategy, covering the period 2023-2025, will mark the end of the first phase of the EDIP. On 1 July 2022, the Scottish Government launched a consultation on a draft plan to improve and strengthen Scotland's equality evidence base. Responses received will be used to develop the Equality Evidence Strategy 2023-2025.

There were a total of 116 responses to this consultation, of which 87 were from organisations and 29 from individuals.

Key themes

A number of key themes were evident across consultation questions and consultation events as well as across respondent groups.

Overall, there was general agreement on the need for a strong equality evidence base upon which services can be designed and decisions and policy can be made. At present, there are concerns over the robustness of much of the existing evidence due to small sample sizes and gaps in the evidence base.

Respondents welcomed opportunities to improve the equality evidence base and acknowledged the need for more data across a wide range of different groups. There were some requests for consistency in the data collected across all datasets as this would allow for more robust sample sizes as well as offering an option to combine different datasets. The need for intersectional data along with a capacity to disaggregate data by sub-groups are key for many respondents.

While robust quantitative data is perceived to be a key requirement, there were also some requests for qualitative data as this can provide valuable information in its own right and also help to enhance understanding of quantitative data.

There were some calls for help and guidance for data users to maximise their understanding of how to work with and analyse data and how to use this effectively in decision-making.

The Equality Evidence Finder (EEF) was seen to be a useful tool, although there were some comments on a need to improve its utility, for example, by improving upon its accessibility, by ensuring that all data is up-to-date and offering a capacity to easily link into other datasets.

Summary of main findings

The vision (Q1)

While there is general support for various aspects of the vision, just under half (47%) of the respondents felt the Scottish Government should revise the vision developed in 2017. Key issues were requests for:

more robust data which would allow for intersectionality and a capacity to disaggregate data
help and guidance for data users, with information provided on how equality data can be used
recognition of the impact of COVID-19 and the current cost of living crisis
alignment with a range of other policies
the introduction of outcomes, actions and monitoring to ensure the vision is adopted by all relevant organisations
clarity in terminology used throughout the vision

Proposed actions (Qs2-7)

Over half (59%) of respondents thought the proposed actions would adequately deliver on the ambition for a robust and wide-ranging quality evidence base, to a partial extent (Q2). Reasons for this included perceived gaps in the evidence base among the proposed actions and a desire to improve the equality evidence base in general amid concerns regarding the robustness of evidence caused by small sample sizes in relation to some characteristics as well as the quality of some datasets. There were some requests for guidance on the collection, procurement, handling, analysis and representation of equality data.

When asked to say which were the five most important actions outlined in the draft improvement plan (Q3), a number of respondents commented on the difficulties of making this choice, on the basis that all actions are important. From the respondents who were able to make a choice, the most popular actions were 33 (Scotland's Census 2022) (cited by 25% of respondents), 15 (Scotland's Gender Equality Index) (cited by 21% of respondents), 16 (Scottish Social Attitudes Survey) (cited by 18% of respondents ) and 1 (Looked after children) (cited by 18% of respondents). Regardless of the action(s) chosen by respondents, a number of general themes emerged, including the need for:

more robust equality evidence
more consistency in the way equality data is collected
granular/disaggregated equality data
intersectionality

Just over half (51%) of the respondents felt that there should be revisions to the proposed actions (Q4). The actions with the highest numbers of respondents suggesting a need for revisions were Actions 33, 15, 16, 13, 3, 12, 19, 21, 28 and 2. Across all actions it was felt there was a need for more complete data to be collected on all equality characteristics across all datasets, so as to achieve larger sample sizes. There were requests for more consistency in the way data on equality variables is collected by different datasets.

When asked whether there were any additional improvement actions that should be considered that are achievable within the 2023-2025 timescale (Q5), just under half (43%) felt there were. Most of the points raised echoed those made at previous questions and very few comments were made on any additional actions; comments tended to be based on enhancing the existing actions.

The potential for collaboration (Qs 6-7)

Just under half (43%) of respondents would like to collaborate with the Scottish Government (Q6). Only small numbers of respondents specified particular actions they would like to collaborate on.

Just under half (45%) of respondents noted that they were aware of other organisations, networks or individuals the Scottish Government should collaborate with to improve the equality evidence base (Q7). The most prevalent mentions were for sex-based campaigning groups for women although there were also references to equalities organisations, councils, networks and stakeholder groups. A wide range of other organisation types were cited by relatively small numbers of respondents.

Use of equality evidence (Qs 8-10)

Just under half (46%) of respondents claimed to often use equality evidence and just under a quarter (24%) were using equality evidence occasionally (Q8). Most of these respondents used a combination of several different sources, with the most popular data sources being Population Census data or outputs and the Scottish Household Survey. The most popular platforms were the Scottish Government EEF and the Scottish Government website. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) was cited as a key organisation providing data. A wide range of subject-specific sources were mentioned. A range of generic tools for collecting data were also cited by respondents, and there were a few mentions of academic or third sector sources.

In terms of usage of equality evidence, a key use was to shape decision-making, for strategic planning or informing policy. Some respondents reported using equality evidence in reports or for Equality Impact Assessments (EQIAs). Other uses were to ensure representation of groups, to monitor trends, for tracking and benchmarking, to improve services, assess service delivery or improve ways of working.

Online access is a popular means of accessing equality evidence. Again, the Scottish Government website was noted as a source of accessing equality evidence.

Almost two thirds (65%) of respondents said they faced barriers in using equality evidence (Q9). The most often cited difficulties were inconsistency of approach and non-standardised equality evidence, particularly regarding data collection. A minority of respondents also noted difficulties in finding the required data, information or evidence, with resource limitations also playing a part for some respondents. There were references to gaps in the equality evidence base as well as an insufficiency of disaggregated data.

When considering whether there are decisions that cannot be made because of a lack of equality evidence (Q10), views were broadly split with around a third (31%) saying decisions cannot be made because of a lack of equality evidence and around a third (34%) claiming that decisions can be made. Barriers noted by respondents included a lack of equality information which can limit intersectional analysis and disaggregated analysis.

Equality evidence collection (Q11)

Almost two thirds (61%) of respondents reported producing equality evidence sources, with a number noting they generate their own data. A range of different methods are used in collecting this data.

Half the respondents claimed their organisation faces barriers in collecting more equality evidence. These barriers include internal resource constraints, problems with the disclosure of sensitive information, insufficient sample numbers and a lack of consistency and coherence within a fragmented data landscape.

Introduction

Background

The Equality Evidence Strategy 2017-2021 set out the Scottish Government's vision that "Scotland's equality evidence becomes more wide-ranging and robust, enabling national and local policy makers to develop sound, inclusive policy and measure the impact on all of Scotland's equality groups".

Listed authorities have responsibilities under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) as set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and all organisations should consider what information is needed when designing and undertaking any form of equality data collection, research and analysis to fill known evidence gaps. The Equality Evidence Strategy 2017-2021 set out a four-year plan outlining the equality evidence gaps that had been identified across partner and academic organisations and detailing a strategic approach to strengthening Scotland's equality evidence base. This noted there are a number of opportunities for data and information to be collected by public sector organisations, academic institutions, the third sector and within communities as well as a number of challenges to collecting, analysing and reporting intersectional equality data.

The publication of the next Equality Evidence Strategy 2023-2025 will mark the end of the first phase of the EDIP. This new Equality Evidence Strategy will re-examine key aspects of the 2017-2021 Strategy and be accompanied by an equality data improvement plan that sets out key milestones and priorities to filling equality evidence gaps across a range of equality variables.

The consultation

On 1 July 2022, the Scottish Government launched a consultation on a draft plan to improve and strengthen Scotland's equality evidence base. Responses received to this consultation will be used to develop the Equality Evidence Strategy 2023-2025, which will be published in March 2023. It is intended that the strategy will further enable policymakers to develop sound and inclusive policies to improve service delivery and outcomes for the people of Scotland.

The consultation ran until 7 October 2022. This asked 32 questions, of which 15 were closed inviting yes/no/don't know responses and 17 were open inviting a free text response option.

Alongside this consultation, the Scottish Government also undertook six engagement events.

Respondent profile

In total, there were 116 responses to the consultation, of which 87 were from organisations and 29 from individuals. A list of all those organisations that submitted a response to the consultation is included in Appendix 1. Respondents were assigned to groupings to allow analysis of any differences or commonalities across or within the various different types of organisations and individuals that responded. The following table provides the profile of those who responded to this consultation.

Table 1: Respondent profile
	Respondent sub-group
Equalities/advocacy groups	31
Public sector	47
Other organisations	9
Total organisations	87
Individuals	29
Total respondents	116

Methodology

Responses to the consultation were submitted using the Scottish Government consultation platform Citizen Space or by email. A small number of respondents submitted a response which did not answer the specific questions. These responses were analysed and incorporated into the report at the relevant sections.

All responses were downloaded into an excel database which formed the basis for analysis of responses.

Those attending stakeholder events represented the range of equality characteristics covered by the strategy. The questions posed at these events did not follow the structure of the consultation questions but focused on how to improve access to equality evidence, how to improve the use of equality evidence and the vision for equality data improvement by 2025. Mural boards from each event were provided to the researchers and the findings were included in analysis at the relevant questions. By and large, the same issues were raised in responses to the consultation and at consultation events. Where different issues were raised at the stakeholder events, these are highlighted in this report.

It should be borne in mind that the number responding at each question is not always the same as the number presented in the respondent group table. This is because not all respondents addressed all questions. This report indicates the number of respondents who commented at each question. When referring to respondents who made particular comments, the terms 'a small number', 'a few' and so on have been used. While the analysis was qualitative in nature, with the consultation containing only a limited number of quantifiable questions, as a very general rule of thumb it can be assumed that:

'a small number' indicates up to 5 respondents
'a few indicates around 6-9 respondents
'a small minority' indicates around more than 9 respondents but less than 10%
'a significant minority' indicates between around 10-24% of respondents
'a large minority' indicates more than a quarter of respondents but less than half
'a majority' indicates more than 50% of those who commented at any question

Some of the consultation questions were composed of closed tick-boxes with specific options to choose from. Where respondents did not follow the questions but mentioned clearly within their text that they supported one of the options, these have been included in the relevant counts.

The researchers examined all comments made by respondents and noted the range of issues mentioned in responses, including reasons for opinions, specific examples or explanations, alternative suggestions or other comments. Grouping these issues together into similar themes allowed the researchers to identify whether any particular theme was specific to any particular respondent group or groups. Where any specific sub-group(s) held a particular viewpoint, this is commented on at each relevant question.

When considering group differences, however, it must also be recognised that where a specific opinion has been identified in relation to a particular group or groups, this does not indicate that other groups did not share this opinion, but rather that they simply did not comment on that particular point.

While the consultation gave all who wished to comment an opportunity to do so, given the self-selecting nature of this type of exercise, any figures quoted here cannot be extrapolated to a wider population outwith the respondent sample.

The Vision

The consultation paper noted that the Scottish Government had set out the vision in the Equality Evidence Strategy 2017-2021 that "Scotland's equality evidence base becomes more wide-ranging and robust, enabling national and local policymakers to develop sound, inclusive policy and measure the impact on all of Scotland's equality groups". This consultation revisited this vision and respondents were asked for their views on whether the vision should be revised for the Equality Evidence Strategy 2023-2025. The first question asked:

Q1.1: Do you think the Scottish Government should revise the vision developed in 2017?

As demonstrated in Table 2, just under half (48%) of the respondents felt that the Scottish Government should revise the vision developed in 2017 compared to just over a quarter (28%) who felt the vision did not need revising.

Table 2: Level of agreement on whether the Scottish Government should revise the vision developed in 2017
	Yes	No	Don't know	No response
Equalities/advocacy groups (31)	16 (51%)	9 (29%)	2 (6%)	4 (13%)
Public sector (47)	23 (49%)	13 (28%)	3 (6%)	8 (17%)
Other organisations (9)	3 (33%)	3 (33%)	1 (11%)	2 (22%)
Total organisations (87)	42 (48%)	25 (29%)	6 (7%)	14 (16%)
Individuals (29)	14 (48%)	7 (24%)	8 (28%)	-
Total respondents (116)	56 (48%)	32 (28%)	14 (12%)	14 (12%)

All respondents who provided an answer of 'yes' to this question, were then asked to say how the Scottish Government should revise the vision. A total of 60 respondents commented.

A few respondents noted their support for various aspects of the vision, albeit some of these referred to the need to enhance the vision, for example, by ensuring that robust data is captured. There was general agreement from a few respondents of the need to have access to better evidence and data so as to make better evidence-informed decisions which in turn will lead to greater transparency and accountability. This would also help listed authorities under their commitment to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) and lead to improved outcomes for marginalised groups.

The need for a greater emphasis and understanding of intersectionality was highlighted by a significant minority of the respondents answering this question. There was a recognition of the need for robust data that can allow organisations to measure the impact on all equality groups and have high-quality disaggregated data to allow for intersectional analysis. Furthermore, there should be the ability to combine different datasets to make full use of all information gathered so that this can be used effectively to inform policy making and resource allocation.

There was a recognition that data users may need some help and guidance on how to work with data that is collected. Linked to this, there were a small number of comments that there is a need for clarity over analysis of data when it has been collected. One organisation in the equalities/advocacy sub-group noted the need for training and building capacity to understand how to work with data and how to apply this to the policy making process.

Allied to this last point, a small minority of respondents felt the vision should provide information on how data can, and should, be used. For example, an equalities/advocacy organisation felt the vision should set out expectations that any data gathered will be used to inform the work of listed authorities if they are to meet their duties under PSED. A public sector organisation suggested the vision should incorporate how policy is enacted and how those responsible for delivering public services should be making use of robust equality evidence to inform their decision-making, planning their services and understanding the impact of these services on all equality groups. Another equalities/advocacy organisation felt an explanation of how data will feed into policy would help to build trust with the Scottish public on the collection and use of equality data. As noted by a public sector organisation:

"Public bodies need to have access to better evidence/ data to make better evidence informed decision making which will lead to increased transparency and accountability. The better use of equality evidence and data will help public bodies to better perform the Public Sector Equality Duty. If achieved, this will lead to improved outcomes (experiences) for marginalised groups (including, but not limited to people with protected characteristics, there are other disadvantaged groups)."

Another key theme emerging, albeit only cited by a small minority of those answering this question, was of a need to recognise changes that impact upon data collected and how this is used. Two key examples provided by respondents were of the need to take into account the impact of COVID-19 and the equality issues it raised as well as considering the context and opportunity of pandemic recovery; and the current cost of living crisis which is perceived to be impacting on large numbers of people across Scotland. For example, one organisation noted that the impacts of COVID-19 and the cost of living crisis have altered Scotland's data collection requirements and there is now a need for consistency in data collection to reflect changes in society. A public sector organisation noted that any plans need to evolve over time to reflect the changing data and informational needs of organisations.

A need to align with other policies was highlighted by a small minority of respondents. This included a closer alignment between the Equality Evidence Strategy 2023-2025 and the Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan 2022-26. Other references included the need to review the vision and ensure it is aligned and integrated with other Scottish Government areas such as Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), the forthcoming Equality and Human Rights Mainstreaming Strategy, the Programme for Government and the National Performance Framework. It was felt this alignment would demonstrate part of a wider strategy for embedding equality, inclusion and human rights across the public sector as a whole.

While respondents on the whole were supportive of the vision, there were suggestions from a small minority of the need for outcomes, actions and monitoring to ensure that the vision is being adopted by all relevant organisations. There were comments that there is a need to refer to measurement and understanding of the impact on equality groups so as to measure progress of the revised vision and ensure it is having the required impact.

A significant minority of respondents commented on the terminology used. Many of these respondents focused on the need for greater clarity about the terms 'sex' and 'gender' and what is meant by each, with some noting a preference for data on 'biological sex'. A public sector organisation noted that the vision needs to be jargon-free.

In revising this vision, there were a few requests for consultation and engagement with stakeholder organisations so as to gather a wider understanding of what changes are needed to ensure all people receive equal access to services and that these services are designed to meet the needs of service users in line with equality variables.

Other comments made by small numbers of respondents included:

a request for recognition of socio-economic disadvantage, given its links with protected groups
there is no mention of single parents in the vision which will lead to evidence gaps that are fundamental to achieving the Scottish Government's own child poverty targets
the existing PSED to gather and use employee data is not delivering on its intended outcome
the standard of EQIAs across local authorities and public bodies is very mixed
a clear funding strategy should accompany any requests for more data collection
a need to be more ambitious in the vision

Proposed actions

The consultation paper set out a number of actions identified by the Scottish Government and National Records of Scotland (NRS) across a number of key themes. It noted that these actions cover improvements to the data on a range of equality variables, including all nine of the protected characteristics. These improvements are set within a timeframe until the end of 2025.

The consultation paper highlighted various datasets that are currently used across a range of analytical areas within the Scottish Government including: education; justice; social security; poverty; equality; housing and homelessness; health and social care; transport; local government; labour market and the economy; constitution, international and migration; rural and environment; plus NRS. For each dataset, actions were outlined that are required to fill data gaps that have been identified, along with a timeline and the equality variables that will be covered by each dataset. Question 2 asked:

Q2.1: To what extent do you think that the proposed actions would adequately deliver on our ambition for a robust and wide-ranging equality evidence base?

As shown in Table 3, just under two-thirds of respondents (59%) thought the proposed actions would adequately deliver on the ambition for a robust and wide-ranging quality evidence base to a partial extent. Only a small number believed these actions would deliver fully. Just under one in five (16%), almost all of them individuals, believed the proposed actions would not deliver at all on the ambition for a robust and wide-ranging equality evidence base.

Table 3: Extent to which the proposed actions would adequately deliver on the ambition for a robust and wide-ranging equality evidence base
	Fully	Partially	Not at all	Don't know	No response
Equalities/advocacy groups (31)	1 (3%)	17 (55%)	2 (6%)	4 (13%)	7 (23%)
Public sector (47)	3 (6%)	31 (66%)	-	7 (15%)	6 (13%)
Other organisations (9)	-	8 (89%)	-	-	1 (11%)
Total organisations (87)	4 (5%)	56 (64%)	2 (2%)	11 (13%)	14 (16%)
Individuals (29)	-	13 (45%)	16 (55%)	-	-
Total respondents (116)	4 (3%)	69 (59%)	18 (16%)	11 (9%)	14 (12%)

Respondents were then asked to provide reasons for their answer and a total of 93 respondents did so. The largest numbers – a large minority overall mainly consisting of public sector and equalities/advocacy organisations – pointed out perceived gaps in the evidence base among the proposed actions. A wide variety of instances were given, each by single or very small numbers of respondents, including:

more data usage from pre-hospital and ambulance service sources
improved data collection on ethnicity, with comments that the Equality Act 2010 includes the need to monitor outcomes by colour and nationality (i.e. not solely using colour-coded categories) or national origins
more data relating to the work of different types of public sector bodies such as museums and galleries
more localised data regarding regional or remoter geographical areas
a requirement for adult social care and social work indicators regarding development of the national care service and the social security system
more data from the education sector (e.g. on sexual orientation as well as transgender identity)
a linkage between hospital Medical Records and GP records
improved data relating to those living in poverty (e.g. for single mother families, by gender identity, better collection of income data for identifying those in poverty, employment structure in minority ethnic households)
more nuanced older age/65+ age categories

In addition, a small number of respondents advocated for the inclusion of other specific datasets including the Pupil Census, the Early Learning and Childcare Census, Scottish Children's Reporter Administration statistics and the Scottish Health Survey, without specifying actions for which they should be used.

A large minority of respondents expressed a desire to improve the equality evidence base generally, citing the collection and completeness of data within the actions as being limited in scope. There were requests for more disaggregated statistics, intersectional data, and greater amounts of data on all the protected characteristic groups to give a more detailed picture. Recommendations were also made to join together datasets to give added evidential value as opposed to using compartmentalised data. A few respondents advocated for a strategic approach to evidence improvements, such as having a clear rationale or focus on the optimal usage of statistics towards areas where the data can have the greatest impacts on decision-making, given limited resource availability. One example is given below:

"For instance, under looked after children (LAC) there is a proposal to collect improved data on disability but it is unclear if this is in relation to the parents of LAC or if it is in relation to the children who are looked after and therefore the purpose and use of the data is unclear. If it is in relation to parents is the purpose to be able to see if there is any impact on how parents disabilities are viewed by social workers and how it is taken into account in the decisions they make. Providing a clearer rationale will work to build data use, rather than just data collection, into the system." (Equalities/Advocacy)

Similar numbers of respondents did, however, comment positively on the actions, welcoming them as a step in the right direction as well as remarking positively about the increased availability of equality datasets. A few respondents saw the actions as broad and providing adequate coverage of a wide range of areas.

Guidance on the collection, procurement, handling, analysis and representation of data was requested by a significant minority. Common standards and data harmonisation were suggested to help ensure consistency of reporting, along with a human rights-based approach with attention to General Data Protection Regulation(GDPR) duties and accountability and transparency of activities.

Issues were raised by a significant minority regarding the robustness of evidence caused by small sample sizes in relation to some of the protected characteristics, in particular ethnicity and trans status data. Associated problems included data protection requirements regarding the identification of individuals and insufficient data being available to provide quantifiably analysable results. A need for increased sample sizes was advocated, with two organisations considering combining data from different years in order to get a robust sample.

A significant minority raised other concerns about the quality of datasets. Mention was made of difficulties obtaining equality data in areas such as justice, social security and poverty, as well as problems with data collection for the Population Census and a perceived lack of validation checks on data entry generally; prompts about missing data were put forward as a solution for the latter. Most concerns were over 'missing' sensitive equality-related data skewing the analysis. Members of the public were seen to be reluctant to provide such information, with work needed to encourage them to provide this data by persuading them of the benefits of doing so.

A few organisations thought there should be a role for qualitative data, citing the usefulness of lived experience as part of the equality evidence base.

A significant minority, mostly individual respondents, centred their answers on confusion and concerns over the definitions of sex and gender. The language used in the actions was regarded as being confused and unclear, with discrepancies in the use of the terms between the different actions, particularly over which of these is a protected characteristic (sex). It was also affirmed that sex and gender should be two discrete characteristics, and that the actions should distinguish sex as biologically defined. Further concerns were voiced by a small minority perceiving that sex and gender definitions impacted negatively on women, allied to a lack of attention being paid to women regarding equality issues, in particular safety and the protection of women's spaces.

Concerns over statistics and policies regarding transgender people were also mentioned by a significant minority (mainly individuals). These respondents noted that a clear definition was needed, that this wasn't an equality variable listed as a protected characteristic under some actions, that there was a need to ask for information on both sex and gender, that there was a lack of evidence was available on the EEF and that biological health needs must not be based on self-identification of gender.

A few respondents mentioned other issues with terminology, citing examples with accuracy, the erratic use of terms and incoherent terms used for the nine protected characteristics (e.g. conflation of race and ethnicity).

Further points were made by small or very small numbers of respondents as follows:

a need to widen the scope of the range of characteristics under consideration in the actions beyond the equality characteristics already covered (extra categories suggested included neurodivergence, care experience and single parents)
a need to find out more about the proposed actions (e.g. through further engagement)
negative comments generally about the actions doing more harm than good or there being too much focus on the diversity agenda

Question 3 then asked respondents:

Q3.1: From your perspective, what are the most important actions outlined in the draft improvement plan? Please select up to five.

A number of respondents noted difficulties in choosing up to five specific actions, with some noting that all actions were important or worthwhile. Often, the actions chosen by respondents reflected the sector in which they operate. The following table outlines the number of respondents choosing each of the actions. As this demonstrates, the actions cited by the highest numbers of respondents were:

Action 33 (Scotland's Census 2022) (cited by 25% of respondents)
Action 15 (Scotland's Gender Equality Index) (21% of respondents)
Action 16 (Scottish Social Attitudes Survey (SSAS) – Attitudes to Discrimination Model) and Action 1 (Looked after children); each of which was cited by more than 20 respondents (both mentioned by 18%).

Table 4: Actions perceived to be the most important
	Number choosing each action
Action 33 (NRS – Scotland's Census 2022)	29 (25%)
Action 15 (Equality – Scotland's Gender Equality Index)	24 (21%)
Action 1 (Education – Looked after children)	21 (18%)
Action 16 (Equality – Scottish Social Attitudes Survey (SSAS) – Attitudes to Discrimination module)	21 (18%)
Action 13 (Poverty – various)	18 (16%)
Action 3 (Education – Growing Up in Scotland)	15 (13%)
Action 12 (Poverty – Family Resources Survey (FRS): Food security data	15 (13%)
Action 19 (Health and Social Care – Health and Care Experience Survey)	14 (12%)
Action 21 (Health and Social Care – various data relating to women's health)	14 (12%)
Action 2 (Education – Child protection)	13 (11%)
Action 28 (Labour Market and the Economy – ONS Annual Population Survey (APS)	13 (11%)
Action 5 (Justice – various)	10 (9%)
Action 14 (Equality – ONS Time Use Survey (OTUS))	11 (9%)
Action 17 (Housing and Homelessness – Homelessness data collections HL1 and PREVENT1)	10 (9%)
Action 18 (Housing and Homelessness – Scotland's Census 2022 equality results: housing analysis)	11 (9%)
Action 4 (Justice – various)	8 (7%)
Action 10 (Social Security – Social Security Scotland Client Survey)	8 (7%)
Action 11 (Social Security – Scottish Welfare Fund)	8 (7%)
Action 6 (Justice – Scottish Crime and Justice Survey (SCJS))	7 (6%)
Action 9 (Social Security – Social Security official statistics)	7 (6%)
Action 7 (Justice – various)	6 (5%)
Action 24 (Health and Social Care – Mental Health Inpatients Census (MHIC))	6 (5%)
Action 25 (Transport – Scottish Household Survey (SHS) Transport Components)	6 (5%)
Action 23 (Health and Social Care – Core Dataset for Tier 2 and Tier 3 Weight Management Services for Children/Young People and Adults in Scotland)	4 (3%)
Action 8 (Justice – Police Scotland Homicide data)	3 (3%)
Action 22 (Health and Social Care – Primary Care (General Practice Workforce Survey Scotland))	3 (3%)
Action 27 (Local Government – Scottish Household Survey (SHS) – Trust in Public Organisations – National Performance Framework Indicator)	3 (3%)
Action 31 (Constitution, International and Migration – Diversity in Political Representation in Scotland: Data Improvement Project)	3 (3%)
Action 35 (NRS – Small Area Statistics)	3 (3%)
Action 20 (Health and Social Care – Primary Care Out of Hours Workforce Survey)	2 (2%)
Action 26 (Transport – STATS 19 – Reported Road Casualties)	2 (2%)
Action 29 (Constitution, International and Migration – Scottish Household Survey (SHS) – Importance of Voting in Local Elections questions)	2 (2%)
Action 30 (Constitution, International and Migration – Scottish Social Attitudes Survey: Attitudes to Government and Political Engagement)	1 (1%)
Action 32 (Rural and Environment – June Agricultural Census)	1 (1%)
Action 34 (NRS – Vital Events – Deaths)	1 (1%)

Regardless of which actions were chosen by respondents, similar comments were made for each. These included:

the action will help to provide robust evidence or more equality data
it can help to inform interventions early on and inform work with partners to deliver programmes aimed at providing better opportunities
there is a need for more consistency in the way some protected characteristic data is collected
there is a need for intersectional data
there is a general need for granular/disaggregated data
various groups with protected characteristics are underrepresented
the specified action(s) ties in with corporate priorities or equalities outcomes.
the action is a priority indicator for inequalities
there is a need for more equality data

Of the 14 respondents who did not select any of the actions outlined, the key comment was that it was not possible to prioritise any of these given that they cover a wide range of important issues. There were a small number of general comments that there is a general lack of equality data in Scotland and that more needs to be done to try to improve the data robustness of equality evidence across all actions.

Having ascertained which of the actions were considered to be most important, the next question asked:

Q4.1: Are there any proposed actions that you think should be revised?

As shown in Table 5, just over half (51%) the respondents felt that any of the proposed actions should be revised compared to less than a quarter (18%) who felt no revisions were needed.

Table 5: Whether there are any proposed actions that should be revised
	Yes	No	Don't know	No response
Equalities/advocacy groups (31)	16 (52%)	3 (10%)	3 (10%)	9 (29%)
Public sector (47)	12 (26%)	16 (34%)	9 (19%)	10 (21%)
Other organisations (9)	5 (56%)	1 (11%)	1 (11%)	2 (22%)
Total organisations (87)	33 (38%)	20 (23%)	13 (15%)	21 (24%)
Individuals (29)	26 (90%)	1 (3%)	1 (3%)	1 (3%)
Total respondents	59 (51%)	21 (18%)	14 (12%)	22 (19%)

All those respondents who answered 'yes' to Q4.1 were then asked to say which actions they felt needed to be revised. Some of these respondents provided general comments although some referred to specific actions. The actions with the highest numbers of respondents suggesting a need for revisions were Action 33 (cited by 25% of respondents), Action 15 (21%), Action 16 (18%), Action 13 (16%), Actions 3 and 12 (both 13%), Actions 19 and 21 (12%), and Actions 28 and 2 (11%).

Key themes across all actions

A number of key themes emerged across all these actions.

There was agreement of an overall need for more complete data to be collected on all priority groups across all datasets, to obtain larger sample sizes and a commitment to producing this analysis as standard. This includes full data across all equality characteristics to ensure there is access to support for all people. There were also some requests for equality data to be provided at more localised geographies, including local authority level and regional and local levels; or for a capacity to be able to add socio-economic filters to different datasets, albeit there were also acknowledgements of the difficulties of obtaining robust data across a number of the protected characteristics because of small sample sizes. A small number of respondents also suggested it would be useful to collect data on other characteristics such as neurodivergence or care experience.

There were also requests for consistency in the way data is collected across different datasets across Scotland. One example given was of a need for harmonised age bands or categories. A number of respondents also agreed on the need for an intersectional approach to data collection and analysis as well as having robust sample sizes that allow for the disaggregation of data.

While there was an acknowledgement of the need for robust quantitative data on which to base decision-making, there were also some calls for more qualitative data as this can enhance understanding of the issues impacting upon specific groups of people. There were also a small number of suggestions of the need to ensure all data collected is accessible to users and for training or guidance to be provided on how to work with, use, analyse and interpret data.

Some organisations also noted the need for a commitment to co-design and co-production work, rather than just engagement and consultation, as lived experience can provide data collectors with valuable information in terms of question development.

Other points raised throughout responses included requests to replace 'gender' with 'sex' or 'sex/gender' with 'sex'; and to remove the terms 'trans status' and 'transgender identity' as they are not protected characteristics and to replace them with 'gender reassignment'.

The following paragraphs provide comments on each of the specific actions.

Education

This incorporates Actions 1-3, which are Looked after children, Child protection and Growing Up in Scotland (GUS).