Review of the ethnicity harmonised standard: evaluation criteria that will be used for additional response options in the new standard

About the GSS harmonisation team

The Government Statistical Service (GSS) Harmonisation team is based in the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The team:

• is responsible for creating and embedding the UK Government’s ‘harmonised standards’ for all topics
• supports the harmonisation of data across the UK

Our work involves providing bespoke advice and harmonised standards and guidance about how data on different topic areas should be collected and presented to help support statistical producers. The Code of Practice for Statistics recommends the use of harmonised standards to organisations that produce official statistics but they are not mandated. Others may also choose to use these standards where they help the consistency, comparability and coherence of data and statistics.

Statistical producers can use the harmonised standards as a starting point in their data collection processes. The standards are designed to promote alignment across organisations, not to enforce identical approaches. Because of this flexibility, they can be adapted to suit specific needs or contexts, including the use of administrative data sources for research. By applying harmonised standards, statistical producers can:

• work in greater alignment with others
• increase the usefulness of their statistics
• meet the Code of Practice for Statistics‘ cross cutting theme of coherence

Harmonised standards also allow people to effectively and accurately compare data that has been collected across different datasets, including primary research data and the secondary use of administrative data for research purposes. This means we can more easily understand what those data do, and do not, tell us. This ensures that statistics are being used to their full effect for the public good. This work aligns with the 2021 report of the independent Inclusive Data Taskforce (IDTF), which recommended regular reviews of harmonised standards for relevant groups and populations, such as those with protected characteristics. Specifically, it aligns with the IDTF’s recommendations around ensuring people can recognise themselves and their circumstances in the UK’s data collection tools and processes.

Main points

This publication:

• sets out the evaluation criteria to be used in the consultation on user needs for additional response options in a future ethnicity standard, focusing on alignment with purpose, respondent burden, and data usability
• explains how the evaluation will result in a candidate list of potential additional response options
• explains how the candidate list derived from consultation evidence will be used alongside findings from the Write-in Review to develop a recommended list of new response options, combining nation specific consultation findings with UK wide write-in evidence
• sets out the evaluation framework and evidence that will be provided when proposing the new ethnicity question – this includes qualitative and quantitative research undertaken by the GSS Harmonisation team to demonstrate validity, acceptability, and usability

Developing a new ethnicity harmonised standard

The GSS Harmonisation team is currently updating the ethnicity harmonised standard. The aim of this update is to make it more inclusive to reflect the diversity of the UK’s population and better meet user needs. Ethnicity is one of the prioritised workstreams for the Harmonisation team, as set out in the GSS Harmonisation workplan.

Work so far

Work on a new harmonised standard has two major parts, focussing on:

• the design of the question
• the response options available to respondents

This review seeks to expand the list of response options to better reflect current user and respondent needs. However, this review also recognises that the final question design cannot capture every possible ethnic group without the use of an “Other” free text option. The benefits of adding new tick boxes must be balanced against potential drawbacks, such as:

• increased complexity
• the effects on data comparability over time
• challenges in data aggregation and output
• practical implementation constraints
• respondent burden

We have published regular updates on this work. The work to develop finalised harmonised standards for ethnicity is taking a ‘gold’ approach to Respondent Centred Design (RCD). We have set out our ‘Discovery phase’ research and engagement activities for the review of the ethnicity harmonised standard, along with our findings from that work, in two reports (Phase 1 and Phase 2). These reports identified a range of issues with the current harmonised standard and user needs for the standard. This has informed our ongoing work. In 2024 we published the methods to the review of “Other” tick-box write-in responses. In 2025, we published work from our ‘Alpha phase’ in an overview of our redesign work to date in June and the findings of a review of ‘write-in’ responses in September.

The next stage of development

A major component of the Alpha phase has been the consultation on user needs for additional response options in a future ethnicity standard. Responses collected through that consultation and parallel engagement activity will be evaluated using the criteria and steps outlined in this publication.

We will then use this information to derive a candidate list of new ethnic group tick boxes. Once this list has been created, we will consider it alongside evidence from the Write-in Review.

Reducing the use of “Other” is a major priority for the review of the ethnicity harmonised standard. This is because some groups and communities report that identifying within the “Other” category can make respondents feel marginalised or not part of the UK. Open-text box data collection can also cause a resource burden for teams working on data collection and analysis, even though write-in responses give respondents the opportunity to fully self-identify in the absence of a tick box that they feel represents them. Write-in response options are therefore not always available to respondents. However, we recognise that an “Other” option remains an important part of an inclusive ethnicity question, and it will continue to feature in the new harmonised standard. Reducing the use of “Other” needs to be considered alongside user needs for data, which have been gathered from the consultation and our engagement activities for this review.

The candidate list of ethnic groups from the consultation will be reviewed alongside the Write-in Review findings. Further testing and engagement activities will be undertaken, where needed, to understand community perspectives, user need, and the potential effects on:

• data quality
• comparability over time
• operational feasibility

The public consultation on user needs for additional response options

Our consultation on user needs for additional response options in a future ethnicity standard ran from 28 October 2025 to 4 February 2026.

The scope of the consultation was limited to additional response options, as the ongoing need for existing categories was accepted. The most up to date question designs for collecting ethnic data and the starting point for the consultation were the 2021 and 2022 Census questions:

• questions used in Census 2021 for England and Wales
• questions used in Northern Ireland’s Census 2021
• questions used in Scotland’s Census 2022

These questions were developed after reviewing and adjusting the previous harmonised standard. The questions were based on the 2011 Census questions across the UK. As Harmonisation supports UK data collection, the consultation also explores specific requests for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The evaluation criteria set out in this section are based on established approaches, including the England and Wales Census 2021 Prioritisation Tool and methods from Scotland’s Census 2022. The evaluation criteria have been reviewed by the ONS’ external Methodological Assurance Review Panel (MARP) and other stakeholders, including the National Statisticians Inclusive Data Advisory Committee (NSIDAC), devolved governments and the ONS.

High-level summary of evaluation process

The proposed approach to evaluate the need for additional response options for the new ethnicity harmonised standard focuses on three criteria. Each of the criterion will be accompanied by scoring guidance. An Ethnicity Harmonisation Review Panel will be used to assure the scoring during the evaluation of the requested tick boxes from the consultation.

The three criterion are:

1. Strength of user need
2. Lack of alternative sources
3. Acceptability, clarity, and data quality

Each criterion is designed to ensure that any additions to the standard are supported by robust evidence and will produce data that is accurate, relevant, and respondent-friendly. Scoring will be based on a rigorous assessment of the evidence submitted through the consultation alongside other relevant engagement and research.

The following process will bring together evidence across the three criteria in a structured way. This will ensure that any potential additions to the harmonised standard are both meaningful and acceptable.

Evaluation steps

Step 1

Evaluation criterion 1

Strength of user needs for information on ethnic group.

Principles

1. Strength of need for equality monitoring and policy development.
2. Strength of need for resource allocation and service delivery.

Assessment will consider the strength of user need for information on each requested ethnic group, guided by these two principles. Together, these principles ensure that the evaluation reflects both the policy and operational importance of collecting robust ethnic group data. All other needs mentioned in the consultation responses will be considered alongside these two guiding principles.

The consultation is expected to provide insights from a range of user groups across the UK, including:

• local authorities
• government departments
• devolved governments
• community groups
• academics

These groups have been actively encouraged to contribute to the consultation process, and their input will be considered as part of the broader evidence base. If the consultation has identified a need for further evidence on policy needs once community needs are evaluated, a targeted survey may be considered.

Community and respondent perspectives form an important part of the evidence base collected by this consultation. To ensure accessibility for all, evaluation against principle 1 and 2 will not require individuals to have referenced specific governmental process or policies to proceed to Step 2. Where consultation feedback shows that lived experience or disadvantage affects a group’s visibility within official decision-making or service provision, this will be treated as an expression of user need. This is to ensure that community voice is not treated as separate from this criterion but is meaningfully integrated within the two principles.

The collected evidence from the consultation will be reviewed and validated against wider evidence to assess the need for the data before scores are assigned. A score of 0 (Low), 1 (Medium) or 2 (High) will be assigned for each principle.

Scoring for principle 1 looks at evidence and the extent of disadvantage or policy interest, or both. Greater impact or interest will score higher. Evidence from communities identifying unmet need for equality monitoring, experiences of exclusion, or gaps in visibility will contribute to this assessment where relevant.

Scoring for principle 2 looks at the level of particular need or interest for service delivery, resource allocation, or both. Greater need or interest will score higher. Community views on barriers to accessing services, or on where resources are not reaching specific groups, will contribute to this assessment where relevant.

Scores will be assured by the Ethnicity Harmonisation Review Panel. Requests that score 1 or 2 on either of the principles will progress to Step 2.

To help with this review, the scores attained across both principles will be added together to support prioritisation. The highest-scoring ethnic groups will be reviewed first in Step 2.

Step 2

Evaluation criterion 2

Lack of alternative sources of information.

Principles

1.  Write-in answers are not adequate for measuring the requested ethnic group.
2. Other data collection questions are inadequate as a suitable proxy (such as country of birth, religion, or national identity) for the requested ethnic group.

Step 2 will assess how the requested ethnic group is currently reflected in the ethnicity questions and whether similar data is consistently collected through other data collection questions. If data is collected through another question it does not automatically exclude an ethnic group from being considered as part of a new ethnicity harmonised standard, particularly where there is evidence of strong data need. This assessment will be made both:

• with attention to how identity is expressed and understood across different communities
• in alignment with the next evaluation criterion on respondent acceptability

For principle 1 (write-in answers are not adequate for measuring this group), evidence will be drawn from a review of the most recent published UK census data. This will include data from the 2021 and 2022 censuses. This review will examine how the requested ethnic group appears in the data, including whether respondents use “Other” categories and which specific “Other” categories they select. For example, do respondents enter the group under consistent high-level categories such as “Asian” before specifying under “Other”?

Evidence from our Write-in Review, published in September 2025, provides insight into cases where a write-in option is frequently used by a particular group. However, this review could not identify smaller ethnic groups. This is either because of population size or because their use of response options and write-in responses is inconsistent. Evaluation of the consultation responses against the principle that write-in data is not adequate as a proxy is therefore intended to allow groups to be prioritised where there is a distinct need for data about them, and yet they do not appear frequently or consistently in write-in responses.

For principle 2 (other data collection questions are inadequate as a suitable proxy, for example country of birth, religion, or national identity), the consultation gathered feedback and sought views on alternative questions that might reflect the requested ethnic group. A review of the implementation of these questions, including cultural identity questions such as national identity and religion, will be undertaken across major GSS surveys (including those from Northern Ireland). This review will support the evaluation of evidence against principle 2, by assessing whether:

• other cultural identity questions are implemented with sufficient consistency to capture the ethnic group in question
• there is a need for a distinct response option within the ethnicity question itself

Administrative data sources will also be explored as part of this review.

To evaluate evidence on this principle for a GSS-wide recommendation it is important to consider the operation of multiple surveys. This means the review will extend beyond the questions previously used in UK censuses. The list of data collection surveys and instruments assessed for their implementation of wider cultural identity questions, as well as the findings from this work, will be shared with the Ethnicity Harmonisation Review Panel. This will inform their review of the evidence against this principle.

The collected evidence is assessed for accuracy and scored. As with Step 1, a score of 0 (Low), 1 (Medium) or 2 (High) will be assigned for each principle.

Scoring for principle 1 looks at the extent to which people are likely to write-in this response, and if they are doing so consistently. Lower and less consistent use will score higher.

Scoring for principle 2 looks at whether there are suitable proxies through which data on the group can be captured. Proxies that are less effective, or not effective at all, will score higher.

Scores assigned will be assured by the Ethnicity Harmonisation Review Panel. Requests that score 1 or higher on both principles will progress to Step 3.

To help with this review, the requested ethnic groups proceeding to Step 3 will have scores added together to support prioritisation. The highest-scoring ethnic groups will be reviewed first in Step 3.

Step 3

Evaluation criterion 3

Acceptability, clarity, and data quality.

Principle

The addition of the tick box or revised terminology is acceptable to respondents. The resulting change to the data collection standard is clear in both wording and context (for example, mutually exclusive categories), and provides the required information to an acceptable level of quality.

Requested additions will undergo further research and engagement to ensure any potential effects on communities and data comparability over time are well understood. This also includes testing tick boxes with those who should not select them. The evaluation will draw on evidence from the GSS Harmonisation ethnicity team’s question testing, alongside insights from stakeholder engagement. The final standard must be respondent-friendly and designed to collect high-quality data. New response options should not confuse or burden respondents, as this could compromise data quality. The question design must also support user needs for data comparability and be feasible to implement across data collection settings.

The collected evidence will be assessed for accuracy and assigned a status of Red, Amber or Green (known as a RAG status). A ‘Green’ score reflects evidence that:

• the tick box is clear and acceptable to respondents
• the tick box is collecting data for all those it is intended for
• there is general agreement across all parts of the community that a tick box should be included

Red scoring reflects the opposite. The tick box would be unclear or unacceptable to respondents. It may also result in poor quality data collection if respondents are confused on how to answer or feel uncomfortable selecting the new option. There would also be general agreement that it should not be included.

Assigned scores will be assured by the Ethnicity Harmonisation Review Panel based on the evidence. Requested ethnic groups attaining a Green RAG status will be prioritised for the candidate list.

Step 4: Formulating the candidate list of ethnic groups

Requested additional ethnic group response options with a Green RAG status will be prioritised by their scores from Evaluation Criteria 1 and 2. This step ensures that strong user need, for both policy and operational purposes, is considered alongside evidence of limited alternative data sources and respondent acceptability. All three criteria will be considered together to order the candidate list, ensuring any potential additions to the harmonised standard are useful for data users and acceptable to respondents. The Ethnicity Harmonisation Review Panel will oversee the application of these criteria to ensure a fair and consistent approach. Only ethnic groups that meet all three criteria will be taken forward for inclusion on the candidate list.

We reserve the right to revisit our analysis in response to any significant new evidence for user needs for particular response options. Any new evidence would be discussed with the Ethnicity Harmonisation Review Panel to determine whether further analysis is needed. This will ensure that decisions about whether to undertake any additional work are taken transparently.

The Ethnicity Harmonisation Review Panel will assure that the outcome of the evaluation of the Ethnicity Harmonisation Consultation responses has been conducted fairly, accurately, and transparently. The GSS Harmonisation team also intend to seek a review by the National Statistician’s Inclusive Data Advisory Committee reflecting the importance of the Inclusive Data Task Force’s recommendations to this work.

The Inter Administration Committee (IAC), representing the statistical services of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, will be engaged to approve the candidate list, while final sign-off will be from the National Statistician as Head of the GSS.

If, at the time of this work, there is no National Statistician or Acting National Statistician in post, a board convened by the UK Statistics Authority, empowered to act with the authority of the National Statistician, will provide final endorsement.

Finalising the list of additional ethnic groups

Once a candidate list of additional ethnic group response options has been derived from the consultation using the evaluation criteria, this list will be reviewed alongside evidence from the Write-in Review.

At this stage, both the candidate list of additional response options and the findings from the write-in review will be examined in depth using evidence from operational considerations across major GSS and UK surveys. This includes evidence from the censuses, as well as findings from additional respondent testing where relevant.

This will allow us to assess whether the addition of each proposed ethnic group response option to the harmonised standard is feasible, usable and acceptable in practice. It is also possible that proposed additional ethnic group response options may be excluded from the final recommended list at this stage. This may happen if there:

• is evidence that proposed terminology is not recognised by others within the community, or that people would not wish to be represented in that way
• are operational constraints on data collection that make inclusion unviable

This ensures that the final set of ethnic groups progressing as the final recommendation is evidence-based, acceptable to respondents, and operationally practical.

The purpose of this stage is to triangulate:

• the consultation candidate ethnic groups
• findings from the Write-in Review work
• operational considerations, such as data timeseries disruption and implementation constraints
• any additional wider user needs
• any additional evidence from further rounds of respondent testing on the candidate options

This stage will include consideration of the practical implications of proposed tick boxes, both individually and in combination with the other options presented. This includes consideration of the practicalities if the consultation evaluation and Write-in Review suggest the need for many tick boxes. For example, we will explore any cross-over and potential alignment between proposed response options, and the operational practicality of adding multiple response options. This might include considering how:

• the new harmonised standard might differentiate between modes of response
• to account for capacity to process and code written-in responses, in a way that will produce consistency and coherent outputs across modes

The triangulation of evidence may vary depending on the number of candidate ethnic groups from the consultation. For example, an ethnic group on the candidate list that also frequently appeared in the Write-in Review will have a stronger case for inclusion. Frequent appearance in write-in responses is particularly important, as it demonstrates clear respondent demand and supports the aim of reducing reliance on “Other” response options.

Any inclusion of new ethnic groups will be informed by both the consultation and the findings of the Write-in Review. While consultation responses will form the primary basis of the candidate list, Write-in Review findings serve as supplementary evidence where they indicate consistently used write-ins across collections. High use within the Write-in Review alone would not lead to automatic inclusion, and any proposals drawn from these findings would be included only where appropriate and proportionate.

All potential additions, whether from the consultation or the Write-in Review, will be weighed against wider factors such as space constraints on the question, user need, and impacts on data time series. Operational constraints will be explored through discussions with GSS survey and census teams, ensuring that any proposed additions are feasible within established data collection instruments. Further respondent testing may also be undertaken when combining consultation findings with Write-in Review evidence that may raise uncertainty about how a proposed ethnic group would function in practice. This could include evidence that adding a new ethnic group response option would risk excluding people from the community. For example, this could happen where the terminology is unclear, could lead to misrepresentation, or is not recognised or accepted by those who identify with it.

In practice, the candidate list that emerges from the consultation and Write-in Review will represent evidence of user and respondent need for change, while evidence from GSS survey and census teams represents the operational constraints within which change is possible. The final combined list will reflect the balance of these considerations.

Process for developing the final list

Recommendations for additional response options for the harmonised ethnicity standard will be informed by evidence from both the consultation and the Write-in Review. These sources will be considered together, with further testing and engagement undertaken where needed. This will help us understand community perspectives, user need, and the potential effects on data quality, comparability over time, and operational feasibility before the final standard is published.

Several steps will be taken to inform this work.

Step 1

Additional respondent testing, community engagement, or both, will be conducted if needed for a particular new ethnic group, including exploring acceptability.

Additional testing would be undertaken where combining the consultation candidate list with the Write-in Review findings raises questions about how a proposed ethnic group would function in practice. This step is particularly intended for situations where there is uncertainty about whether including a new ethnic group might affect reporting accuracy, conceptual clarity, or overall acceptability. This is both for those people who identify with the new ethnic group and those who should not select it. It serves as an extension to the consultation’s evaluation criterion 3, providing further assurance when the interaction between the Write-in Review generated ethnic groups and the consultation candidate list of ethnic groups needs deeper examination.

Step 2

A commissioned survey to policy and data users to establish further insights of need for a new ethnic group will be undertaken, if needed. A need may be expressed from a community but insufficiently addressed by data users to allow sufficient prioritisation​.

This survey would be used in cases where community voice (reflected in the consultation’s evaluation criterion 1), signals a strong perceived need for new ethnic group response options but evidence from policy and data users remains limited, unclear or inconsistent. It is also intended to help balance situations where the candidate list produces many proposals for new ethnic group response options, and the Write-in Review results may need to be explored further to justify their prioritisation. Through this survey, policy and data users can provide further insight into practical needs, helping to ensure the final recommendation remains both evidence-based and manageable.

Step 3

Exploration of implementation constraints for the number of response options.

At this stage, feasibility assessments will explore whether the full set of the combined additional ethnic group response options can realistically be included across major GSS UK-wide surveys and censuses. This is particularly relevant where paper modes or fixed-layout designs impose strict limits on the number of response options. Where a high volume of proposals for new ethnic group response options appears on the candidate list from the consultation, this review will consider the availability of space, the usability of longer lists, and any risks to data quality. The findings may show that only the highest-scoring groups can be included. They may also show that it may not be feasible to accommodate all proposals emerging from the Write-in Review and consultation candidate list if operations constraints are too restrictive.

Step 4

Round-table events with major stakeholders to review time series impacts and operational feasibility.

These round-table events will bring together major stakeholders to examine the implications of adding the proposed ethnic group response options into the harmonised standard for time-series continuity, comparability and operational practicality across the UK. All proposed new response options on the combined list will be brought to these discussions. Stakeholders will be asked to review the emerging recommendations, including where proposals may need to be rejected to preserve coherence, operational feasibility, and long-term data quality.

The final recommendation of new response options will be assured by the panels and committees used during the consultation: the Ethnicity Harmonisation Review Panel, NSIDAC, and endorsement from IAC.

If, at the time of this work, there is no National Statistician or Acting National Statistician in post, a board convened by the UK Statistics Authority, empowered to act with the authority of the National Statistician, will provide final endorsement.

What happens next

Over the coming months, we will bring together all evidence needed to support decisions on the new harmonised standard. We will publish a summary of how this will be assessed in a dedicated report. This evidence pack will be submitted to the relevant assurance boards and governance committees for review. Their endorsement will support the recommendation of a revised ethnicity harmonised standard for sign‑off. This evidence will be the final analytical step before the new standard proceeds to approval and implementation.

The Harmonisation team expects to announce the recommended list of response options for a new standard in the autumn of 2026. The fully tested online ethnicity standard will be available at the end of 2026. Following this, work on other data collection modes will begin.

The new ethnicity harmonised standard will be recommended for use by data collectors across the GSS, including teams working on the UK’s censuses in 2031. We expect census offices across the UK to consider this standard when developing their census question. We expect the relevant census question to align to this standard in England and Wales. We will continue to work closely with census teams to understand their requirements for the standard. Depending on the user needs of each UK nation, this may be delivered through a single version or a suite of harmonised questions.

Contact us

If you would like more information about the current ethnicity standard or the new standard, please contact the GSS Harmonisation team at Harmonisation@statistics.gov.uk.

Find out more about Harmonisation.