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
- To inform the review of ethnicity response options in the harmonised standard, we analysed ‘write-in’ responses from a range of UK data sources.
- “European” and “Polish” are the most frequent write-in responses at “Other” categories.
- These findings will be considered alongside a public consultation launching in Autumn 2025 to assess the strength of user need for new tick boxes.
There is no single definition of ethnicity. It is a multifaceted and subjective concept. To produce meaningful statistics, it is common for broad ethnic groups to be offered as response categories. People are then asked to decide which broader ethnic group aligns best with how they would identify themselves.
There are various ways of defining ethnic groups. Many different approaches have been used over time. These include measuring ethnicity using criteria such as:
- where you were born
- heritage — culture and ways of living passed on from past generations
- culture — including celebrations, food, values, style, and other elements
- national identity — affiliations and connections with a country or nation
- religion — whether you are practising or brought up in a specific religion
- skin colour
- language
A person’s ethnicity is not a static concept. Ideas about what makes an ethnic group may change according to the context of social and political attitudes or developments. People can choose how they define themselves when they are answering questions about ethnicity. Their answer might differ if they are asked the same question at different times or in different situations. It may also change if they are asked about their ethnicity for different purposes, or by different people. How someone chooses to identify can also change over their lifetime.
'Write-in' responses
To inform the review of ethnicity response options in the current harmonised standard, we analysed ‘write-in’ responses from a range of UK data sources. This review aimed to:
- assess user need for new tick boxes identified from our previous work
- explore additional needs not previously raised
- understand how write-in responses are used across different contexts and collection modes
In this publication, we summarise the key methods and share the findings that inform potential updates to the harmonised ethnicity standard. More detail on the methods can be found in our earlier publication, “update on the review of the ethnicity harmonised standard: additional work to explore potential new response options“.
Findings from the write-in response review will be considered alongside evidence gathered through public consultation. This combined approach allows for a more comprehensive understanding of community perspectives and emerging identity trends. At this stage, no decisions will be made regarding the inclusion of specific tick-box response options. The current focus remains on gathering and analysing evidence, with any future changes subject to further consultation, policy review, and alignment with harmonised standards to ensure transparency and robustness.
Data sources were selected based on the availability of write-in responses, their alignment with the harmonised standard, and the data collectors’ ability to share aggregated outputs. This approach ensured that our findings reflected how respondents identified themselves within the “Other” category, using an option list that mirrored the current harmonised standard. The review includes data from censuses and surveys across all four UK nations, covering domains such as health, crime and living standards and across different collection modes (online, face to face, and telephone).
We were unable to include administrative data sources in this review due to limitations in how these systems collect and process write-in responses. This means that some ethnic groups may be underrepresented in our findings. Additionally, the absence of administrative data highlights a limitation in the comprehensiveness of available datasets.
Reducing the use of “Other” remains a key priority for the review of the ethnicity harmonised standard, to ensure more accurate and representative ethnic group data. At the same time, we recognise the importance of avoiding unintended consequences, such as creating too many narrowly defined categories that could reduce data quality or make analysis more difficult. These considerations will be explored further through testing and consultation.
Included sources:
- Census 2021 for England and Wales
- Scotland’s Census 2022
- Northern Ireland’s Census 2021
- Transformed Labour Force Survey, Great Britain
- Labour Market Survey, Northern Ireland
- Family Resources Survey, United Kingdom
- National Survey for Wales
- National Travel Survey, England
- Living Costs and Food Survey, United Kingdom
Additional insights were provided by Understanding Society and other contributors unable to share frequency counts. The review was conducted in collaboration with data owners.
Where a write-in response aligned with an existing category in the current harmonised standard, it was excluded from the analysis. For example, Northern Ireland’s Census 2021 does not include a tick box for “Pakistani”. However, as this is a response option in the existing harmonised standard, write-ins for this group were excluded.
The tables in this section present the top 15 ethnic groups identified across the data sources included in this review. The data presented do not reflect raw write-in responses, but rather grouped and indexed categories derived from them. All responses were cleaned prior to analysis, and categories such as “Hispanic or Latin American” or “European unspecified” reflect how write-ins were processed and reported in the datasets. Each table presents ethnic groups in descending order of frequency.
With the exception of the Family Resources Survey and the census data, all other data provided spanned multiple collection periods. In these cases, write-in responses were combined to produce a single ranked list for each dataset.
The ethnic group questions asked in Scotland’s Census 2022 and Northern Ireland’s Census 2021 each included tick-box options that are not routinely collected in other parts of the UK. These tick-boxes were reviewed and considered during the analysis of the final weighted results.
- Scotland’s Census 2022 — “White: Polish” was selected by 90,736 respondents
- Northern Ireland’s Census 2021 — “Filipino” was selected by 4,449 respondents
While alignment with the harmonised standards was a key consideration for this review, not all data sources included in the analysis fully conformed to them. In some cases, responses written under “Other” aligned with existing categories in the harmonised standard. These were excluded from the analysis to avoid duplication and maintain consistency.
For example, Northern Ireland’s Census 2021 did not include tick box options for certain ethnic groups that are already specified in the harmonised standard and collected in other parts of the UK. Where write-in responses matched these standard categories, they were excluded from the analysis. The most frequently reported ethnic groups from write-in responses in Northern Ireland’s Census 2021 were:
- “Arab”, selected by 1,817 respondents
- “Pakistani”, selected by 1,599 respondents
First to fifth positions of ethnic groups collected from write-in responses across datasets
| Dataset | First position | Second position | Third position | Fourth position | Fifth position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Census 2021 for England and Wales | European | Polish | Romanian | Nigerian | Filipino |
| Scotland's Census 2022 | Western European | Eastern European | Nigerian | Mixed European, European unspecified | Baltic States |
| Northern Ireland's Census 2021 | Black and White | White Chinese | Timorese or East Timorese | Hispanic or Latin American | White Indian |
| Transformed Labour Force Survey | European | Polish | Italian | Filipino | Romanian |
| Labour Market Survey, Northern Ireland | Hispanic or Latin American | Timorese or East Timorese | [all other counts below 5] | ||
| Family Resources Survey, England and Wales | Polish | European | Romanian | Italian | Sri Lankan |
| Family Resources Survey, Scotland | European | Italian | Romanian | American | Lithuanian |
| Family Resources Survey, Northern Ireland | Filipino | Romanian | [all other counts below 5] | ||
| National Survey for Wales | Polish | European | Filipino | Italian | Romanian |
| National Travel Survey | European | Polish | Romanian | Sri Lankan | Italian |
| Living Costs and Food Survey | Polish | European | Romanian | Italian | Turkish |
Sixth to tenth positions of ethnic groups collected from write-in responses across datasets
| Dataset | Sixth position | Seventh position | Eighth position | Ninth position | Tenth position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Census 2021 for England and Wales | Eastern European | Somali | Sri Lankan | Italian | Hispanic or Latin American |
| Scotland's Census 2022 | North American | Italian | South African | Greek | Filipino |
| Northern Ireland's Census 2021 | Thai | Nepali | Turkish | Iranian | White and Filipino |
| Transformed Labour Force Survey | Sri Lankan | German | Eastern European | South African | Spanish |
| Family Resources Survey, England and Wales | Filipino | Portuguese | Lithuanian | American | South African |
| Family Resources Survey, Scotland | Latvian | Spanish | South African | Bulgarian | Dutch |
| National Survey for Wales | German | Lithuanian | French | Greek | Portuguese |
| National Travel Survey | Filipino | Afghan | Bulgarian | American | Portuguese |
| Living Costs and Food Survey | Filipino | French | Spanish | Sri Lankan | Iranian |
Eleventh to fifteenth positions of ethnic groups collected from write-in responses across datasets
| Dataset | Eleventh position | Twelfth position | Thirteenth position | Fourteeth position | Fifteenth position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Census 2021 for England and Wales | Turkish | Afghan | Ghanaian | Iranian | Portuguese |
| Scotland's Census 2022 | Commonwealth of (Russian) Independent States | Australian or New Zealander | English | Ghanian | Hispanic or Latin American |
| Northern Ireland's Census 2021 | Kurdish | Muslim | North African | Bulgarian | Irish Indian |
| Transformed Labour Force Survey | French | American | Portuguese | Nepalese | Greek |
| Family Resources Survey, England and Wales | Spanish | Turkish | Bulgarian | French | German |
| Family Resources Survey, Scotland | Filipino | French | German | Greek | Australian |
| National Survey for Wales | American | Bulgarian | Hungarian | South African | Spanish |
| National Travel Survey | South African | British | Turkish | French | German |
| Living Costs and Food Survey | Portuguese | South African | Hungarian | Greek | Afghan |
Findings
The two most frequent write-in responses across the data sources were:
- “European”
- “Polish”
In all but one of the datasets reviewed, there was a noticeable drop in frequency after the first or second ethnic group entered under the “Other” response options. This pattern suggests that, compared to the top two entries, subsequent responses are less common and may reflect lower levels of respondent need or demand.
We reviewed the top five most frequent write-in responses across the 11 data sources:
- “European” appeared in the top five across eight datasets
- “Romanian” appeared in the top five across eight datasets
- “Italian” and “Polish” were in the top five in six data sets
- “Filipino” appeared in the top five in four data sets
- “Hispanic or Latin American”, “Nigerian”, “Sri Lankan”, “Timorese or East Timorese” appeared in the top five in two data sets
Write-in responses that only appeared in the top five in one data set were:
- “American” and “Lithuanian” — Family Resources Survey, Scotland
- “Baltic States”, “Eastern European”, and “Western European” — Scotland’s Census 2022
- “Black and White” — Northern Ireland’s Census 2021
- “Turkish” — Living Costs and Food Survey
To reflect both the frequency and distribution of ethnic group write-ins across data sources, we applied a weighting system based on each group’s ranking among the top five most frequent responses at each source. While this method highlights which groups appeared most often and most prominently, it is important to interpret these rankings in the context of actual response volumes. The top ranked write-in, appearing in first position, received the highest weight to reflect its relative prominence. For example, if “European” appeared in the first position in a data set, it would receive a higher score than if it appeared fifth. This approach helped prioritise responses that appeared consistently and prominently across multiple sources. This weighting system was designed to reflect both frequency and prominence, but it should not be viewed as a definitive measure of user need. It is just one of several factors that will inform decisions about which additional response options may be included in the revised ethnicity harmonised standard, alongside evidence gathered from public consultation.
The top five weighted scores for write-in responses were:
- “European” – 34
- “Polish” – 27
- “Romanian” – 21
- “Italian” – 14
- “Filipino” – 11
Scores dropped for all other write-in responses, which received a score of 5 or below, except for Hispanic or Latin American and Timorese and East Timorese, which both scored 7.
This table shows how often specific ethnic groups appeared in the top five write-in responses under the “Other” categories across datasets. For example, “European” was the most common write-in across four datasets, appeared second across three, and fourth in one.
Distribution of ethnic group write-in responses by rank position, first to fifth, across datasets
| Ethnic group write-in | First position | Second position | Third position | Fourth position | Fifth position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| European* | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Polish | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Romanian | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 2 |
| Italian | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| Filipino | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Hispanic or Latin American | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Timorese or East Timorese | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Nigerian | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Western European | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Black and White | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Eastern European | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| White Chinese | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sri Lankan | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| American | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Turkish | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Lithuanian | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Baltic States | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| White Indian | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
* “European” here includes the ethnic group of “Mixed European, European Unspecified” from Scotland’s Census 2022.
To reflect both how often and how prominently ethnic groups appeared in the “Other” write-in responses, we applied a simple weighting system.
Each group received a score based on its position in the top five responses within each dataset:
- First position = 5 points
- Second position = 4 points
- Third position = 3 points
- Fourth position = 2 points
- Fifth position = 1 point
This approach helped us prioritise groups that appeared frequently and consistently near the top across the data sets.
For example, “European” appeared:
- 4 times in first position → 4 × 5 = 20
- 3 times in second position → 3 × 4 = 12
- 1 time in fourth position → 1 × 2 = 2
Total weighted score = 34
Unweighted and weighted totals of ethnic group write-in responses across datasets
| Ethnic group write-in | Unweighted total | Weighted total |
|---|---|---|
| European* | 8 | 34 |
| Polish | 6 | 27 |
| Romanian | 8 | 21 |
| Italian | 6 | 14 |
| Filipino | 4 | 11 |
| Hispanic or Latin American | 2 | 7 |
| Timorese or East Timorese | 2 | 7 |
| Nigerian | 2 | 5 |
| Western European | 1 | 5 |
| Black and White | 1 | 5 |
| Eastern European | 1 | 4 |
| White Chinese | 1 | 4 |
| Sri Lankan | 2 | 3 |
| American | 1 | 2 |
| Turkish | 1 | 1 |
| Lithuanian | 1 | 1 |
| Baltic States | 1 | 1 |
| White Indian | 1 | 1 |
* “European” here includes the ethnic group of “Mixed European, European Unspecified” from Scotland’s Census 2022.
Discussion
As well as “European” being reported commonly across multiple datasets, the other most frequent write-in responses across data sets were specific European countries. Many of these countries could be captured under a “European” tick box category. “Polish” and “Filipino” were included as tick boxes in the most recent censuses in Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively. As we consider updates to the harmonised standard, we will review tick boxes used across all recent UK censuses to ensure the revised question reflects the diversity of the UK population. In doing so, we will also consider the importance of representing smaller ethnic groups that may not appear frequently in write-in responses but have distinct need to be visible in data. This UK-wide approach supports the anticipated adoption of the revised standard across all nations, and we are working closely with devolved governments to inform this process.
There is strong evidence that a “European” tick box may help better reflect how some respondents identify. However, decisions about new tick boxes will also consider how the data are used and the needs of different communities.
Given the prominence of “Polish” write-in responses and its inclusion as a tick box in Scotland’s Census 2022, we are considering how a “Polish” tick-box might interact with a broader “European” category, should both be included in future response options. At this stage, no decisions have been made regarding the inclusion of specific tick boxes.
What happens next
For further information on our broader research to update the harmonised standard for ethnicity, see our publication: overview of our redesign research to date. This report summarises proposed changes to the question, based on insights from our previous work (phase 1 and phase 2). As we move into the next phase of the review, we will continue to refine the new standard by continued research, testing, and engagement.
To support this work, we will launch a public consultation in autumn 2025 to gather views on proposed response options and assess the strength of user need across different communities. If you would like to register your interest in participating, please contact us at Harmonisation@statistics.gov.uk.
Findings from the write-in response review will be considered alongside evidence gathered through the consultation. While write-in responses highlight strong demand for additional tick-boxes, the consultation will provide broader insight into user needs, particularly around the monitoring of smaller ethnic groups to support policy development and service delivery.
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.