User engagement and official statistics: action guidance

Action guide for senior statistical leaders

Purpose

This guide is for senior leaders, including Heads of Profession for Statistics and lead officials. It is based on the OSR user engagement framework and public involvement and engagement toolkit. It shows ways that senior leaders can set expectations, provide leadership and create the conditions for proportionate, inclusive and transparent engagement.

This includes supporting teams to engage a broad range of people in accessible and respectful ways, go beyond familiar contacts, and involve members of the public where decisions are sensitive, high profile or likely to affect trust, representation or acceptability. The aim is to ensure official statistics meet the Code of Practice for Statistics and serve the public good.

In this guide, users are people or organisations who use, may use or rely on the statistics. Other interested stakeholders may not use the statistics directly, but have an interest in how they are collected, produced, presented or used. People or communities represented in the data may also need to be involved where their perspectives are needed.

Who this guide is for

Use this guide if you are responsible for setting organisational direction, making resourcing or prioritisation decisions, assuring statistical work, or ensuring engagement supports the public value of official statistics.

Summary of actions

1. Plan and be proportionate: set expectations, provide resources and ensure engagement is built into statistical planning and governance
2. Listen and understand: expect teams to understand users, intermediary users and people or communities represented in the data, including people whose needs may be less visible
3. Be inclusive and accessible: support teams to reach a range of perspectives and choose engagement approaches that are accessible and respectful
4. Use insight and act: use engagement evidence in prioritisation, assurance, resourcing and decisions about statistical work
5. Be open and explain: make sure teams explain what changed, what did not change and why
6. Collaborate and share learning: promote joined-up engagement across teams, professions and external partners

1. Plan and be proportionate

• Set an organisational expectation that engagement is ongoing, proportionate and embedded in statistical planning, not treated as a one-off exercise. Seek and secure senior leadership buy-in
• Prepare an organisational strategy for how user engagement and public involvement (practice 8.5 of the Code) will inform statistical priorities, developments and communication
• Ensure teams include a planned engagement approach in relevant work programmes, developments and major changes
• Provide the time, skills and support teams need to choose engagement methods that give enough evidence for the decision, sensitivity, risk, likely impact and public interest
• Ask teams to be clear from the start about the purpose of engagement, what people can influence and what is outside scope

2. Listen and understand

• Expect teams to identify users, potential users, other interested stakeholders and, where appropriate, people or communities represented in the data before important decisions are made
• Ask teams to consider who is represented in the data, who is affected by decisions informed by the statistics and whose views may be missing from existing engagement evidence
• Create a culture where challenging feedback is welcomed and used to improve understanding, rather than avoided or treated as a risk
• Encourage teams to give users and the public enough time and space to explain needs, concerns, trade-offs and practical impacts

3. Be inclusive and accessible

• Support teams to reach beyond established user groups, including under-represented groups and people whose views may be missing from existing evidence
• Encourage methods that reduce barriers to taking part, minimise consultation fatigue and support meaningful involvement
• Consider in-depth methods, such as public dialogues or panels, where decisions are sensitive, new, high profile or likely to affect public trust
• Ensure materials are clear, accessible and suitable for people with different levels of confidence using data

4. Use insight and act

• Use engagement evidence to inform work programmes, prioritisation, resourcing and decisions about starting, changing or stopping statistics
• Review whether user engagement and public involvement have been considered in governance, assurance or sign-off processes
• Ask teams to show what they heard, how it was considered and what changed as a result
• Expect teams to show how engagement evidence has been balanced with professional judgement, statistical quality, feasibility, resources and wider public interest considerations
• Ensure engagement records capture user needs, public views, decisions, constraints and actions taken

5. Be open and explain

• Set expectations that teams explain what changed, what did not change and why, including when user needs cannot be met
• Ensure teams are transparent about methodological changes, data sources, risks, limitations, constraints and trade-offs
• Support clear and proactive communication that helps users understand and use the statistics appropriately
• Recognise that public confidence depends not only on technical quality, but also on how well producers listen, respond and explain decisions

6. Collaborate and share learning

• Promote joined-up engagement across analytical, policy, operational, communications and user research functions
• Use cross-government groups, GSS communities and civil society partners to share insight, reduce duplication and broaden reach
• Encourage teams to reuse existing engagement evidence where appropriate, and to share learning so future work builds on what is already known

Questions to reflect on

• Have we set a clear organisational expectation for proportionate user engagement and public involvement?
• Can we show, through our strategy, planning or governance arrangements, how engagement evidence informs statistical priorities and decisions?
• Do teams have enough support, time and capability to engage well?
• Are teams choosing methods, or a mix of methods, that give the evidence needed and are proportionate to the decision, sensitivity, risk, likely impact and public interest?
• Can governance and sign-off processes show how engagement evidence has informed decisions?
• Are we transparent about what changed, what did not change and why?
• Are we reducing duplication and burden by joining up engagement across teams and government?
• Are we creating a culture where teams listen openly to users and the public, including when feedback is challenging?