User engagement and official statistics: action guidance

Action guide for statistics leads

Purpose

This guide is for statistics leads who manage statistical work, shape work programmes, oversee engagement activity and support analysts to apply the Code in practice. It is based on the OSR user engagement framework and public involvement and engagement toolkit. It shows practical ways to plan proportionate engagement with users and other interested stakeholders, use insight in decision making, and make engagement part of routine statistical production and development.

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 lead a statistics team or programme and need to turn organisational expectations into practical engagement plans, evidence records and transparent decisions.

Summary of actions

1. Plan and be proportionate: turn organisational expectations into practical engagement plans, evidence records and governance processes
2. Listen and understand: map users, other interested stakeholders and, where appropriate, people or communities represented in the data, and create opportunities to hear needs, concerns and challenge
3. Be inclusive and accessible: choose methods that reach a range of voices and reduce barriers to taking part
4. Use insight and act: use engagement evidence and professional judgement to shape priorities, methods, outputs and communication
5. Be open and explain: show what was heard, what changed, what did not change and why
6. Collaborate and share learning: join up engagement across teams and use existing evidence wherever possible

1. Plan and be proportionate

• Embed user engagement and public involvement into team plans, work programmes and governance structures
• Be clear about the purpose of engagement, what people can influence and what is outside scope
• Choose a proportionate approach based on the evidence needed, the decision, sensitivity, risk, likely impact and public interest
• Plan engagement early enough for users and the public to influence decisions where there is scope to do so

2. Listen and understand

• Map users, potential users, other interested stakeholders and, where appropriate, people or communities represented in the data
• Create regular opportunities for users and the public to explain needs, concerns, barriers and uses of the statistics
• Engage at key decision points, including prioritisation, methodology changes, representation, data use and usability
• Do not delay or avoid engagement because views are critical or strongly held

3. Be inclusive and accessible

• Go beyond familiar contacts by considering under-represented groups, people or communities represented in the data and people whose views may be missing from existing evidence
• Use intermediary users and partners where they can help reach wider audiences and support meaningful involvement
• Use accessible methods, clear materials and simple briefings where topics are complex
• Consider in-depth methods where decisions are sensitive, new, high profile or likely to affect public trust, representation or acceptability
• Involve specialist colleagues or partners where this would strengthen the evidence
• Minimise consultation burden, especially for communities that are often asked to contribute

4. Use insight and act

• Treat engagement insight as evidence and use it to shape priorities, methods, outputs, communication and development plans
• Balance engagement evidence with methodological, quality, feasibility, resource and public interest considerations when making recommendations or decisions
• Involve users, expert stakeholders and people or communities represented in the data in co-design, testing and evaluation, where appropriate, rather than seeking views only after proposals have been developed
• Look for patterns across feedback and identify where further targeted engagement is needed to understand reasons or possible solutions
• Keep a proportionate engagement record of user needs, public views, decisions, constraints and actions taken
• Review engagement evidence regularly and use it in governance, planning and prioritisation discussions

5. Be open and explain

• Explain what was heard, what changed, what did not change and why
• Be clear about constraints and trade-offs, including feasibility, legal requirements, comparability, burden and resources
• Publish summaries of engagement findings and actions where this supports transparency and feedback to participants
• Use plain, constructive explanations when user needs cannot be met

6. Collaborate and share learning

• Join up engagement across analytical, policy, operational, communications and user research teams
• Draw on user research specialists where targeted insight or specialist methods would improve the evidence
• Work with external partners, such as civil society, community organisations and user groups, where they can broaden reach and improve understanding
• Use relevant networks and intermediary users to help existing and potential users find statistical developments, outputs and opportunities to contribute
• Share engagement records and learning across teams so future work builds on what is already known

Questions to reflect on

• Have we built engagement into the team’s plans, governance and development work?
• Have we identified users, potential users, intermediary users and people or communities represented in the data?
• Have people been involved early enough, and given enough information, to influence, co-design or test the work where appropriate?
• Have we chosen a method, or mix of methods, that gives the evidence needed and is proportionate to the decision, sensitivity, risk, likely impact and public interest?
• Have we recorded evidence in a way that can be reviewed, shared and used?
• Have we explained how engagement has affected decisions, and where it has not, why not?
• Have we joined up with relevant colleagues, partners or existing evidence so engagement is not duplicated and learning can be reused?