Introducing our new research project: mapping data gaps
We’ve just begun an exciting new project on mapping data gaps, focussing on justice data - our first major project in this area since Missing Numbers.
We define ‘data gaps’ as questions that can’t be answered due to a lack of official data, but are clearly of public interest. For example, the questions “How has the number of police stations changed since 2010?”, or “How many court cases are delayed due to lack of counsel?”.
Data gaps matter. They matter because if we don't gather and report data, we can't spot where services are failing; we can't track improvement over time; and fundamentally, we can't improve people's lives.
This project has two aims:
To identify data gaps affecting the justice system, and help close some of the most important gaps.
To establish a robust, reusable methodology to identify data gaps in any field, which government statistics teams can use to ensure they meet their obligations to deliver relevance and value.
We’ll be openly sharing our findings along the way - starting today.
Our work so far
Our first steps have been to establish our methodology: which sources to examine for evidence of data gaps.
We’ve examined the resources used to help prioritise the classification of National Statistics. We’ve also thought about whose needs matter outside government - from MPs representing constituents, to academic researchers, to the many organisations helping ensure the justice system functions well.
The resources we’ve flagged so far for research include:
Select Committee reports
Parliamentary written questions, from MPs and peers
Independent official reports - ranging from inspectorates, to independent reviewers appointed by the Government, to bodies like the National Audit Office
Major reports from civil society organisations
Other work including academic research and systemic reviews by the Office for Statistics Regulation (the UK’s statistics regulator).
The authors of all these are important stakeholders in the justice system, on behalf of justice system users, but too often their needs for data often aren’t being met - as our research is already showing.
Early findings from Select Committee reports
We kicked off with a deep dive into Select Committee reports from the past five years, focussing on the Justice Committee (which oversees the Ministry of Justice) and the Public Accounts Committee (which oversees value for money).
Firstly, we found that many reports mention data gaps. Of the 43 reports published by the Justice Committee, almost half explicitly identified data gaps, as did multiple reports published by the Public Accounts Committee. (There’s a full summary below, and complete research here.)
And secondly, there were recurring themes:
Prisoner and young offender welfare - including the mental health of prisoners, time spent in cells, women in prison and the use of ‘separation’.
Court operations, particularly relating to access to justice - in areas ranging from legal aid, to private prosecutions, to the impact of the Covid pandemic on the courts - particularly the court backlog.
Sentencing - both the evidence for sentencing guidelines, and their impact on the justice system.
We’re aware that some of these data gaps have since been closed. In future, we’ll audit where the Government has taken action in response to official recommendations - and where it hasn’t.
Next steps
Next, we’re planning to repeat this research across the other sources above. Then:
As more themes emerge, we’ll audit the actions that the Government has taken in response to previous recommendations.
And we’ll look at the causes of the most important gaps. Sometimes data isn’t collected because it’s genuinely challenging, but sometimes there are less solid reasons.
Finally, we’ll lay out our recommendations for the most important - and fixable - gaps that could be filled to support these stakeholders and the entire justice system.
We’re planning to work in the open on this project. We hope to share our methodology widely - data gaps are a problem across the public sector, and our biggest hope for this project is that others adopt and improve on our methodology.
As always, we’d love to hear from you. If you’ve been affected by data gaps, or are interested in the project, please get in touch.
Summary of data gaps flagged in Select Committee reports
Details of some data gaps identified in Justice Select Committee and Public Accounts Committee reports from 2017-22, grouped by theme, and their impact on the operation of the justice system.
Prisoner and young offender welfare:
Lack of data on the time prisoners spend outside of their cells and engage in purposeful activity - a concern because lack of access to purposeful activity is a factor in violence and self-harm (2017, Justice Select Committee, Prison population 2022: planning for the future, paragraphs 146-148)
The extent of the prison population with mental health needs. As a result, NHS England, the MoJ and HM Prison and Probation Service do not fully understand the scale and the scope of welfare needs of people in prison, making it more challenging to devise appropriate policy responses (2017, Public Accounts Committee, Mental health in prisons, paragraphs 2-8).
Various lack of data relating to women in prison (2022, Justice Committee, Women in Prison):
Limited information on the specific health needs of women in custody, resulting in these issues being under-addressed by authorities (paragraphs 38-144)
The MoJ do not know the number of women in prisons that are primary carers, making it difficult to “assess the specific needs of mothers in prison, or how well these needs are being met” (paragraph 178)
Data gathering is poor on the number of women using custody as a ‘place of safety’. Without reliable data on the size of this population, authorities are unable to demonstrate whether using prisons as a place of safety is disproportionately apparent in women’s prisons or whether the impact of its use affects one group more than another (paragraphs 126-133).
Lack of data on the use of ‘separation’ in Young Offenders Institutions (YOIs), a practice many have deemed to have had a troubling impact on the wellbeing of young people. (2021, Justice Committee, Children and Young People in Custody (part 2), paragraphs 16-29).
Court operations, particularly relating to access to justice:
Poor data within the court system has made it difficult to estimate the extent of the court backlog and the make-up of cases. Limited understanding of the court backlog makes HMCTS and the Government more susceptible to being unable to cope with unexpected surges of demand (2022, Justice Committee, Court Capacity). Backlog data is also not published at a level of sufficient detail, with the Committee also unsure whether HMCTS or the MoJ collects backlog data that is specific to youth courts (2020, Justice Committee Coronavirus (COVID-19): The impact on courts, paragraph 25)
Lack of basic management information within the court system, such as the number of trials ongoing, the number of defendants awaiting trial in custody and the number of defendants awaiting trial on bail. As a result, the MoJ also does not have reliable information on how many defendants will be impacted by court backlogs, and the effects this will have on vulnerable groups, such as those who committed offences at 17 but will be tried in the adult court system if they face trial at 18 or older and therefore could face longer sentences (2020, Justice Committee, Coronavirus (COVID-19): The impact on courts, paragraphs 22-24)
Lack of data on the number of private prosecutions brought by organisations. Without this data, it is difficult to verify reports suggesting that the number of private prosecutions is increasing, or to establish which organisations might be responsible for such an increase (2020, Justice Committee, Private prosecutions: safeguards, paragraphs 63-65 and summary).
HMCTS are yet to clearly demonstrate how it will measure and monitor the benefits of its digital transformation programme, which is necessary for understand their value for money (2019, Public Accounts Committee, Transforming Courts and Tribunals: progress review, paragraph 5).
Lack of data on the quality of hearings during the Covid-19 pandemic make it difficult for authorities to decide whether reforms to courts during this period should be adopted permanently (2020, Justice Committee, Coronavirus (COVID-19): The impact on courts, paragraphs 60-62). In particular, there was a lack of data on how digital technologies impacted lay users in court, making it difficult for authorities to be aware of the groups in most need of support (paragraphs 11-17).
HMCTS have not collected information on how digital hearings and the Crown Court backlog have impacted vulnerable users and those from ethnic minority backgrounds. Data gaps along the lines of ethnicity make it harder for authorities to meet the targets of the Lammy review (2017), which called for standardising the ethnicity data collected across the criminal justice system, and to understand how the pandemic impacted ethnic minority groups specifically (2022, Public Accounts Committee, Reducing the backlog in criminal courts, paragraphs 5 and 17).
Sentencing - both the evidence for and impact of current sentencing practice:
Lack of data on the seriousness of current cases relating to manslaughter (2017, Justice Committee, Draft Sentencing Council guidelines on manslaughter, paragraphs 9-10) and to arson and criminal damage and public order offences (2018, Justice Committee, Draft Sentencing Council guidelines on arson and criminal damage and public order offences, appendix 1). As a result, the Sentencing Council’s guidelines assume the seriousness of current cases which can lead to inaccuracies in its reporting and recommendations, thus possibly impacting sentencing practice.
Limited data on how the Sentencing Council’s guidelines impact sentencing practices which, in turn, makes it difficult to predict future demands on MoJ resources (2019, Justice Committee, Prison population 2022: planning for the future, para 92).
Sentencing data on newer domestic abuse offences, such as coercive and/or controlling behaviour and disclosing private images, is limited as the offences are not flagged as such. This limits the ability of the Sentencing Council to understand sentencing practices broken down by specific offence type (2017, Justice Committee, Draft Sentencing Council guidelines on intimidatory offences and domestic abuse, paragraphs 19-21).
Our work on this project is funded by the Justice Lab, an initiative of the Legal Education Foundation, as part of their ongoing programme of research and advocacy to improve the quality and availability of justice system data. We are grateful for their support.