ADR UK podcast - Connecting Society: How everyday data shapes our lives

Administrative data is about real people and their lives. So in the first episode of Connecting Society, we’re diving into the big picture behind the vision of ADR UK (Administrative Data Research UK): why does using administrative data for public good research matter? How can it make a meaningful difference to society? And is your data being stored and used securely?

Joining us to unpack these questions are Dr Emma Gordon, ADR UK’s Director, and Ally McAlpine, the Scottish Government’s Chief Statistician and Co-Director of ADR Scotland.

This episode explores the state of the data landscape before ADR UK’s work began, the goals we’re moving towards, and the benefits this work brings to the public. Our guests will also share their personal career journeys, what motivates them, and why they believe this work is so important.

 

Wondering what administrative data is? Visit https://www.adruk.org/our-mission/administrative-data/.

If we used any terms you're not familiar with, check out ADR UK's glossary at https://www.adruk.org/learning-hub/glossary/.

Read an article from Emma which provides more information on the background of ADR UK: https://www.globalgovernmentforum.com/to-change-the-outcome-of-a-process-you-have-to-be-prepared-to-change-the-system-five-minutes-with-public-service-data-live-speaker-administrative-data-research-uk-director-emma-go/. 

Shayda: Hello, and welcome to Connecting Society, a podcast about how everyday data can shape our lives. I'm Shayda Kashef, Senior Public Engagement Manager for Administrative Data Research UK, or ADR UK to me and you.
 
Mark: And I'm Mark Green, Professor of Health Geography at the University of Liverpool. We are your co-hosts and guides around the wonders of administrative data.

Shayda: In this podcast, we are exploring all the different ways in which the information that is collected about our everyday lives—from interactions with health services, voting behaviours, police and crime reporting, educational achievements, and more—is used by researchers and policymakers to make better decisions, support society, and make the world a better place.

Mark: Well, this is very exciting. Our first episode. I'm a bit nervous. How are you feeling?

Shayda: I'm an avid podcast listener. It's interesting to be on this end of the mic, though. How have you been preparing for today?

Mark: Well, I did a sit-up because I thought that might be useful, but you never know.

So Connecting Society. That's our snazzy title. I was a bit disappointed that some of my names were rejected, though: Data Data—you know, like day to day but with "data" shoehorned in—Behind the Data, Seize the Data, and my personal favourite, Admin-mazing Data.

Shayda: Admin-mazing Data. Wow. I'd expect nothing less from someone whose day job is to actually analyse data. Mark, you're our resident data scientist. Can you give us a quick definition of what administrative data even is?

Mark: Gosh! You're starting me with the hard ones there, aren't you?

For me, administrative data is the information that is generated every day when people interact with public services—schools, courts, welfare, or even the NHS. All these interactions are recorded by the government.

While these public bodies keep such information to help the way their service runs, this information can also help researchers find valuable insights about society and identify where change might be needed.

For example, the NHS records all diagnoses of diabetes so that it can know who needs help and plan for investment in treatments and medicines. By knowing how many people have diabetes, we can start to look at the patterns of which demographic characteristics or social groups have more cases of diabetes than others. This helps us identify what might be causing diabetes to occur and better target our responses to prevent it.

Shayda, this is your first role in the data space. Did you know anything about administrative data before joining ADR UK?

Shayda: No, to be honest, I never imagined that the words administrative data would involve anything exciting.

But the research is so interesting, as our listeners will find out as they continue with the series. I joined ADR UK five years ago and never looked back.

How about you, Mark? When did you first come across administrative data, and how was it different from the other types of data you worked with previously?

Mark: Well, I started my PhD using mortality records, so, you know, I'm an OG admin data person.

I think for me, what excites me the most is the size and detail of what you can get from administrative data.

For researchers, if we set up an experiment or collect a survey, we only ever get a snapshot into the lives of people. Administrative data allows us to see how society behaves at a large scale. It gives us more granular insights to help us make much better decisions.

Shayda: We could talk about this all day, but let’s get on to today’s podcast, where we’ll introduce the big picture behind ADR UK’s mission. Why should people care about the use of admin data? How can it make a real-world difference to society? 

We’ll talk about how the system worked before, what ADR UK is doing differently, and what this means for you, the listener.

Mark: And to help us do that, we have two admin-mazing guests with us today—Emma Gordon and Ally McAlpine. Welcome to the show!

Emma: Hi, great to be here.

Ally: Thank you.

Shayda: Can you please tell us a little bit about you, where you're from and what you do? But very importantly, we have one rule for this podcast, which is no technical jargon. Emma we'll start with you.

Emma: Thanks very much, Shayda. And yeah, I'm the Director of the Admin Data Research UK programme, like you said. And my role is basically a big coordination role. And so it's talking to data owners within government about how we could work with them. It's talking to researchers about the outputs from their research, and it's generally making things happen and really championing what we're doing. And so I speak at a lot of conferences and public events and I'm really, really passionate about what we're doing.

Shayda: Amazing. Ally?

Ally: So I'm Ally McAlpine, I work at the Scottish Government and I'm Chief Statistician. Now if that job's not big enough, I'm also Co-Director of ADR Scotland. So that's part of the ADR UK family. And I guess the best way to describe my job when I'm working with administrative data is trying to link that research to the policy needs that we've got coming up in the Scottish Government.

Shayda: Incredible.

Mark: OK, we're going to get the most important questions straight out of the way first. So we're going to ask you both to respond to a series of questions. Starting off, is it day-ta or dah-ta?

Emma: Most definitely, day-ta.

Shayda: What about the choice between a pie chart and a fruit pie?

Emma: Every day, during my time when I was working at ONS it drilled into me how bad pie charts were at representing data. 

Ally: I totally agree. I would get rid of pie charts altogether. 

Shayda: Let's make a motion to swap all pie charts for fruit pies.

Mark: What's your favourite statistic, Emma? Do you wanna go first?

Emma: I was really struck by a statistic from a recent report published by one of our researchers that was 33% of care-experienced children received a youth justice, caution or conviction compared to 4% of those without care experience.

And I didn't know that before. I bet there's a lot of people that didn't know that before. And even if we had an inkling about that that was the case, we wouldn't have known how great that risk was for these children. And we do know that now. So now governments and policymakers can think about how to change that situation and how important it is for those individuals as well as society for improving the lives of those people.

Mark: That's a good one. I saw that recently and I was quite intrigued by the whole thing. It's fascinating. Ally, do you have a favourite statistic?

Ally: So here's my favourite statistic, 58% of new manure is kept in heaps and is not covered. And you think, well, that's quite, why am I interested in manure and 58%? But the link there is that manure left uncovered is actually quite a big greenhouse gas emitter and contributes quite a lot to the UK's emissions for methane. And while it's losing all of that gas, it's actually losing its nutritional value as well.

So there's some statistics that first of all help mitigate climate change, but there's a cost attached to doing that as well. That's my favourite at the moment.

Mark: Excellent. I never thought we'd get into manure in this podcast, but you know, here we go.

Shayda: Before we jump into learning more about both of you, I'd like to start with the top line. So if listeners could take one thing away from this podcast, what would it be? Emma, you first.

Emma: For me, I've been passionate about data for a very long time, but it's only recently that it's really dawned on me the value of what we're doing to society. And that's because usually social and economic researchers are basing their research on survey data. And obviously, survey data is absolutely brilliant, but it's only ever as good as the people who answer surveys. And we've known for a very long time that there is really important sections of society that generally don't answer surveys and therefore aren't represented in the data.

And quite often these are the people who can have quite chaotic lives for various reasons through no fault of their own. But it's generally the most vulnerable people in society. And that's really, really important in terms of research and policymaking because we need to understand who those people are, not least so that we can improve the lives of those individuals, but also so that we can reduce the cost of services and the cost of services that need to speak to each other and for these people. 

And we generally think of people in terms of how they access individual services. So you're either a pupil or a pensioner, or a patient or a prisoner, but what if you're one or more more than one of these things? And what if you're all of these things? And suddenly your life becomes quite challenging in terms of how all these services are interacting or not interacting and not speaking to each other. And that has a really high cost burden to society in terms of those services not working efficiently because they're not dealing with the individual at the centre of that maelstrom of decisions that need to be taken about that person.

And so it's really dawned on me quite recently that linked administrative data gives you a view about who these vulnerable people are in society much, much better than any other form of data. And therefore the people that have been really missed from discussions in policymaking and research findings as suddenly we can drill down, we can find those things. So it's inexcusable now not to consider these people within policymaking.

Shayda: Yeah, I really like what you have to say about how administrative data can capture multiple identities and experiences of people. I think this is also what interested me in it too. Is that because when you link together the data sets from different departments, so for instance, education with health or education with crime or education with health and crime, you are getting a sort of more like well-rounded view of the sort of experience rather than and kind of a sort of population experience rather than a small number of people who have been designed to represent the experiences of a larger number of people.

Emma: Yeah, exactly. 

Shayda: Ally, if there's one thing our listeners could take from this podcast, what would it be?

Ally: I think what Emma just said makes a lot of sense. And I think for me as Chief Statistician, what I'm trying to do is make sure that evidence is embedded within anything that we're trying to deliver within Scottish Government or anywhere else in the public sector as well. And effectively, the work that we're doing is spending taxpayer money. So we need to be as efficient as we possibly can be. And I think that's where data helps.

And certainly, you know, you could look at statistics across the whole of Scotland, notice a problem, put a policy in place. But I think what Emma is talking about there, you know, around about linking the data, that gives us even more evidence. And it makes sure that when we're when we're trying to put out a policy that's actually reaches the parts of society that will benefit most from it. The flip side to that, further down the line, is that we can then evaluate whether it worked or if it benefited the parts of society we hoped it would.

Shayda: You're right—we are financially investing in these services through our taxes. By using data that better represents the population, we can make decisions based on evidence that includes people who engage with society. I suppose that makes sense to me.

Now that we've gotten the serious questions out of the way, let's get to know you both a bit more. Emma, let’s start with you. You used to work at the Bacardi Bat Sanctuary, which sounds very exciting. How did you go from there to being the Director of ADR UK?

Emma: I ended up going to university, picking my favourite subject at school, and then studying that as a degree. My favourite subject was biology—I loved animals—so I did zoology at university. I really wanted to do a PhD, and to do a PhD in zoology, you need fieldwork and experimental experience. I volunteered to get involved in other people's research studies. That’s how I ended up helping with a research study based at the Bacardi Bat Institute in Gainesville, Florida, which worked on megabats—absolutely giant fruit bats. I also got involved in research on bats in Costa Rica, which was absolutely fascinating.

From there, I did a PhD in bird flight. During my PhD, I had my daughter, and I was eight months pregnant with my son when I had my viva. It was really interesting going back to work after completing my PhD. I felt strongly that if I was going to leave my kids with someone else, it had to be to do something really meaningful. Although my PhD research was intellectually interesting and energising, I didn’t feel it had a broader purpose for society.

Long story short, after many random jobs and roles at universities, I did a part-time master’s in public health, nutrition, and physical activity. From there, I transitioned from being a zoologist trained to study animal systems to being an epidemiologist trained to study human population systems. I worked on a fantastic postdoc involving a longitudinal study based in Bristol. This study examined how children grow up and the impact of factors like family environment, diet, and health on their lives. 

From there, I went to work at the Office for National Statistics, where I eventually became Head of Health Analysis. My favourite part of the job was interacting with researchers who wanted to use data for research. I came to understand all the barriers they faced as gatekeepers of that data. Now, I’m in the amazing position of being part of the solution—supporting the government in finding ways to engage with academics, granting them secure access to data, and enabling researchers to contribute to policymaking decisions and discussions.

Shayda: Incredible. Ally, Were you once a chef in a previous life?

Ally: Oh, someone has told you stories! Yes, I was a chef, though not a very good one. I describe myself as a “Poundland Gordon Ramsay” and probably wasn’t even that. I worked in bars and restaurants. Before that, I went to university to study chemistry—it was the only subject I was good at in school, or at least the only one I thought I was good at. But I ended up dropping out in my third year. The only course I passed that year was on quantum chemistry, which was essentially statistics.
 
So after my stint in cheffing, I decided I needed to go back to university. I studied maths and economics and then landed a job working for the police in Scotland. At the time, it didn’t seem like a dream job, but it turned out to be one of the best I’ve ever had. It was amazing to see how incoming data could influence how policing was carried out.

After leaving the police, I worked on the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), an index identifying the most deprived areas in Scotland. That work reignited my passion for using data to make a difference. We changed how we thought about and used the SIMD data.

From there, I worked in agricultural statistics, and now, as Chief Statistician, the big challenge we’re tackling is sorting out our messy data. Preparing it for new techniques and improving access to data for linkage projects are essential for conducting more exciting and impactful research.

Mark: I’m starting to feel like my career has been quite boring in comparison. We’ve got police work, cheffing, and megabats—who wouldn’t want to work with megabats? I feel like I’m on the edge of a midlife crisis here!

Ally: Mark I'm going to cut across you and ask, when you say Bacardi bats, do you mean Bacardi as in the rum?

Emma: Yes, exactly. If you think about a bottle of Bacardi rum, the cap has a picture of a bat on it. Louis Bacardi loved animals and built his own private zoo. After his death, many of the animals were given to other zoos, but his collection of megabats was preserved. It’s an incredibly important scientific collection because of the breadth of species and the excellent conditions in which the bats were kept. 

As a researcher studying Louis Bacardi’s bat collection, you also got to stay in his house. The most extraordinary part of it was the shower, which was designed like a rock formation, with water cascading from various points as if you were standing under a waterfall.

Mark: This is a good time to say we are not sponsored by Bacardi!

Emma: Definitely.

Mark: So something you were kind of picking up there along the end, but I'd like to ask to both of you really is what do you think is the hardest part about turning administrative data research into public good outcomes?

Ally: I think the main thing is that we get researchers closer to policymakers. Policymakers generally have good links with the communities they’re trying to benefit, and researchers generally have that as well. But I think the link between researchers and policymakers, when you understand the ambition behind the policy you're trying to implement, that's when you can really link the research and policy much closer together. As a researcher, you can then be properly informing and influencing how the policy is taken forward.

Emma: I couldn’t agree more, Ally. What we’ve found with UK government departments is that each one has its own culture. Really breaking down those barriers to say, "Look, it's really good to involve academics in these conversations," and making sure that academics have access to the right data so they can complete the research that produces insightful outcomes that can feed into policymaking.

Breaking those barriers down within policymaking circles is crucial so that they're not just asking the analysts within the government departments. Those government analysts should also be talking to researchers. It then becomes a virtuous circle, but it has to be done individually within each department for that culture change to happen across the board.

Mark: I think that’s something I’m very much signed up to. Academics have a lot of value to bring to these kinds of policy decisions, especially on the analytical side, and that’s what I want to do more of. I'm sure I'm not alone on that side of things either.

Emma: Yeah, civil servants misunderstand academics a lot of the time. They tend to think of academics as this amorphous group of people who all think and act the same way, which clearly isn’t the case. You've got people who want to do primary research that feeds into public good decision-making, and you've got academics who want to do different types of research. And that's absolutely brilliant. But we can be the conduit, linking those groups up who want to talk to each other and form those really constructive working relationships.

Ally: I’d add to that, especially in Scotland, where we're focused on child poverty. Not just right now but all the time, trying to make a difference. We held an event with local authorities, people supporting local authorities, ONS academics—everyone coming together in one room. It was great to see—it was a melting pot of ideas and ambition. This is part of the ADR programme, which gives us a vehicle to have these conversations and focus on specific topics, trying to solve problems.

Mark: So, Emma, could you talk a bit about what ADR UK is doing with admin data and how that links to evidence and policymaking? 

Imagine you're explaining it to my dad—he’s in his mid-60s and often describes growing up on the mean streets of Gainsborough. He’s not someone who is degree educated like myself.

Emma: Yeah, sure! The way I explain it is that every government service—whether it’s health, education, or anything else—collects data about people using that service. That’s great as far as it goes. But at ADR UK, we have this phrase: the "missed use of data." If that data stays within the department’s silo, it’s not being fully utilised. Our approach really comes into its own when we link data from one department to another. 

For example, we have decades of education outcomes data—from primary school to university. If you link that to Police National Computer data, you can understand who’s being cautioned and convicted for crimes. This helps us better understand how to prevent those crimes, especially by identifying groups getting caught up at an early age. Without this insight, policy decisions would continue to be random and less effective.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies published an evaluation of the Sure Start programme, which was introduced in the early 90s by the Labour government. It provided targeted support in deprived communities for parents of young children, it was health advice, education advice, training advice. Decades later, we can assess the outcomes for children from those areas. The benefit of the programme was particularly greater for children in deprived areas, showing that helping them lead better lives can have lasting effects on education outcomes—especially by age 16, which is a key milestone. Admin data allows us to evaluate programmes like Sure Start and learn what works over time.

Shayda: You mentioned something really interesting, Emma. Government departments collect data when people interact with services, but that data often just stays there. 

When I talk to my friends about this or do public engagement, it’s almost presumed that all departments are already talking to each other and working together, but they just want more information. Can you explain what the real picture is now, and what it looked like before ADR UK and similar programmes started?

Emma: I’ll separate two things. When government services collect data and use it for operational purposes, they’re making decisions about individuals. But when researchers access linked data across departments for research purposes, it’s a whole different thing. It’s legally important to note that researchers don’t get identifiable information. They can’t see individual names, addresses, NHS numbers, or anything that directly identifies someone. Research is done on much larger groups, analysing patterns in the data rather than focusing on individuals.

By linking data, like ethnicity from the census (which is self-reported), to police data (where ethnicity is recorded by officers), we can do meaningful research that wouldn’t be possible using data from individual services alone.

Ally: When I first joined the police, I thought they knew everything about everyone. But once I started working with the data, I realised that wasn’t the case. 

Researchers are more interested in patterns and groups rather than individual data. And when it comes to deprived areas, we want to improve outcomes for everyone, but especially for those who face the most barriers in life. Whether it’s health, crime, housing, or service access—addressing these barriers allows individuals to reach their full potential. That’s the real goal.

Shayda: I love how you mentioned the public. That’s why we’re here. Can you help us understand why everyday people should care about this?

Emma: Absolutely. The data we use is about people’s lives, and we have to engage the public to maintain the social contract. People need to trust that we’re using their data responsibly for research and public good. Public engagement has shown us that feedback challenges us to be better at what we do, resulting in better outcomes, a better website, and more meaningful conversations with the public. We have to continue this engagement.

Shayda: Ally, can you give a real-world example of how this is making a difference?

Ally: We’ve been focused on improving outcomes, especially for those who might otherwise be left behind. And that’s really what it’s about—ensuring that no one is left behind. At the end of the day, it’s about improving lives efficiently, using taxpayers' money responsibly to get the maximum benefit.

Shayda: Thank you so much, Ally and Emma. That's it for today's episode. Mark, how do you think it went?

Mark: Well, I think if you cut out all my speaking bits, it probably went OK, so not too bad.

Shayda: You’re too hard on yourself! You’re going to be a bigger personality than me by the time this series is over.

Well, we hope you enjoyed listening. You can find out more about ADR UK's work in the shownotes.

Mark: On the next episode, we're going to dive into the impact of research using data from the Ministry of Justice - which is my second favourite ministry after the Ministry of Sound.

Until then, stay curious about how your everyday data might shape society. 

In this episode, we examine how data collected by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is being used to drive positive change in the justice system. Our discussion explores the types of data the MoJ collects, why it is collected, and how de-identifying, linking, and sharing this information securely for research can reveal new insights into the justice system.

Amy Summerfield, Head of Evidence and Partnerships at the MoJ, shares how data linkage programmes like the Data First initiative aim to address issues such as reoffending and improve the efficiency of justice services. We also hear from David Maguire, Project Director of the Building Futures programme at the Prison Reform Trust, who sheds light on the realities faced by people in the justice system. From the probation system to outcomes for defendants, prisoners, and the wider public, David highlights gaps in understanding and what changes are most urgently needed.

Through real-world examples, this episode demonstrates how using administrative data can contribute to better outcomes for those in the justice system, support for justice personnel, and a more efficient and effective system overall.

 

Wondering what administrative data is? Visit https://www.adruk.org/our-mission/administrative-data/.

If we used any terms you're not familiar with, check out ADR UK's glossary at https://www.adruk.org/learning-hub/glossary/.

For information on Data First go to https://www.adruk.org/our-work/browse-all-projects/data-first-harnessing-the-potential-of-linked-administrative-data-for-the-justice-system-169/, or for information on MoJ datasets made available by ADR UK: https://www.adruk.org/data-access/flagship-datasets/?tx_llcatalog_pi%5Bfilters%5D%5Bwork%5D=800&cHash=c420033b8cba2bed85ac90343d2aeab9.

Shayda: Hello, and welcome to Connecting Society, a podcast about how everyday data can shape our lives. I'm Shayda Kashef, Senior Public Engagement Manager for Administrative Data Research UK, or ADR UK to me and you.
 
Mark: And I'm Mark Green, Professor of Health Geography at the University of Liverpool. We are your co-hosts and guides around the wonders of administrative data.

Shayda: Mark, can you tell our listeners what's in store for today's episode? 

Mark: Today, we'll be diving into the world of crime and justice and how data might be used to transform people's lives. Think somewhere between CSI Miami and The Bill. ADR UK funds a lot of research in this area, right? 

Shayda: That's right, and for ADR UK, a lot of it is done via the Data First programme. I remember drafting the press release to announce the Data First programme in 2019 and the data space has changed a lot since then. The way it used to work is that the individual courts within the justice system collected administrative data, but they didn't really talk to each other, so it was hard to map out patterns of court use as people may enter and re enter the justice system for a variety of reasons. We've got the family court, Magistrates Court, Crown Court, the probation system, the prison system. What Data First allows us to do is link up these datasets in a responsible way so we can answer some of the most pressing questions, such as those related to racial injustice, substance abuse, rehabilitation and so on.

Mark: And with us today to help explain what some of the most pressing justice system issues are and how we might use data to resolve them, are David Maguire, who's Project Director for Building Futures for the Prison Reform Trust charity, and Amy Summerfield, Head of Evidence and Partnerships at the Ministry of Justice and project lead for the ADR UK funded Data First programme. 

Hello and welcome to the podcast, both of you. 

Amy: Thank you very much for having us. 

Mark: So, before we get stuck in we'd like to get to know you a little bit better. So we set you a little task. So can you tell us what's your favourite statistic? Amy, would you like to go first? 

Amy: Oh, my goodness, I mean, some of the justice system statistics, I can't really describe as a favourite, because, you know, these are people in vulnerable situations, sort of in, it's some of the most challenging times of their lives. What I'll say is someone said to me when I first joined the Ministry of Justice, something like 61% of statistics are made up on the spot. So that's what I'm going to say, is my favourite statistic. I'll keep it light, and I made up the 61% to add the layer to the joke. 

Mark: That’s brilliant. David?

David: So Mark, I'm hoping by the end of this podcast that I'm half as excited about data and statistics as you are, a favourite statistic, a question on a favourite statistic, which, as Amy indicated a favourite statistic is hard to think about. There's just so much data right there, and I think maybe some of that will come up in this conversation, but maybe a starter for 10 would be, it's not a favourite, but I think it's an important one, and it's from the Justice Committee's "public opinion and understanding of sentences", and it tells us that the average person’s sentence has increased from 14 and a half months in 2012 to 21.9 months into in 2021. However, when asked, almost a third of respondents to the justice committee survey believed that the average prison sentence lengths had become shorter, of which 9% thought they had become a lot shorter. 

Mark: Excellent. Well, that's, I think that's a good introduction. 

So we've got the hard question out of the way. So let's go into something a little bit easier. Amy, can you tell us a bit more about the data the Ministry of Justice collects and links together. What do you what do you routinely collect, and what was the ambition behind making all of this data available to researchers? 

Amy: When people interact with public services, any public service, that public service collects data on you or your case, for example. So when we go to the doctors, they've got our name, our date of birth, our medical history. So all public services collect a wealth of information like that, and up until now, and probably still now, it's fair to say it's vastly underused, that amount of data. Shayda indicated at the beginning, you know, it's collected on siloed systems. They don't often talk to each other. It can be fragmented. 

And in the in the justice space, it's no different. So magistrates courts didn't necessarily talk to crown courts. And I'm saying “talk to”, I mean information sharing. What we are doing through the Data First programme is linking the datasets from across the justice system so we can get a more comprehensive picture of who's interacting with the justice system. So that covers information that is collected for operational and administrative purposes, not specifically for research, but collected at the courts. So criminal courts, family courts, civil courts, through to prisons and probation service. That's the data we collect as a business as usual basis. 

But through the Data First programme, which is an investment by ADR UK, we've been able to create unique identifiers through those datasets and link cases and people across the system. So as people come into the Magistrates Court, they may go on to the Crown Court, they may receive a custodial sentence then, they go into prison, and then when people leave prison that they they'll often go under probation supervision. So we can get a big picture of kind of people's interactions across those different parts of the justice system, so that's the kind of data that we collect already. 

Instead of sitting on administrative systems, we're trying to make best use of it, both within government, but also to share it with academic researchers so they can access it and start to explore these kind of really rich data assets for some of our big evidence gaps. 

Mark: That's really fascinating and such a wealth and depth of data you have available, why wouldn't people use this? You know, you said it's vastly underused. I mean, one of those reasons, you said, is fragmentation. But why aren't we using this data? You just think it’s so amazingly detailed. 

Amy: These systems weren't set up for research purposes. They're set up kind of to support the operation of the courts or the management of prisons, for example. So they've up until now, been used for what they were intended to set up for, but we realize that there's this wealth of information sitting there. You have to be very careful that we're sharing data ethically and responsibly. 

There's a lot of cleaning to do of the data, and by cleaning, I just mean there'll be lots of data that's just not completed very well, because it's not a busy prison officer's top priority to make sure that every single field on their data management system is feel is filled out. They've got much more important things to do on the front line, if you like. So there's a lot of work that's done to sort of unpick how good the quality of the data is before we can then see what identifiers we can link to other datasets with. So it's not that we didn't think it was a good idea before. It's just been a long time coming, really.

Mark: Absolutely, like a shout out to those people who clean data. We couldn't do our jobs without them. 

Shayda: It's almost gives you hope that things might change now that data is being used more efficiently and that we have better evidence to base decision making on, important decisions. David, from your perspective, in working at Prison Reform Trust, how would you describe the state of the justice system now? And can you tell us a little bit about the Prison Reform Trust as well. 

David: I’ll maybe say a little bit about what the Prison Reform Trust is. I started at the Prison Reform Trust in January 2020, before that, I was at UCL as a British Academy post doctoral researcher. And before that, I did research on men and masculinity and education and pathways into prison. In one form or another I've been around prisons for over 20 years. I was attracted to go and work for the Prison Reform Trust, A, because it's got a fantastic reputation across our sector, and B, it was for a very particular programme that focuses on those serving the longest sentences. 

But maybe just a bit about the Prison Reform Trust. So for those that don't know, the Prison Reform Trust is a charity, and it works to create a just, humane and effective prison system, and we do this by working with people like Amy and yourselves and anybody else to generate data, research. We give advice and information, facts and statistics, and we just try and highlight some of the pressing issues across our prison mostly England and Wales prison systems. My particular role is for the programme building futures, and this work focuses on those that serve the longest sentences. So a lot of advocacy work and charities like to focus on and advocate for people in prison, but often we dodge those serving the longest sentences, because they are those that the public feel, and many feel, and we feel many should be in our prisons. 

What we try and do in this day job is we harness the expertise that we see within the prison population so those actually serving the sentences, is what we try and consult and work with on how we can better create a more just and humane space for those serving those eye watering sentences. And I think a lot of what we try and do is develop and complement other forms of knowledge and research by harnessing that lived experience. 

And when we think of long term prisoners, we often don't think of women serving long sentences. So we've made them much more visible through our invisible women's workstream. So looking at some of the pains and gender pains of imprisonment, for women, we're looking at people aging in prison. Because, of course, aging is a huge problem across prison populations. We're looking at how people progress through their sentence or not. So there's just some of the key things that that we use and we harness that inside experience to kind of add to already existing knowledges. 

Shayda: Thanks, David, I know we've spoken about the power of lived experience for research, particularly research like this. You mentioned a few really interesting areas of work. What would you identify as some of the current most pressing issues at the moment? 

David: Well, I think any of us who work around prisons or in prisons can't get away from the fact the capacity crisis that we currently are seeing. I think another big issue that we can't escape from is the remand population is a big problem, and that's risen over 80% since 2019 and now accounts for almost 20% of the prison population. So the remand population are those that might be refused bail and are put on remand awaiting sentence. That's a large part of that population. And I'm laying this out because I think some of what the Data First can help us with some of the solutions and answers to some of these current crises. 

Shayda: So Amy, David listed some important issues there currently being faced by the justice system. Is Data First, in a position now or in the future to look at some of these issues? 

Amy: Most definitely. For example, if you take the pressures on prison capacity, we can look at, I mean, obviously the Ministry of Justice does a lot of modelling and forecasting of prison capacity and everything with slightly more live data, but Data First datasets, when you can, if you when you are linking magistrates and Crown Court data through to prisons, you can look at which type of sentencing options may have an impact on whether somebody obviously goes into custody, but also longer term if they're more or less likely to reoffend. 

So for example, we know from other research that short custodial sentences are not effective at reducing reoffending, and actually, evidence suggests that community sentences for less than 12 months can be more effective in supporting people from reoffending. But Data First gives us data at a scale that's not been possible before to look at those patterns. What sentencing options are likely to improve the chances of prisoners not reoffending, for example? So that's really important insights: what sentencing options lead to better outcomes for people who have committed an offence? So that would be one way in which Data First can sort of shed light on those types of questions. 

We do know a high level that there are factors that protect the risk of reoffending. So supporting people to get a job, supporting them to address substance misuse issues, employment, education, those types of things, but where we're lacking a little bit more is: what's the relative impact of those interventions? How do you sequence those interventions? 

So, what works for who? Why? When? Those types of questions. And the Data First datasets should help start to help answer those questions. So at what point in a person's interactions with different public services, could we have intervened? Could we have better targeted services to support them, to divert them from the justice system, for example? 

Through our flagship data share between Ministry of Justice and Department for Education, we've got a lot of insights around the educational and social care backgrounds for children who end up in contact with the justice system. If we are able to layer more information into the linked datasets around what kind of services or interventions these children have had experience of, we're better able to understand what works to improve outcomes when we should be intervening. How can we improve their outcomes? 

David: I can't help but agree with lots of what Amy's just laid out there. Certainly focusing on my work with long term prisoners. One of the things that I think was touched upon there is who we sent to prison, and for how long. Those serving the shortest sentences, and the cost to everybody involved in that, for that, I think, is, is hopefully some of the consequences, the cost who it is, is something I know can be hopefully pulled out of some of that Data First data about who it is that goes, how it links to local services. 

And I think the other thing Amy is the recall, what are we sending people back to prison for? Some of these datasets might be able to give us some answers around that is, how do we stop sending people back to prison? Because, again, that's a huge population. 

Amy: So we've linked data to the probation datasets so we can now have much richer information around who were recalling to prison and what for. We published some research based on the magistrates and Crown Court linked data that provided new insights on who was returning to court and what they were returning for. I think it's around 18% or something, of defendants returned to court more than six times in the time period, you know, between 2011 and 2019 and we now know quite a lot more about what these people are coming back into prison for, the types of offences, their sentence length. 

And we should be able to, it would be a very interesting research question to look at the recall population as well. Because, as you say, the recall population is increasing. That's increasing, then the pressures on capacity of prison. We need this data. We need robust, large scale data to put to ministers, to put this to decision makers, policy makers in MoJ and across government. We need that data to sort of say this is what's happening, and this is our advice on what we think you can do to change this. 

Mark: I think that's really, really exciting, because from what you're saying is it's how can we improve upon what data we have access to? And you say doing more at scale, at bigger scale, doing more granular work, particularly focusing it on interventions and what works, on what doesn't work, and then feeding that back to ministers to make better decisions. 

Clear that you have loads and loads of data, and you know, that's being put to really good uses. What sort of evidence do you think is missing at the minute, or what type of datasets do you think are kind of missing that you think could really make a big difference, I guess, in making better sentencing evidence decisions, or even, you know, making a real difference to people's lives? 

Amy: The thing that immediately pops into my mind is we have very limited data on victims and witnesses, and that's something that academic researchers are always saying that would benefit them in terms of the impact of crimes and things. So data on victims and witnesses would be helpful. 

The other thing is, so the datasets at the moment are very they can tell you the what, they can't tell you the why and the how. Within our kind of court transcripts and judicial sentencing remarks, they'll have information around mitigating and aggregating factors, so the factors that were taken into consideration when people were being sentenced. And I think if we could find a way of utilising that information from court transcripts and so on, which is not a straightforward thing to do that anyway, I think that would give us a more richer picture of the how, how decisions are made. 

What we are doing in Data First, we're in the process of sharing a dataset called Oasys, which is offender assessment data, basically, looks at the risks and needs of people in our prison system. So it looks at, you know, kind of more mental health needs or educational needs, or specific incidences that they've experienced while they've been in prison, so incidences of self harm or violence or adjudications, that kind of thing. That gives us a much richer picture of what their experience within prison has been like. But then the impact those experiences might have on, for example, their sentence length or their probation experience, whether or not they come back into the system. We're looking forward to academic research and cross government research making use of that Oasys data. 

Shayda: One thing that I'm sure applies to all administrative data research, but particularly might come to mind here, is, how do we protect individuals from being profiled with this kind of research? Can you give us some information around that? 

I think I mentioned earlier, it's our responsibility to make sure that we want to maximise the use of this data, so we can get experts in academia and across government to maximise the use of it for new policy and practice insights. But we also have to be mindful, this is people's personal data, and for it to be a public asset and for people to use it, we need to be really careful with it. We have to make sure that it's only shared on secure platforms. It's only shared with accredited researchers. 

Amy: All of our data we share with the ONS secure research server, and that operates on the five safes framework, but essentially it means every project researchers want to use the data must be approved and accredited by data owners. All researchers that access the data must be accredited researchers, so they go through certain training, they sign up to certain conditions of access. Nothing can come out of that server that could identify an individual person. Data owners like the Ministry of Justice and the ONS SRS will not release any information from that secure server that's going to identify an individual, so whether that's a person in prison, whether it's an individual judge or a student, you can't take that information from the secure platform. 

We have engaged with people with lived experiences or advocates for those with lived experiences, and generally the response is very positive about making use of that data for a public good. But we recognise that there have also been concerns from privacy lobbies that we've had to respond to to reassure that no one will be identified in the use of this data that we share. 

Shayda: Thank you. That's really reassuring that MoJ has done so much engagement with representative groups, charities, lived experience, as you just mentioned, Amy, and one of them is the Prison Reform Trust. 

David, you spoke about the power of lived experience. We've got loads of researchers applying to access these justice datasets. If there's some advice or a message that you can pass on to them, or something that you'd really like them to be mindful of when analysing these datasets, what would that be? 

David: There's a few things that I think might be helpful to just put out there as somebody who doesn't work within these big datasets. If you speak to anybody in prison and across prison about how things are inputted about them, the data is only as good as it's inputted, right? And the way sometimes that, and Amy's alluded to this, we look at prison staff, we look at the pressures that they're under. 

We look at people who work in social work and in probation, all these services for some time have been under huge, huge pressure, and the data input in, and the quality of that data has been raised as being questionable by those subject to that data. So you'll speak to people in prison, and they'll often say, Dave, I got this print out, and it's just a cut and paste from 10 years ago. It's literally a cut and paste from 10 years ago, and I've gone into the parole board with this, or I've gone into have my security reviewed, and the information is, in some cases, decades out of date. 

It's about real people. It's about people we've lived next door to. It's about people we've met on the landings. It's about people we've met in the care system. It's about people we've supported, and it's people to us, and often some of people's most painful, harrowing life experiences, whether it be a long sentence, whether it be losing your children, whether it be kind of exclusion from school. So these datasets that you have that people have to come to cold and objectively, I would always try, and although people have to be separated, always reinforce that these are some of people's most painful, profoundly life moments. 

The lived experience thing is important, but I think we often have to keep it into perspective as well. I worry sometimes that we use this lived experience as a legitimacy vehicle, and I think there's a conversation that I've been trying to instigate is how we engage much more critically with how we use and draw from lived experience, and how that is part of a knowledge and it contributes to other forms of knowledge. And I think as researchers, as practitioners, as academics, we need to be much more mindful in how we're signalling our use of lived experience. 

Mark: I think that's really powerful. And as a data scientist, I think sometimes we're a little bit removed from that lived experience. I'm a really big advocate for engaging with people lived experience to make sure that what I do, and I think what we should all be doing, is doing relevant and impactful research and not some sort of tokenistic engagement. It should be a meaningful voice that is embedded throughout everything that we do. 

David: And just perhaps one other final point is we are no way representative when we draw on lived experience, there are often, if you’ve been around long enough, you'll see that it's often the very same voices that we're drawing on, which is a very, very small part of the groups that we're trying to represent. So some very kind of difficult issues to tackle there. And I think that conversations going forward, we all need to be a little bit more reflective in what lived experience is and how it contributes to knowledge. 

Mark: Amy, I know you've been doing some excellent work in your hub, particularly engaging with external researchers. Could you tell us a bit more about that? 

Amy: In the hub, what we're trying to do is take a more strategic approach to developing the evidence base. So there is a number of research questions, number of evidence gaps or evidence needs that we need to understand about our users and what works to improve their outcomes. We want to focus on answering those more, longer term questions. 

We're also working on improving the use and the accessibility of evidence, as I've said before. So are we making best use of the evidence that's already out there? And in doing all of this, we're improving the collaboration that we have with academic researchers. 

Shayda: I think that collective approach in acquiring evidence is so important to tackling complex issues. I think we could be talking about this all day, really, but we're running out of time now. 

So thank you, Amy, and thank you David for such a fascinating conversation and inviting us a little bit into your world. We'd like to close each episode with the bottom line, which is, quite simply, why should the average person care about this? 

David: We send people to prison for crazy, crazy amounts of time. We send people to prison in some of the longest sentences than nearly all our European counterparts. And if we look at what we get out of them sentences for the money we put in, and what we provide in decades keeping people behind bars, the public would be completely at a loss. So I think that we need to work much harder to win public trust in what it is that we do and what it is that prison service does, and how it can use data to much better improve the outcomes. 

I think, before you bring the public along, is you've got to kind of have something to show them that works. And currently our prisons and our probation and everything else, the public has very, very little knowledge around it, but mostly they don't have faith in it. And when we go to release somebody, we're very easily whip them up. And rather than them saying, I have faith that the systems have worked, they have no faith that the systems have worked. And therefore, public pressure works to keep people in prison for longer and not let them progress to get out. 

Amy: It's a big question. You can come at it from a number of different perspectives as well. So why wouldn't you want to understand what works to improve people's lives? Why wouldn't you want that, because it's a moral thing to do, because we have these insights, we should be using them. You could look at it from a financial perspective. If you invested in one area, you might save money in another. 

I think why data is important is because it's another layer of evidence, another layer of weight to add to the discussion and the debate. If you can say, for example, this evidence strongly suggests these short sentences don't work. It's more than a hunch. You've got it kind of a little bit more in black and white, and I've mentioned before, ministers will want to see this evidence before they start making decisions. 

Shayda: Well, that's a lot to sit and think about, so our I think we should leave it there. Thank you both again for taking the time to be with us today. More information about Data First and the Prison Reform Trust can be found in our show notes. 

Mark, what was your biggest takeaway from this episode? 

Mark: I think for me, it's just how much has happened in such a short period of time, and makes me feel more excited about, you know, the amount of data that's being used to inform real world decisions. 

And whilst there's still much more to come, you know, it really gives me hope that we are using data to make better decisions in how we think around justice and crime. 

Shayda: Absolutely. Can you tell our listeners what's in store for the next episode? 

Mark: So on the next episode, we're going to dive into the impact of research using data from the Nursing and Midwifery Council from Scotland. 

Until next time, stay curious about how your everyday data might shape society.

Nursing and midwifery form the backbone of the UK’s healthcare system, but the sector faces significant challenges - impacting both professionals' wellbeing and the quality of care patients receive. Administrative data collected by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) holds the key to understanding these issues, and research using this data offers a path to evidence-based solutions.

This episode unpacks the wealth of information the NMC collects, how it’s being made available for public good research, and the ambitions behind linking it with other datasets. From analysing workforce trends to revealing inequalities, this data has the power to drive policies and interventions that better support nurses, midwives, and the communities they care for.

Our guests, Caroline Kenny, Head of Research and Evidence at the NMC, and Fiona Gibb, Director of Professional Midwifery at the Royal College of Midwives, share their journeys into the sector and provide insight into the experiences of nurses and midwives. They discuss what’s missing in the current evidence base and the meaningful improvements they hope this research can bring to the field.


Wondering what administrative data is? Visit https://www.adruk.org/our-mission/administrative-data/.

If we used any terms you're not familiar with, check out ADR UK's glossary at https://www.adruk.org/learning-hub/glossary/.

For information about nursing and midwifery data recently made available by ADR Scotland, go to https://www.adruk.org/data-access/flagship-datasets/nursing-and-midwifery-council-register-linked-to-census-2021-england-and-wales/ and https://www.adruk.org/our-work/browse-all-projects/exploring-the-dynamics-of-the-nursing-and-midwifery-workforce-749/. 

Shayda: Hello, and welcome to Connecting Society, a podcast about how everyday data can shape our lives. I'm Shayda Kashef, Senior Public Engagement Manager for Administrative Data Research UK, or ADR UK to me and you.
 
Mark: And I'm Mark Green, Professor of Health Geography at the University of Liverpool. We are your co-hosts and guides around the wonders of administrative data.

Oh, episode 3! We’ve made it here so far. It’s good, isn’t it? It's like the long jump—you put in a couple of tries. You know, the first two goes, you get into the sandpit, but you really want to make the third jump count to get into the finals. That’s how I’m feeling today.

Shayda: We’re going for gold today, Mark! Are you excited, because we’re talking about health data?

Mark: I mean, I feel like you’ve set me up here because now the pressure’s on—I’ve got to say something interesting. I’m a bit worried you might find out it’s all just a charade. You know, maybe I don’t know anything about health data, I got my professorship by saving up coupons from the backs of cereal boxes over the years.

Shayda: Coupons from the backs of cereal boxes? Makes me nostalgic.

But on the topic of health data, we are specifically talking about data on nurses and midwives. I don't know if I ever mentioned this, but my sister is a nurse, and it's pretty strange when the silly person that you grew up with is actually a serious professional in a very important job. But unfortunately for me—and probably fortunately for you—she wasn't available to be featured in this episode.

Mark: Yeah, I’m a bit disappointed we don’t have any embarrassing pictures or stories of you growing up. Maybe we’ll save that for another episode.

But speaking of nurses and the U.S., and my segue from that: did you know, Shayda, that one of the longest-running cohort studies is centered around nurses in the U.S.? This is the Nurses’ Health Study, and it has been following nurses since 1976. It’s actually one of the best resources we have for a longitudinal follow-up of health and understanding the risk factors around health, particularly focused on nurses. 

Shayda:  Wow! Go nursing! Although, I’m wary about our producers intervening here, as this isn’t an administrative dataset, so we better move on.

In today’s episode, we’ll explore the potential impact of data from the Nursing and Midwifery Council being made available for public good research by ADR Scotland. We’ll discuss the data they collect, the ambitions behind making it available for research, what the data can help us understand, and how this might lead to real-world impact. We’ll also discuss the experiences of nurses and midwives on the ground, including their perspectives on what’s happening in the sector, what evidence we’re missing, and what changes they’d like to see. 

Mark: And to help us do that, we have two wonderful guests with us today: Caroline Kenny and Fiona Gibb. Welcome to the show, both of you. 

Shayda:  We’d like each of you to introduce yourselves to our audience.  Fiona, let’s start with you. 

Fiona: Okay, well, thank you very much for having me. My name’s Fiona Gibb, and I’m currently the Director for Professional Midwifery at the Royal College of Midwives.

I’ve been working with the RCM now for a couple of years. My role is across the UK, and my portfolio mainly covers anything to do with education, research, and leadership. That’s why I’m really excited to have this conversation with you today.

My background is as a midwife—I’m a registered midwife. I was always interested in women’s health from a very young age, and midwifery caught my attention because of what I saw on television. There used to be documentaries on old Sky channels, like Student Midwives, which was a fly-on-the-wall documentary about people at university studying to become midwives, and another one called Babes in the Wood about a birth centre.

I was fascinated by these. I initially wanted to do something in communications or media—I had a background in amateur dramatics. But at the last minute, I just thought: what am I doing? Here was a topic I was truly interesting in and fascinated by.

At 18, I applied for direct-entry midwifery and qualified at 21. I worked clinically in many areas across the northeast of Scotland and Aberdeen where I'm from. Latterly, I was a senior charge midwife in labour wards, but I also had a passion for teaching so, when an opportunity came up to teach formally at university, I jumped at the chance. I only intended to stay for a year but ended up staying for eight! I was a senior lecturer for the midwifery program at Robert Gordon University. That was a great job.

When this role at the Royal College of Midwives came up, I thought it was the perfect chance to work across the UK, advocating for midwives, promoting safety in maternity services, and creating career opportunities in midwifery.

Shayda:  Your journey in practice and education, from being a student midwife to training new midwives, and seeing how education, the curriculum, and exploring women’s health have changed, it's fascinating.

Fiona:  There’s been so much change in every aspect of the role. The role of the midwife has changed, the needs of women and families have changed, society has changed, and we’ve made it through global pandemics. The way we deliver care and education now is completely different from when I started in 2004. We've learned a lot and I’m sure the changes will keep coming. 

Shayda: Caroline, tell us about you.

Caroline: Sure! I’m Head of Research and Evidence at the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). I’ve been with the NMC for about five and a half years now, which has flown by—it's a bit scary saying that out loud.

My background is in research. I started by exploring issues around social exclusion, poverty, and education, carried on doing a master’s degree, followed by a PhD. The logical next step seemed to be move into academia, so I spent five years there.

One of the things that drove me was, perhaps naively, I wanted to make a difference. I often felt frustrated that the link between my academic work and making a difference to people's lives seemed quite distant and it wasn't easy to see the impact that work was having. 

So I moved into Parliament for five years, which I absolutely loved. It was interesting work — I won’t lie, I loved flashing my pass to get into the Palace of Westminster. My role was all about increasing the use of research in parliamentary debate and scrutiny.

Then this opportunity at the NMC came along. The more I looked into the organisation and its role, the more taken I was with the possibility of making a difference. So that’s how I’ve ended up where I am today.

Shayda:  It's a huge relief to know that people in decision-making roles and positions of authority are motivated by things like wanting to make a difference. I really love your story of starting in one place, exploring social exclusion and issues facing disadvantaged people... I'm really pleased that someone like you is working for the NMC, because you're looking out for people like my sister. 

Caroline:  Yeah, well, I mean, we wouldn't be here without people like your sister and people like Fiona. So yeah, it's a privilege, if I'm honest. 

Mark:  I think it's great to be able to just flash your pass to get into the palace, you know. That's the sort of thing I'm quite jealous about. I wish I could flash my pass and get into Westminster. The closest we've got at University of Liverpool is we used to get queue jump at the pub chain Walkabout, but I don't think that's quite on the same level as Westminster. 

Okay, so we've been asking the same question to all of our guests as part of getting to know them a little better, although I feel like we know you both really well now.

So the question is, what is your favourite statistic? Fiona, do you want to go first?

Fiona: Yeah, I thought about this, and I have to admit my one was a bit of a comedy statistic. I once saw that 93% of people don’t fact check evidence they read on the internet, and that really made me laugh and kind of grounds me a little bit in terms of - statistics can tell you quite a lot of things, but they might not necessarily tell you the whole picture. It's about how you interpret them, how you use them, and how you translate that information to other people.

And it reminded me of that scene in Anchorman, if you're a movie fan, when you know, "60% of the time it works every time." So those kinds of comedy stats for me. I mean, I love a good stat, but I always take it with a pinch of salt. So sorry, it’s a bit of a comedy one for me, but yeah, it made me laugh. 

Mark: That's great, and we’ve got our first Anchorman reference in this podcast series. So that’s even better! That’s like two wins in one stat. Caroline?
 
Caroline: I have to admit this was a tough one for me, because I was like, "Oh, I don’t know what is my favourite?" So after much googling, I’ve gone with the fact that a cloud weighs a million tons, which did kind of blow me away.

Mark: It feels like in the UK, that’s all we’ve been dealing with—just very heavy clouds this whole year.

Shayda: Yeah, I’m pretty sure the UK variant of cloud is much heavier than the rest of the world. Let's move on to hearing about how data shapes experiences in your sector. 

Caroline, can we start with you first? Can you tell us a bit about the types of data the Nursing and Midwifery Council collects and how and why it’s used?

Caroline: Yeah, of course. So the Nursing and Midwifery Council is the UK independent regulator of nurses and midwives in the UK, and also nursing associates in England, which basically means that if anyone wants to work or practice as a nurse, midwife, or nursing associate in the UK, they have to be registered with us.

So we collect a whole host of data and information that supports our ability to regulate nurses, midwives, and nursing associates. As a regulator, the data is collected for our purposes, so it’s not always in a format that lends itself easily to analysis, but there’s lots of information that we have that is both useful for us but also increasingly, we’re aware that it is relevant and useful to people outside of the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

So we have information about the people who are eligible to practice, such as where they were educated or trained, both geographically and also the university or institution, information about their diversity characteristics, stuff about where they live. Bits of information about where they’ve been practicing, also lots of stuff about the qualifications they have, there’s a lot of information that we have that’s important for us as a regulator, but could also be really useful to wider researchers.

Mark: So these data are not really created for research purposes, but they clearly have lots of value beyond what they were originally collected for.

Can you tell us a bit about why the Nursing and Midwifery Council thinks sharing their data for academic research is important, and could you possibly give a few examples of how it has been used?

Caroline: Absolutely. I think it’s fair to say that we are on a journey, along with many other regulators, to try and get our information and data to a point where it can be shared more easily with others, so that they can use it to generate useful insights.

There's an awful lot of expertise out there that we want to benefit from ourselves and that we also want the professionals we regulate to benefit from, and ultimately we want to be used to improve people's care.

Mark: And Fiona, if I could bring you in here as someone who works more with people and less with data, how do you feel about all of this? Were you surprised that such data could be used by researchers? Are you happy with them having access to these kinds of data?

Fiona: Yeah, I think it can show us quite a lot about where we are, how far we've come, and where the gaps in knowledge and evidence are. 

Within the Royal College of Midwives, we collect data as well. But as we are a professional organisation, we're a trade union, run by midwives for midwives, we have about 50,000 members. We listen a lot to them in terms of who they are, where they come from, where they work, what's important to them. We collect quite a lot of qualitative data. However, the quantitative data we use is often from other organisations, people like the NMC, in terms of how many midwives are on the register, how many people leave the register, and when they leave the register.

We also look at things like UCAS - the University and College Admissions Service data - how many people are applying to be nurses and midwives, how many are graduating, what's that workforce pipeline? For us, this data is really important because it gives us a bigger picture of who's coming into the profession, are they staying, and have we got enough for the care we need to provide? It helps us in terms of campaigns and areas we might need to look at to support the workforce and ultimately improve the care we're giving.

Shayda: We're now aware that the data being collected isn't just being used for its original purpose. It's now being made available to researchers as well. 

Caroline, could you tell us a bit about how this data is being stored safely and securely, and what precautions are in place to ensure nurses' and midwives' privacy is being protected and that discrimination isn't taking place?

Caroline: I think it's really important to make it clear that we consider any request to use or share our data very carefully. As a public body, we must be clear about the legal basis for sharing any data. There are prescribed legal bases.

We also need to ensure the relevant paperwork is in place, so we have a robust data-sharing agreement, and then making sure we're being clear with people—in this case the professionals on our register—about how their data is used and give them the option to opt out. We have a privacy notice on our website to make this clear. 

Shayda: Thank you, that's very helpful. Fiona, is this the first time you're hearing about how the data is stored and shared? And if so, or even if not, how do you feel about these processes? Is it reassuring for you?

Fiona: Yeah, as a registrant myself, I don't think when I first joined the register, I understood the full scope of what a regulator does. If I’m being completely honest. You just trust that they've got your best interests at heart, and every three years, you provide evidence that you're still fit to stay on the register. 

As I’ve progressed in my career, I've learned more and started to see the NMC’s yearly reports, the more I’ve gotten interested in what can be gained from that information: where our staff come from, their average age, the roles they’re in. I think it’s really important to collect this data because it allows us to triangulate it with other data for example from the NHS, in terms of the number of people coming through the doors, do we have the right skill mix on the register and across the multi-professional teams to deliver that care?
 
I think it’s really important, and if people are listening to this podcast and starting to understand what the NMC does and what data they have, that can only be a good thing. A lot of professionals probably only know the bare minimum because, let’s be honest, they're very busy people.

Mark: If we can take this forward and think about the research done using these data, knowing that they're handled securely, has anything particularly surprised you about the process of sharing data for academic research and the outcomes that have come from opening up and sharing data?

Caroline: To be honest, I've been blown away by the response we've had—both from the professionals on our register and from the organisations we work with, as well as the research community. We've known for a long time that there’s a real call to action from these groups. They’ve said, "Look, you're sitting on a gold mine. Use this data to help improve the situation on the ground and support the professions you regulate to provide the kind of care we all want." 

Likewise, they want us to use data and insights from outside the NMC to improve our work. We've heard that message for a while, and initiatives like our collaboration with the Office for National Statistics and Edinburgh Napier University have been received really positively.

Another surprise is the topics that people come up with. It’s one of the great things about these initiatives: you collaborate with people who bring different perspectives and ways of thinking. They come up with topics we wouldn't have thought of.

Fiona: For me, it’s probably more practical. As someone who would use the data, I’ve been surprised by how difficult it is to obtain. Quite rightly, confidentiality and data safety are important, but coming into a role like mine now, when I'm looking across the UK and trying to think of solutions for current problems, to have a dashboard of data to get to the crux of what the issues are—not just doing it based on anecdotes but with evidence to back it up to say this is what the problem is and where it's happening, and you can do a more targeted approach - it sometimes feels like you’re driving blind. 

Mark: I can feel your frustration. Sometimes we think all these data systems are joined up, and we’re making the best use of our data, but the reverse is often true. We don’t make the most of all the available data, which, as you say, is frustrating.

Shayda: I’ve picked up on a similar sentiment doing public engagement. There’s a real want to make more use of the available data when it’s shared safely and securely. But, as you’ve flagged, Fiona, there’s a very cautionary attitude towards sharing data. .

Caroline, something you mentioned was there's an interesting list of research topics that came up from analysing this data. Any research that’s particularly interesting to you or that you’re excited about?

Caroline: We’re really excited about the ADR UK fellowship. This is the first time the NMC has been involved in such an initiative, so just being involved is a massive cause for celebration for us. We’re also really pleased that one of the proposals to use NMC data linked to the Census for England and Wales has been funded.

This project, by Dr. Iain Atherton at Edinburgh Napier University, will look at understanding the transient nature of the workforce. This is something we’re not able to do ourselves, so it showcases the power of this collaboration.

Shayda: Yeah, that's very interesting. Thank you. And to just take it back very quickly to what Fiona said about these datasets, they almost verify what we know to be true because they are so big. They are covering so many people. It's like whole population-level datasets. And so having that ability to be able to point to the data, and, have it sort of validate qualitative research or smaller quantitative research is extremely powerful. 

I think we’re kind of close to the end now. Is there anything else that you want to cover before we wrap up? 

Fiona: Well, I was just gonna say, I suppose in terms of, the projects and what would be really useful for us is just learning a bit more about, who are our nurses and midwives? We know they are predominantly female, but how does that relate to things like having children or caring responsibilities? How does that relate to equality, diversity, and inclusion? We know as a profession that we don’t proportionately represent the diversity of people that we care for, who are these people? When do they start? How can we retain them? When do they leave? 

We know from some of the data we’ve done in the RCM that midwives are working significant unpaid hours to keep services safe. That information would make it really interesting for people in government as well in terms of how we make our strategic decision-making and conversations about safe staffing, safe pay, and ultimately attracting people to the profession.

Shayda: Absolutely, Caroline. I know you mentioned Iain’s project. Do you think that would cover off some of the concerns that Fiona raised?

Caroline: Yeah, absolutely. I think, you know, the research project that Iain will be doing is a really good start on that journey. So it will give us really good insights which will hopefully help to influence funding of education and training places. It will give us insights into workforce planning. So we can see more clearly, whether people do move from the region, the geographical area where they trained, into other areas. And if so, you know, where do they go and what are they doing? Potentially, the movement between sectors. So, do people move from education and training into the NHS and end up staying there, or do they combine that with work in the independent or private sector? 

But what we really hope is that, this type of initiative and our efforts in this area raise awareness of us and the information that we hold, and that takes on its own life about generating interest in using this data. So that over time, what we get are more requests not just to use our data, but to have it combined with other sources. We know education is a big gap for us, so we’d love it to be combined with education sources. There’s so much of the data out there that it can be combined with, and as long as that’s done appropriately and safely, then I think that’s where the key will be. That’s where all of these questions will be able to get answered.

Shayda:  Absolutely. I’m personally a huge fan of a multi-pronged approach of combining quantitative data and qualitative data. So weaving in stories, testimonials, narratives in with data analysis. It’s exciting that we are at this point that we are now using this data for research. And I suppose it’s only up from here.

But on that note, I just want to say it’s been fascinating speaking to both of you and learning more about your individual stories and the inspirational work that you’ve been doing in providing healthcare and ensuring that those who do provide healthcare are taken care of as well.

As we’re coming to the end of our episode, we like to end each segment by asking everyone what the point of all of this is. So we’d really like to hear from you about what your work means to you, and how it makes lives better. I know this has sort of been the main topic of conversation, but in a sentence or two, what does this all mean?

Fiona: For me, there’s probably two meanings for this. It’s about the people who are working and providing that healthcare. What can we learn about them? How can we make sure that we keep them in the profession, how are we campaigning to support these people to stay and look after their wellbeing, their financial implications? So there’s that element for me, that it’s about the midwifery profession and making sure that stays strong.

Ultimately, as any midwife would tell you, and nurse, it’s about the people that we care for, and we want to make sure that maternity services are safe and effective.

Caroline: I'd agree with everything that that Fiona says. For us ultimately, it's about improving people's care, as a regulator. It's our role to protect the public. We want to encourage research that improves the quality and safety of people's care. And hopefully, through these types of initiatives and through encouraging research, we can do that.

Mark: Thank you. I mean, it's really important to think about these challenges in the sector more broadly, and about how we can respond to those. 

So, if we imagine that Keir Starmer has just entered the chat in this podcast, he's clicked the wrong link, he's ended up here somehow, and he's been listening to what you just said... he's really passionate now about dealing with these issues. What would you say to Keir now? And what would you like to see happen? What would the change you'd want this new government to bring in?

Fiona: Wow! That's like a million-dollar question, isn't it? I suppose I would want him and the wider government to value the work that we do and the care that is needed. And I don't think you really need to go a day at the moment in this current climate that maternity services are not in crisis in the UK.
 
And I think we have to understand that everyone has some contact at some point in their life with healthcare, with midwives at the moment, to help him understand who they are and fair pay, appropriate staffing. This is not just about numbers. This is about the complexity and the quality of care that's needed.
 
I'd probably talk his ear off about flexible working as well and safety at work, and, you know, understanding that we've got a multi-generational workforce with different priorities and different needs. And we constantly need moving, but that needs to be appropriately funded and supported and valued for what it is.

So, yeah, we will see what it brings, and I know there's a lot of work going on reviewing the NHS at the moment, and we'll be there making sure that we're constantly chapping on the government door to remind them of that. I don't have a pass like Caroline, so I think I have to wait in the regular line, like everybody else, but we'll still be constantly chapping on the door. They won't be able to ignore it.

Shayda: Well, that's everything from today's episode. Thank you to our guests, Fiona and Caroline, and for you for listening.

Mark, do you want to tell our listeners what's in store for next time?

Mark: On the next episode, we're going to sunny Old Wales. Well, not physically. We're going to be talking to ADR UK's Welsh branch about how they're using administrative data for planning for the health needs of the future. 

Until next time, stay curious about how your everyday data might shape society.