Let me start with a confession.

Data is not glamorous. It doesn’t come with blue lights, it doesn’t trend on social media, and it rarely gets a standing ovation in a conference hall.  In fact, when I raise it in meetings, I can almost hear the collective sigh.  A few eyes drift to laptops.  Someone suddenly discovers an urgent email.  Even the chair, on occasion, looks like they’re mentally rearranging their sock drawer.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: if we don’t get our data right, we don’t get policing right.

As a cohort, the Superintendents Association Inclusion Representatives have had important conversations about this.  And what’s striking is that across all protected characteristics, we are seeing the same theme.  Incomplete data.  Patchy data.  Data that simply isn’t collected at all.  And when it comes to intersectionality – the lived experience of people who sit across more than one protected characteristic – it is too often misunderstood, sidelined, or treated as an academic footnote.

The Inclusion Representatives are united on this.  This blog is on behalf of all of us.

Accurate and full data collection isn’t about box-ticking. It’s about people.

It’s about understanding our workforce – who they are, what motivates them, what barriers they face, and how they experience policing from the inside.

It’s about understanding victims of crime – who is most vulnerable, who is least likely to report, who is most likely to disengage from the criminal justice process.

It’s about understanding our communities – not in broad brush strokes, but in the real, textured, intersectional way that reflects modern Britain.

Without full and accurate data across all protected characteristics, we are making decisions in partial darkness. And when we don’t understand intersectionality – how, for example, race and sexuality or disability and gender identity interact – we risk missing the very people who most need our protection.

I would go as far as to say this: if we don’t fix this, policing cannot fully deliver on its core mission to prevent and detect crime, tackle anti-social behaviour, and keep victims and communities safe.  That may sound dramatic.  It isn’t.  This could well be the next emergency for UK policing.  Not because it’s loud and visible – but because it’s quiet and systemic.

We cannot accept a position where we choose not to know.  Where we decide that some aspects of people’s identities are worthy of scrutiny and others are not.  Where we shrug and say, “The system doesn’t allow it.”  Systems have been changed and updated repeatedly in policing, often at speed, when the will is there.  This is not about technology alone, it’s about priority.

And for those who worry that talking about protected characteristics somehow fragments our approach, the opposite is true.  Good data unifies our understanding.  It allows us to see patterns, disparities, disproportionality, strengths and risks clearly.  It strengthens operational decision-making, and it improves service delivery.

A single national standard for inclusion data would replace patchy practice with comparable, high‑quality information.  This would support superintendents (and colleagues in other ranks) with operational decision‑making, and would improve transparency and public confidence.  As a cohort, the inclusion representatives support moves to develop a national standard for inclusion data.

Intersectionality is sometimes treated as an optional extra, something for academic panels rather than operational briefings.  But in reality, it’s central.

A gay female officer’s experience may not mirror that of a gay male officer.  A Black disabled woman’s experience of crime may not reflect that of a white disabled man.  A trans victim from a minoritised ethnic background may face entirely different barriers to reporting than someone who shares only one of those characteristics.

If we don’t collect full data, and analyse it, we cannot see those patterns.  If we don’t see them, we cannot respond to them.  And if we cannot respond, we cannot claim to be truly inclusive or truly effective.

This is where leadership matters.  Good leadership welcomes people of all backgrounds and actively gives them a voice.  It understands that listening is not weakness, it’s intelligence gathering of the most important kind.  It seeks out uncomfortable truths because they lead to better decisions and better service.  Bad leadership, on the other hand, thrives in echo chambers.  It is dismissive.  It doesn’t listen.  It mistakes challenge for nuisance and data for bureaucracy.

As superintendents, we are leaders, whether we sit in operations, policy, training, or governance.  We set the tone, and we influence priorities.  We ask the awkward questions in meetings (even when we notice the laptop lids slowly lifting).

So the inclusion Representatives ask is, to every superintendent reading this: use your influence.  Raise this in your meetings.  Challenge incomplete data.  Ask why certain characteristics are missing.  Ask how intersectionality is being captured.  Don’t accept “the system can’t do that” as the end of the conversation.

Bring pressure to bear – respectfully, persistently, professionally – on forces and governing bodies across the UK to commit to full and accurate data collection for all protected characteristics. For our workforce.  For victims of crime.  For our communities.

Data may not be exciting.  But getting it wrong (or not getting it at all) has consequences that are very real.  If we want to lead well, serve well, and protect well, we need to start by knowing who we are serving.

And that starts with better data.

Ed Haywood-Noble            Leanne Walker          Dave Oram          Ross Campell            Sam Payne

LGBTQ+ Rep                        Gender Rep                Race Rep            Disability Rep           Welsh Forces Rep