1

Review of HR systems in Scottish colleges to support improvements in workforce equality, with related recommendations

2

Introduction

Background to audit review of college HR systems

Between 2011 and 2014, 41 Scottish colleges underwent mergers, reducing the overall number to 26 individual colleges within 13 college regions. As a result of this, colleges also had to merge systems and infrastructure, including their HR processes and procedures and supporting IT.

Across the sector there are disparities in staff equality data gathering and reporting mechanisms. Colleges have less information on staff equality issues and the impacts of these than they have for students, with some of the issues arising from ongoing merger and transition arrangements. There is a recognition that this, in turn, causes a number of difficulties for colleges in being able to address their equality duties for staff.

ECU reviewed colleges’ reports in Reporting on Equality: Performance of the specific duties in Scotland 2015 and identified areas for development in relation to employment.

The report can be found at: http://www.ecu.ac.uk/guidance-resources/equality-legislation/performance-specific-duties-scotland-2015/

The research and recommendations in this report form a part of the Supporting workforce diversity: progressing staff equality project which aims to establish a baseline of equality for college staff and support improvement for any challenges identified.

A short life working group was established to take the project forward, comprised of representatives of college staff involved in; equality, diversity and inclusion, HR, together with Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) and the Scottish Funding Council (SFC). The project identified the need to audit the current status and practices regarding college HR systems.

Acknowledgements

Equality Challenge Unit would like to thank members of the working group for their contribution to this work. In particular:

= Doreen Shiels, Glasgow Kelvin College

= Claire Hall, Fife College

= Elaine Reid, North East Scotland College

= Graeme Brewster, City of Glasgow College

= Kenny Wilson, Scottish Funding Council

= Priscilla Marongwe, Scotland’s Rural College

= Julia Halej, Researcher

= Anne Ireson, Policy Officer

= Stephanie Millar, Senior Policy Adviser

3

Thanks also go to the colleges who participated in the audit:

= Argyll College

= Ayrshire College

= Borders College

= City of Glasgow College

= Dumfries and Galloway

= Edinburgh College

= Fife College

= Forth College

= Glasgow Clyde College

= Glasgow Kelvin College

= Moray College

= New College Lanarkshire

= North East Scotland

= North Highland College

= West College Scotland

= West Highland College

= West Lothian College

Further information

Stephanie Millar, ECU, Senior Policy Adviser

stephanie.millar@ecu.ac.uk

4

Who this report is for In terms of meeting their equality requirements and duties under the Equality Act 2010, this report will be of interest to:

= College Boards and Governors

= College Principals and Assistant Principals

= HR Directors and Managers

= Equality and Diversity Managers and Advisers

= Staff with a responsibility for workforce learning and development

= Staff with a responsibility for MIS or BIS data systems

= College and college region equality and HR networks

Colleges may wish to consider circulating this report more widely to ensure all staff with a potential involvement in systems, data gathering and monitoring, are informed and involved when considering the recommendations of this report.

5

Equality Act 2010: Scottish Public Sector Equality Duties (PSED) The PSED incorporates a range of broad equality requirements as well as a number of specific requirements.

General Duties

There is a general duty that requires colleges to have ‘due regard’ to the need to:

= Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010

= Advance equality of opportunity between people from different groups considering the need to:

– Remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics (PCs)

– Meet the needs of people with protected characteristics

– Encourage people with protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is low

= Foster good relations between people from different groups.

The protected characteristics are; age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief (including lack of belief), sex, sexual orientation and in relation to employment only, marriage and civil partnership.

Colleges are required to demonstrate due regard in a number of ways, including developing, evaluating and reviewing policies, designing, delivering and evaluating services (including education provision) and commissioning and procuring services from others.

Specific Duties

The specific duties aim to help colleges and universities to better meet the general duty and these requirements include particular actions relating to staff, including:

= reporting of progress on mainstreaming the general duty into all functions

= developing and publishing a set of equality outcomes that cover all protected characteristics

= assessing the impact of policies and practices against the needs of the general duty

= gathering and using information on employees to inform progress and action

= publishing gender pay gap information

= publishing statements on equal pay for gender, race and disability

= having due regard to the general duty in procurement

= publishing information in a manner that is accessible

6

The above information provides a brief overview of the key requirements of the duties and should be read alongside more detailed guidance. Relevant links and resources can be found at the end of this document.

Recommendations of information to be collected on staff in order to meet the PSED requirements

The Scottish Government has advised that colleges and universities should collect, monitor and use a range of information to demonstrate they are taking steps to consider recruitment, development and retention, where there are key potential equality impacts. This broadly, but not exclusively, includes information on:

= Recruitment and promotion

= Part-time and full-time staff

= Pay and remuneration

= Training and development

= Return to work of women on maternity leave

= Return to work of disabled employees following absence related to their disability

= Appraisals

= Grievances (including about harassment)

= Disciplinary action (including for harassment)

= Dismissals and other reasons for leaving

There may be other resources and information sets of both quantitative and qualitative information that colleges might wish to consider, in order to review and evidence the working environment and working practices, such as the numbers of staff taking up flexible working applications, information from staff satisfaction surveys etc.

More detailed information on gathering and analysing data to meet the requirements of the duties can be found in a range of other ECU resources. Information and links are included at the end of this report.

7

HR systems audit project overview and research findings

Introduction

This is the first audit of its kind in the Scottish college sector and aimed to provide a better picture of, and developing recommendations for, effective staff data collection and monitoring in the sector.

Whilst it is recognised that many colleges undertake excellent work to promote equality and diversity, particularly in relation to students, this is impacted on by the quality of data collection. The audit findings indicated a number of colleges are still in the process of adapting their procedures and supporting technology following the mergers. HR systems are just one of many areas that require adjustments in order to adequately capture and reflect the new reality of the sector. This is an important issue as data capture and an understanding of how this relates to workforce equality is essential to ensure colleges meet their ongoing legal requirements under the equality duties. There is an expectation that colleges collect and monitor a range of staff data to address these requirements.

Research participants acknowledged the audit as being very timely and in particular, reported a need for advice on the following issues:

= Good practice examples of strategies to encourage staff to update their equality data regularly.

= The phrasing of questions on equality monitoring forms and inclusion of all protected characteristics.

= Benchmarking.

All participants agreed that there was an urgent need for equality data collection to be more coherent in the sector, in order to enable national and regional comparisons and allow individual colleges to identify areas for improvement.

In particular, they voiced the hope that the audit will result in recommendations for the sector with regard to good practice examples of strategies to remind and encourage staff to update their data, guidance on equality monitoring questions and benchmarking

Methodology of audit

= The audit consisted of a short online survey and follow up qualitative telephone interviews with selected survey respondents over the spring and summer of 2016.

= Out of 26 colleges contacted to participate in the online survey, 17 colleges responded (a response rate of 65 per cent. The individual respondents included HR managers (6), Heads of HR (5) HR officers/assistants (1), EDI managers (2), HR advisor (1), OD manager (1) and Assistant Principal (1).

= All online survey respondents were subsequently contacted to participate in telephone interviews in order to discuss their survey responses in more depth. Overall, nine respondents agreed to be interviewed. The following analysis presents findings from both the online survey and qualitative interviews. Quotes from interviewees have been anonymised in order to ensure confidentiality.

= Equality monitoring reports were obtained from seven colleges.

8

A copy of the online survey is included at the end of this report as Appendix 1 and the telephone survey discussion questions are included as Appendix 2.

HR systems used

An analysis of the on-line survey results shows that colleges in Scotland use a range of different systems to record their staff data. Colleges that responded to the survey used the following systems:

= Chris 21 6

= iTrent 3

= Cascade 2

= Software for People 1

= Cintra IQ 1

= Midland HR 1

= Teamspirit 1

= Wealden & MYHR 1

= Capita-UNITE 1

Bar chart detailing number of colleges using particular staff record systems

Satisfaction with HR system functionality

During the telephone interviews, several respondents reported dissatisfaction with their HR systems and mentioned plans to develop or change them.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Capita-Unite

Wealden & MYHR

Teamspirit

Midland HR

Cintra IQ

Software for People

Cascade

iTrent

Chris21

Staff record systems

9

Other problems that respondents identified referred to the technical aspects of their HR systems, namely that they were old-fashioned and not very intuitive.

‘Just the look and feel of it [the HR system]. I am not an expert, but if you looked at it you would liken it to something that was more like the 1990s than the 2000s. …lots of screens. You couldn’t really look at a record, because that’s one of its problems.’

Only one respondent reported full satisfaction with their college’s HR system, due to its self-service function and the ease with which HR staff could track data completion on the system.

Capturing staff data

New staff

The online survey indicated that the majority of colleges capture data of new staff members by using an equality monitoring form (online or paper) upon application, which is then entered manually into the staff record by HR staff (16). At one college, new staff members enter this information themselves after being offered a position.

During the interviews one respondent observed that new staff reported on equality data more readily than already established staff at the college.

Existing staff

A number of telephone interview respondents indicated that several colleges are currently in the process of changing or developing their systems to allow staff to self-report their equality data using self-service or have their equality data transferred automatically from the application form to the staff record.

‘We’ve found that applicants, particularly external applicants, are happy to provide the data. For religion and belief there’s a ‘Prefer not to say’ issue, but it’s much smaller than it is for existing members of staff. It is existing members of staff who avoid this, because they’ve never been asked to provide that information.’

Protected characteristics of staff collected by college

All colleges collected data on age, sex, religion or belief, disability, race and ethnicity and marital and civil partnership status. Twelve colleges also included data on gender reassignment, 13 on pregnancy and maternity, and 16 on sexual orientation.

A number of interviewees reported that disability, gender reassignment, religion or belief and sexual orientation were data fields that were most often returned incomplete.

10

Bar chart detailing collection of data across protected characteristics

The seven equality monitoring forms obtained for analysis showed great variability in the way in which they were structured and phrased, and also the extent to which explanation for equality data collection was provided.

= Two out of seven equality monitoring forms included questions about caring responsibilities.

= One did not ask staff about their marital status.

= Data on pregnancy and maternity was not included in the forms received and is collected separately to be registered in the HR record.

= Four equality monitoring forms included questions about nationality, national origin, and country of birth.

Structure of questions

This section explores the variety in the structure of questions on monitoring forms, and only those exhibiting the greatest variety are discussed. It is not the purpose of this report to analyse the questions themselves but to highlight areas of most difference to demonstrate challenges when considering national benchmarking.

With regard to the phrasing of equality monitoring questions, most forms provided headings for the protected characteristics and boxes with the instruction to tick which one applies.

Only two monitoring forms included fully-phrased questions, detailed information on why equality data is collected with assurance that it would be treated confidentially, and provided explanations of definitions for various protected characteristics, as well as sign-posting staff to relevant equality policies in each section.

While questions about ethnicity generally followed the Scottish census, greatest variability could be found in questions about disability, gender identity/reassignment and religion or belief, which indicates that data on these areas would be most difficult to compare between colleges. A comparison of the variation in approach to equality monitoring questions on disability, gender identity/reassignment and religion or belief is included in the tables below:

n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17 n=17

n=12

n=16

n=13

Protected characteristics in staff records

11

Disability:

Question Format Number of colleges

Do you have a disability? Yes

No

Prefer not to say

3

Do you consider yourself to be a disabled person?

Yes

No

Prefer not to say (including list of disabilities or impairments)

2

Do you consider yourself to have a disability? If so, please describe. If none, please state ‘None’.

Open text box 1

Are you considered to be disabled under the provisions of the 2010 Equality Act?

Yes

No

Prefer not to disclose

1

Gender reassignment:

Question Format Number of colleges

Have you ever identified as a trans person?

Yes

No

Prefer not to say

1

Trans-sexual status:

Do you currently or have you previously considered yourself a trans-sexual person?

Yes

No

Choose not to disclose

1

Do you now, or have you in the past, considered yourself to be transgender?

Yes

No

Prefer not to say

2

Gender:

Man

Woman

Trans Gender

Tick boxes 1

How would you describe your gender?

Male (including trans man)

Female (including trans woman)

Tick boxes:

Male (including trans man)

1

12

Other gender identity

Prefer not to say.

Have you ever identified as transsexual or transgender?

Female (including trans woman)

Other gender identity

Prefer not to say.

Yes

No

Prefer not to say

What is your gender identity?

Is your gender identity the same as the gender you were assigned at birth/born with?

Do you identify as being a transgender person?

Tick boxes:

Man (including trans man)

Woman (including trans woman) Other gender identity.

Yes

No

Prefer not to say

Yes

No

Prefer not to say

1

Religion or belief:

Question Format Number of colleges

Religion or faith Open text box 1

Religion or belief Tick boxes:

Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Spiritual, None

Prefer not to disclose

Other

1

What religion, religious denomination or body do you belong to, or what philosophical belief do you hold?

Tick boxes:

None, Protestant, Roman Catholic, Other Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Pagan, Jewish, Muslim

Another religion or belief please state

Prefer not to say

1

Religion or belief (please tick the relevant box)

Tick boxes:

Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, No Religion/Belief

2

13

Prefer not to say

Any other religion

Which of the following religions or belief systems, if any, do you belong to or affiliate with?

Tick boxes:

Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Paganism, Sikhism, No religion or belief

Choose not to disclose

Other

1

What religion, religious denomination or body do you belong to?

Tick boxes:

None, Church of Scotland, Roman Catholic, Other Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish, Hindu, Pagan, Another religion

Prefer not to answer

1

All respondents stated that they were aware of the great variability in data collection between Scottish colleges and the need for more uniformity in order to facilitate comparisons. They emphasised the need for regional benchmarks.

‘[…], not only national, but regional, because for example, a higher proportion of people declare a disability than elsewhere and a significantly higher proportion of black and minority ethnic groups and other white groups as well. So, comparing it to Scotland as a whole would then average in all the rural and more outlying areas where they’ve got a very low proportion.’

Updating equality data and encouraging staff disclosure

Participants were asked how staff were encouraged to review and alter their data and the process by which this took place.

The strategies that colleges employed in order to remind and incentivise staff to disclose and update data on protected characteristics were fairly similar. Most colleges sent emails to staff explaining the purpose and importance of equality data collection on an annual or biennial basis in order to prepare annual or biennial college equality reports.

During telephone interviews, all respondents announced that self-service was in the process of being introduced at their colleges.

= Nine respondents to the online survey indicated that data could be updated by staff using the college’s self-service platform. At the remaining colleges, data was updated by HR manually when requested by staff.

= According to the online survey, three colleges did not have any strategies in place to encourage staff to complete or update their equality monitoring forms.

‘So we would expect them (staff), without possibly having made that clear to them, to tell us about a change. I would imagine in reality, somebody who gets pregnant, or becomes

14

disabled in some way, the first thing in their mind won’t be to come and make sure we have changed that on our payroll system.’

= Only four colleges had developed strategies beyond a reminder email. One strategy was to include information about data collection and its purpose in the monthly staff newsletter and to attach a leaflet about data collection to the payslips of staff.

Colleges employ a variety of methods at varying times to encourage staff to review their data and amend it if necessary. No single method stood out as being more successful than others.

= One college incorporates the information into induction and equality training.

= One college requires staff to confirm their data in order to access their payslips.

= One college includes information in a HR newsletter and a leaflet in with payslips.

During the interviews, two respondents seemed to disagree on whether or not producing fliers on equality data collection was a successful strategy. While one respondent found that it worked well at their college, another respondent stated that in their experience it did not lead to any notable improvements in data completion.

The digital badge initiative mentioned by one respondent is another strategy. Staff would acquire a digital badge recognising their engagement and achievement in equality, diversity and inclusiveness (EDI) after completing a bespoke college specific online module on EDI, pledge to be an equality champion and update and check the accuracy of their equality data. The initiative was advertised across the college with a promotional video entitled ‘Monitoring Matters: Why it is important to provide your equality information’. The respondent commented the initiative has been a great success and one third of staff have engaged with their equality data since its implementation.

Pie chart detailing strategies in place to remind or encourage staff to update equality data

annual/biennial emails, n= 8

no strategy in place, n=3

digital badges, n=1

data confirmation to access payslips,

n=1

HR newsletter and leaflet with

payslips, n=1

induction and equality training,

n= 1

15

Summary of key points from HR systems audit

= Scottish colleges use a variety of HR systems, with many colleges planning to introduce changes to their systems in the coming academic year largely to allow for self-service.

= Most dissatisfaction with current HR systems related to the lack of a self-service option for staff to input and update their data and the lack of integration between the HR systems and the recruitment system, placing limitations on data completion, tracking, monitoring and reporting.

= All colleges that participated in the online survey (17) collect data on age, sex, religion or belief, disability, race and ethnicity and marital and civil partnership status. 12 colleges also include data on gender reassignment, sixteen on sexual orientation and thirteen on pregnancy and maternity.

= According to telephone interviews (9), data fields that were most often returned as incomplete were religion, sexual orientation, disability and gender reassignment.

= An analysis of equality monitoring forms (7) revealed variability regarding the data fields included, information about the purpose of equality data collection and the phrasing and format of questions, indicating that comparisons between colleges are currently difficult in the sector, particularly with regard to disability, gender reassignment and religion.

= In order to remind staff about updating their equality data, most colleges distributed e-mails on an annual or biennial basis explaining the purpose and importance of equality data collection. Other initiatives included fliers that were attached to monthly payslips, as well as a digital badge initiative which resulted in over one third of staff engaging with their equality data.

= Respondents voiced expectations that the audit would result in recommendations for the sector, in particular good practice examples of strategies to remind and encourage staff to update their data, guidance on equality monitoring questions and benchmarking (particularly regional).

16

Conclusions = There is a requirement for colleges to meet their equality obligations under the Equality Act

2010 and the Scottish public sector equality duties for both staff and students. In addition, colleges and college boards are required to meet requirements set out by the SFC as part of their Outcome Agreement guidance and framework, and the SFC gender action plan.

= There has been significant change within the college sector since the regionalisation and merger process began and this has impacted on a range of functions and activities, including merging of college data systems and a variety of changes affecting staff.

= The ability to benchmark with other colleges and college regions is affected by the variation in different approaches and in different equality monitoring systems.

= There appears to be a lack of awareness of the requirement to evidence staff equality in colleges in the same way as student equality; consequently, many colleges are not meeting or fully addressing their equality obligations for staff. Whilst there may be a number of related contributory factors, it is clear from the audit review that significant issues include:

– disclosure by staff (in a culture of rapid and uncertain change) and how to improve disclosure rates.

– a lack of data gathering (e.g. information not being gathered on all protected characteristics or specific aspects of workforce equality, for example recruitment, development and retention).

– data systems, functionality and integration with other college systems (e.g. college systems not being set up to collect data on all PCs or to enable monitoring on issues such as pregnancy and maternity, recruitment systems not facilitating or linking to self-service disclosure or HR records systems).

– variance in data gathering and monitoring approaches between colleges and college regions, impacting on the ability to benchmark and identify areas for improvement.

17

Recommendations for college principals and regional college boards

1. Review to what extent the college or college region is meeting its legal equality requirements and SFC Outcome Agreement requirements for staff (as well as for students) and take action to address gaps. Priority consideration should be given to areas where limited or no information is currently being gathered for specific protected characteristics or where recommended staff equality monitoring is not taking place. This work may integrate with other college equality work and with equality outcomes identified to address the ongoing PSED reporting duties.

2. Enhance and improve the overall quality of data to support benchmarking within the sector, regional and local areas, as well as meeting the PSED requirements. Colleges should use ECU guidance and also refer to census categories as a baseline for protected characteristic data gathering and monitoring (as recommended by both ECU and SFC). However, colleges and college boards should note that there are some categories of the census that currently do not provide the level of detail needed for every protected characteristic (for example; disability and gender reassignment). Colleges may wish to consider these issues when reviewing their staff HR systems and data gathering and monitoring processes.

Note: As a follow up to this report, further ECU guidance on data monitoring and data categories for Scottish colleges will be available during mid-2017.

3. Review staff disclosure rates and implement opportunities for staff to provide or update information at different points and using a variety of different methods, to encourage improved disclosure rates and enable better analysis and use of college staff data. Colleges should link or integrate disclosure to other college issues or initiatives; for example within college campaigns, personal, team communications or newsletters, learning and development, or through specific initiatives such as the ‘digital badge’ scheme, using a partnership or staff involvement approach where possible.

Note: as a follow up to this report, further revised ECU guidance will be produced during 2017.

4. Take action to adopt best practice approaches to asking equality monitoring questions, alongside consideration of benchmarking requirements and uniformity. Colleges should consider the current college culture and morale amongst staff, the potential impact of this on disclosure and the way information is provided to staff to explain the purpose and use of data gathering, to help engender greater trust and reassure staff.

5. Review college HR systems and take action to ensure data gathering systems for staff information integrate with other key college systems, (such as recruitment, self- service and payroll systems) to enable data collection and monitoring for all protected characteristics and for other key workforce equality matters where monitoring and reporting is required.

18

6. Ensure that data is collected on all protected characteristics for staff to enable enhanced monitoring and benchmarking in the future, in order to identify areas for improvement and inform the college or college region’s approach to equality, as well as addressing requirements for PSED and SFC reporting.

Note: Colleges and college regions may have queries about data gathering where very small numbers are involved, including confidentiality concerns. Staff data gathering, monitoring and use for all protected characteristics is however a legal requirement. ECU has published guidance for colleges and universities on working with small data numbers; a link is included in the information section below.

19

Information links and resources ECU (2012) Equality in Scotland’s colleges: collecting and analysing staff equality data http://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/equality-in-scotlands-colleges-collecting-and-analysing-staff-equality-data/

ECU guidance and resources on using data and evidence http://www.ecu.ac.uk/guidance-resources/using-data-and-evidence/

ECU (2016) Research and data briefing 1; working with small data http://www.ecu.ac.uk/guidance-resources/using-data-and-evidence/working-with-data/ ECU; encouraging disclosure of equality data - understand how to make staff and students feel comfortable disclosing equality information http://www.ecu.ac.uk/guidance-resources/using-data-and-evidence/encouraging-disclosure-equality-info/ ECU (2017) The public sector equality duty: specific duties for Scotland (revised)

http://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/the-public-sector-equality-duty-specific-duties-for-scotland-revised/ ECU (2012) Equality Act 2010: implications for colleges and HEIs revised http://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/equality-act-2010-revised/ ECU guidance on monitoring questions http://www.ecu.ac.uk/guidance-resources/using-data-and-evidence/monitoring-questions/

ECU guidance on encouraging disclosure http://www.ecu.ac.uk/guidance-resources/using-data-and-evidence/encouraging-disclosure-equality-info/ ECU (2009) Developing staff disclosure http://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/developing-staff-disclosure/

EHRC (Scotland) 2012 Employee information and the public sector duty https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/employee-information-and-public-sector-equality-duty-guide-public-authorities

EHRC (Scotland) 2016 Evidence and the public sector equality duty https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/3._evidence_-_formatted_0.pdf

20

Appendix 1: Online survey

Scottish Colleges Equality Monitoring: Systems Audit

The Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Regulations require colleges to take action across their operation and to set, achieve and report on demonstrable outcomes. Nevertheless, across the college sector in Scotland there are disparities in staff equality data gathering and reporting mechanisms. Furthermore, colleges have less information on staff equality than they have for students. To address this, Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) is undertaking a national project focusing on college staff equality as part of its new three year funding agreement with the Scottish Funding Council. As a starting point for this project, we are conducting an audit of the systems and processes currently in place for the gathering and monitoring of staff equality data. This will help us map the landscape of the college sector in Scotland with regards to equality and diversity monitoring. This will provide benchmark information that will underpin the development of support and resources for colleges on how to improve staff equality data collection and reporting.

1. Please select your institution from the list below.

Dundee and Angus College

2. Which HR system/s do you use to manage staff data? Please also detail any systems which staff can use themselves to update their personal information.

3. Which of the following fields are included in the staff record? (Please select all that apply)

Age

Disability

Gender reassignment

Marital/civil partnership status

Pregnancy/maternity

Race/ethnicity

Religion/belief

21

Sex

Sexual orientation

None of the above

4. Please describe how information on new staff members is added to the database.

5. Please describe the ways in which staff can access, view and/or update and edit their information on the staff record.

6. Please describe any strategies you have for encouraging staff to update their details, including any information you have on how regularly they do so.

7. As a follow-up to this questionnaire, we would like to discuss your answers and your monitoring processes with you during a 30 minute phone call. Please supply us with your contact details, or the contact details of the person we should speak to about the information you have provided, and we will be in touch to set up a conversation.

Name

Position

Email Address

Phone Number

22

Appendix 2: Qualitative telephone interview questions and areas for discussion as a follow up to on-line questionnaire

1. Before we start can I just confirm some basic information about you?

a. Could you please tell me your full job title?

b. And how long have you been in that post?

2. Next I’d like to ask you a few questions about your responses to our survey, just to get a bit more information about your systems and processes for the monitoring of protected characteristics in your staff.

a. Follow up: detail on system. How long has it been in place? Any plans to change? What are the main benefits of the system? Are there any problems?

b. Questions on fields. Are any missing? Why? Plans to introduce?

c. Would we be able to get a screenshot of a blank or dummy staff record? Just to see how the various fields are worded and to get a sense of how they’re organised?

d. Follow up on information on new staff. Can you tell me a little more about that process?

e. Would you be able to send me a blank version of the monitoring form for job applicants?

f. Clarify issues surrounding staff accessing/updating information on staff record.

g. Ask for more narrative detail on how staff are encouraged to update their details. Are they aware of any problems here, are there plans to launch new initiatives? Any sense of how often staff update their details? Is information pulled from other sources, e.g. if a staff member takes maternity leave, does that result in a change to the staff record? Ask for copies of any forms mentioned.

3. Any further issues to be resolved – ask if participant has any questions.

23

Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) supports higher education institutions across the UK and in colleges in Scotland to advance equality and diversity for staff and students.

ECU provides research, information and guidance, training, events and Equality Charters that drive forward change and transform organisational culture in teaching, learning, research and knowledge exchange. We have over ten years’ experience of supporting institutions to remove barriers to progression and success for all staff and students.

ECU believes that the benefits of equality and diversity and inclusive practice are key to the wellbeing and success of individuals, the institution’s community, the efficiency and excellence of institutions, and the growth of further and higher education in a global environment.

We are a registered charity funded by the Scottish Funding Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and Universities UK, and through direct subscription from higher education institutions in England and Northern Ireland.

Your feedback will help us to improve and develop our publications and resources, and help us to ensure that we produce materials that support your work.

You can email us with your feedback: pubs@ecu.ac.uk

First Floor, Westminster Tower 3 Albert Embankment London, SE1 7SP

T 020 7438 1010

F 020 7438 1011

E info@ecu.ac.uk www.ecu.ac.uk

© Equality Challenge Unit 2017 Information in this publication may be reproduced solely by ECU subscribers and the universities and colleges that ECU is funded to support, as long as it retains accuracy, the source is identified and it will not be used for profit. Use of this publication for any other purpose is prohibited without prior permission from ECU. Alternative formats are available: E pubs@ecu.ac.uk

Company limited by guarantee. Registered in England and Wales, No. 05689975. Charity no. 1114417 (England, Wales) and SC043601 (Scotland).