Public Sector Equality Duty

Transcription

1 Public Sector Equality Duty Annual Workforce Equality Monitoring Report; January 2015 Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust Page 1

2 Executive Summary Each public sector organisation is required by the specific requirements of the Public Sector Equality Duty to publish data, annually, to show it is compliant with the general aims of the duty. This information must demonstrate that it is reviewing both its workforce and service delivery in relation to the duty; that the organisation has a knowledge of the demographic profile of its service users and workforce in relation to protected groups, collects and publishes this data, reviews standard of care and employment outcomes in relation to these groups, identifies area of inequality and good practice, demonstrates that it has established equality objectives and progress in relation to reducing these unequal outcomes. This report covers the main aspects of workforce data including recruitment and selection, NHS national staff survey and HR processes (disciplinary, capabilities and bullying and harassment) across protected groups, where this data is available. It identifies key recommendations, which will be presented to the Trust s Inclusion & Equality subgroup for ratification and then to Patient and Staff Committee for assurance purposes. This information is then presented within the Trust s Annual Inclusion & Equality Data Publication, which provides an overview of current work programmes, key achievements and recommendation and actions across both service deliver and workforce. Key Recommendations for 2015 Republish its annual equality reports in line with the publication of the NHS Staff Survey results (1 st June 2015 and 1 st June thereafter), to identify key work- streams in a more timely manner and align actions to support organisational/divisional improvement plans. Review recruitment data by disability to establish if there are significantly adverse outcomes across the process and to ensure that the Trust is compliant with its commitment to positive action for applicants with a disability. Bring to the Inclusion & Equality sub group, the following areas identified within the report; a) Further detailed analysis of disciplinary rates on gender (men compared to females) and ethnicity. b) Pay-bands profile by ethnicity, data indicates a under representation of BME staff at senior level across the organisation Review the results from the Staff Survey, in a more timely manner, in relation to all protected group, in particular, bullying and harassment and experiencing discrimination and work with partner organisations and Staff Inclusion Network to identify joint action plan. Submit bid for innovations monies to support the development of a Staff Buddy/Mentor programme to develop a network of support advisors across the Trust to support staff that require additional support with a disability or long term health condition. Page 2

3 1) Equality Duty & Public Sector Duty 1.1 Background In April 2011 the new Public Sector Equality Duty ("PSED") came into force. The PSED consists of a general equality duty (eliminate discrimination, reduce disadvantage, advance opportunity & foster good relations for individuals from protected groups) and specific duties; this requires all public sector bodies to provide evidence that they comply with the general duties through providing clear evidence and data, involve protected groups in developing services and identifying disadvantage and publish equality objectives. To ensure we are compliant with the Equality Act 2010, the Trust produces a series of equality monitoring data reports. This report reviews all of the workforce information that is monitored by the Equality & Diversity & Senior HR team. This data is used to identify any potential negative impacts on protected groups across the workforce and supports the baseline data analysis when equality assessing HR policies and procedures. The information in this report is captured through several data sources: TRAC (Recruitment & Selection Reports), HR central record system of Employment Relations data, ESR (Electronic Staff Records) and the Staff Survey 2013 which is collated and analysed independently by Picker. 1.2 Data Analysis Workforce Monitoring The Equality Act requires employers with 150 plus employees to produce and monitor data on their workforce to ensure that they can show compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty. For staff the information should at least address; -being of staff. 1.3 Data Validity & Reporting Periods Reporting Period : Where possible the reference period for data analysis is Oct 2013 Sept 2014 unless stated otherwise. From January 2014 the Trust changed its recruitment and selection management system and this data is now recorded through TRAC. All data recorded via NHS Jobs from October 2013 to January 2014 has been amalgamated onto the new system. (The Trust will continue to take into consideration a three month stabilisation factor (i.e. it takes up to 3 months to conclude the majority of appointments). Adverse Impact Ratio: Is an important concept in employment data analysis and can be used as a means to indicate if employment processes are fair and free from potential bias. The 4/5 th rule; suggests that if any group is less than four-fifths of the rate of group with the highest success rate it may indicate bias. (Delivering Equality, ACAS 2008.) Page 3

4 Exclusions: Only data groups that exceed 2% or more candidates have been included in the adverse impact ratio analysis 1.4 Data Sets The following data sets have been used through this report: Race: The following white sub groups were combined to form white race group : White British & White Irish The following race sub groups were combined to form All BME (Black and Minority ethnic groups): White other Asian Black Mixed Chinese Other group Disability Disabled Non disabled Sex Male Female Sexual Orientation Heterosexual The following groups were combined to form the L,G, B group: Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual Age Religion & Belief Christian The following groups were combined to form the all other religions group: Atheism Buddhism Hinduism Islam Jainism Judaism Sikhism Other Gender Re-assignment Gender Re-assignment can now be recorded via the new Recruitment and Selection data recording system TRAC which will be collected throughout 2014/15 and an analysis of data will be included in 2016 Workforce report. Gender Re-assignment is not currently recorded through ESR, but through the development of the Staff Forum, working in partnership with LGB & T forum, and by signing up to the Stonewall Health Champion Page 4

5 Programme the Trust hopes to develop relevant data for staff & service-users from this protected group. 2) Ethnicity 2.1 Ethnicity Profile against the local population Table1: Ethnicity Profile of SRFT against the Local Population as at Sept 2013/14 Local Population * Staff Profile at Sep 12 Staff Profile at Sep 13 Staff Profile at Sep 14 White British/Irish 86% 84% 84% 83% BME (inc white other) 14% 16% 16% 17% (Census 2011 ONS) Table 2: Ethnicity Profile (breakdown) of SRFT against the Local population Local Population % Staff Profile at Sept 12 Staff Profile at Sep 13 Staff Profile at Sep 14 White British/Irish 86% 84% 84% 83% White Other 4% 3% 3% 3% Mixed 2 % 1% 1% 1% Asian 3% 7% 8% 8% Black 3% 2% 3% 3% Chinese 1% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% Other 1% 1% 1% 1% Not stated Not provided 1% 0.8% 0.6% Analysis Tables 1 demonstrate that the Trust s overall workforce is reflective of the overall ethnicity of the local population employing approximately 3% more BME staff than Salford s profile (17% to 14% respectively) and has increased by 1% compared with last year s report. Excluding Medical & Dental Staff the Trust s BME profile sits at a slightly lower percentage of 13%, slightly lower that the local population demographic figures 14% and drops to 10% if we exclude Nursing & Midwifery staff. Further analysis of staff groups by ethnicity will be carried out later in the paper but the data above indicates that if we excluded these two staff groups from our staffing profiles, the White British/Irish employment rates stands at 85% which is slightly below the local population rate. Table 2 shows a more detailed breakdown of ethnic profiling against the local population, it is clear from this table that the Trust employs a significant number of Asian staff, than the local profile; 8% compared to 3% local population with White Other and Chinese under-represented. There continues to be a very small decline year on year of White British staff, which is reflective of the changes within diversity of the local population. Recommendation The Trust must ensure that it continues to scrutinises analysis of workforce data outcomes by ethnic groups, to give assurance that it is meeting the needs of its diverse workforce. The Staff Inclusion Network will be tasked with reviewing this information and developing actions to ensure that this Page 5

6 2.2 Recruitment & Selection analysis by Ethnicity Monitoring the selection stages of recruitment by ethnicity (includes vacancies and appointments made via TRAC from Oct 13 Sept 14) Table 3: Analysis of recruitment data of White V Black & Minority Ethnic Groups Applicat s Received % of applicants Invited to interview rate at S/L Appt rate at interview rate overall % of appoint White % % % 7% 74% BME % % % 3% 19% Undis 289 1% Data excluded as <2% of all candidates Totals (*most successful group; excluding undisclosed) Table 4: Adverse Indicator Impact Calculation v White British/Irish Short-listing Interview Overall BME Analysis of results by White v all BME The above data shows a comparison of the outcomes on the recruitment & selection process for White British candidates and Black & Ethnic Minority Groups (BME). Table 3 indicate that the most successful group across all selection processes are White British candidates with an overall success rate of 7%, which has decreased by 2 percentage points from last year. There still remains a significant gap in success between BME and White British when Table 4 indicates that there is an adverse impact in relation to all recruitment & selection outcomes at short-listing and overall outcomes when comparing White British candidates and BME candidates Actions Analysis of recruitment data is highly complex due to the different variations which can influence the results of the recruitment process; for example the type of jobs individuals apply for, the quality and suitable skills of the applicants, the overall number of applicants for each post, suitable work permits. Therefore, further investigation is required in relation to these outcomes before we can deliver any firm conclusions Recommendation This year s results follow a similar pattern from last years equality monitoring reports and it is strongly recommended that a detailed data analysis is undertaken on these outcomes. 2.3 Workforce Monitoring Data by ethnicity Page 6

7 2.3.1 Ethnic Profile of Staff Group Table 5 ; Breakdown of Staff Group by Ethnicity as at 1 st September 2014 Prof & Tech Add clinc A&C AHP Estates Health scient M&D N&M Total Other Group % Asian % Black % Chinese % Mixed % Not Spec % White % White Other % Total % Analysis of Staff Groups by Ethnicity Table 5 shows the profile of staff employed across staff groups by their ethnic profiling. Admin & Clerical (A&C); 92% of admin & clerical staff are White British compared to 83% average employment rate, 2.4% are Asian, 1.8% are White Other, 1.1% are Black, 0.5% are of mixed ethnicity and 0.2% of Chinese ethnicity are employed in this staff group. When compared to the local population rates it appears that for administrative and clerical we are more likely to employ White British, Asian and Mixed ethnicity staff, 0.2% of admin and clerical staff are of Chinese ethnicity which is slightly under representative of the local population (1.1%). Nursing & Midwifery (N&M); 11% are of Asian ethnicity (7.9% average rate) and 4.75% are of Black ethnicity (2.6% average rate) both higher than the average employment rates for these ethnic groups compared to 79.2% are of White British (83% average). Given the targeted recruitment practice that has been undertaken in the past to recruit nurses overseas we would expect to see this pattern of employment rates and it is fairly consistent throughout the NHS. This employment pattern continues with Medical & Dental staff groups with White British staff significantly under represented within this staff group at 52% (83% average) and the majority of BME groups over represented within M&D; Asian staff 22.4% (7.9% average), White other 11.2% (2.9% average) and other group 4.7% (1.1% average). Black staff are employed as 2.5% of M&D which is reflective of the average employment rate for this this ethnic group. In comparison to 2012/13 data White Other group has increased significantly from 8.5% to 11.2% which reflects trends in the geographical mobility of workers in the EU. Recommendations: it is suggested that further detailed analysis is undertaken on profiling staff groups by ethnicity excluding N&M & M&D posts, given that in the past and future recruitment has been targeted at overseas, these staff groups significantly impact on the profile of the staff groups by ethnic profiling. 2.4) Pay Band by ethnicity Graph 1: Salary Band Analysis by Ethnicity September 2014 Page 7

8 2.4.2 Analysis Graph 1 demonstrates % spilt of salary scales by ethnicity. BME staff are over represented at Band 1, 5 and other when compared to the average employment rate of that ethnic group and under represented at Bands 2,3,4,6,7 and 8a-8d. White staff have a higher representation at Bands 2, 3, 4, 6,7, 8a-8d and are under-represented at Bands 1, 5 and other. The high % of BME within the other paybands (see graph 7) covers Medical and Dental staff and we have seen in other analysis in this paper that a higher number of BME staff are employed within this staff group Recommendations Further analysis will be required in relation to the data including analysis of salaries as well as banding as other factors (enhancements & over time etc) which may significantly impact on final income distribution. However, it does appear from the initial review of the data that BME staff are under-represented at Band 6 and above. Refer to the D& E subgroup for further scrutiny. From January 2015 the Trust will begin recording Staff Promotions by equality group including Ethnicity which will be reported on in 2015/16 Page 8

9 Percentage 2.5 Turnover Graph 2 Turnover by ethnicity % Turnover by Ethnicity Oct Sep Any Other Ethnic Group Asian Black Chine se Mixed Not Specifi ed White British & Irish White Other % Turnover Trust Avg % Turnover Trust Avg Graph 2 shows the average turnover rate of all ethnic groups (9.6%) with Black continuing to have the highest turnover rate compared to the average (20.77%). In comparison to figures in 2013/14 labour turnover has increased from 8.5% to 9.6% with a significant increase in particular amongst Black, Chinese and Mixed groups compared to the previous year (Black has risen from 15.85% to 20.77%, Chinese has risen from 10.71% to 15.09% and Mixed has risen from 9.84% to 14.81%) Those Not Specified have risen slightly from 12.63% to 13.33% and rates within Asian group has decreased from 7.09% to 5.97%. Any other Ethnic Group, White British and White Other continue to be below the Trust average Table 6 Number of leavers by headcount by ethnicity Ethnicity Count Any Other Ethnic Group 6 Asian 29 Black 35 Chinese 4 Mixed 10 Not Specified 6 White British & Irish 534 White Other Analysis and Recommendations It is noticeable that certain ethnic groups ; Black, Not specified, Mixed and Chinese have a higher turnover rate than the Trust average. Further investigation on these rates will be recommended to the Trust D&E subgroup, in particular if staff are leaving from the same department. Page 9

10 More investigation into reasons for leaving is required and the Trust will be required to focus more on conducting meaningful exit interviews and recording and sharing this data to ensure equity. 2.6) Staff Survey Results 2013 Table 7: Staff Survey Key Results by Ethnicity ) Professional & career development a) % appraised in the last 12 months 85% BME & 92% White 2) Up take of training and development b) % receiving job-relevant training, learning or development in the last 12 months ; 88% BME & 85% White 3) Equality & Diversity a) believing the Trust provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion: 81% BME & 92% White b) experiencing discrimination at work in the last 12 months; 21% BME & 6% White 4) Bullying & Harassment a) % experiencing physical violence from patients/relatives; 14% BME & 12% White b) % experiencing physical violence from staff BME 7% & White 2% c) % experiencing H&B from patients/ relatives 23% BME & 25% White d) % experiencing H&B from staff 27 BME & 21% White Analysis of Staff Survey Results The staff survey results indicate that staff from BME group s report worse outcomes to White staff on 6 out of the 8 questions asked, with BME staff reporting slightly better on receiving relevant job related training and learning, and lower levels experiencing Bullying and Harassment from patients in comparison to White staff. BME staff reported slightly lower % being appraised in the last 12 months (85% compared to 92% White Staff) and lower levels of belief that the Trust offers equal opportunities for progression (81% compared to 92% White Staff). Significantly BME Staff reported higher levels of experiencing of discrimination at work (21% compared to 6% White Staff), higher levels of experiencing Bullying and Harassment from Staff and higher levels of experiencing physical violence from both staff and patients. A higher percentage of White staff reported having an appraisal in the last 12 months. There has been an increase for both BME and White British Staff reporting discrimination at work, 5% and 1% retrospectively, with 21% BME staff reporting discrimination compared to 6% of White staff, the results are not significantly different, however, this issue will be discussed with the Trust campaign to improve outcomes in relation to Bullying & Harassment across the organisation. The links between staff feeling discriminated against and Bullying & Harassment issues must be explored further. Page 10

11 We asked PICKER to undertake analysis on all the results by protected groups and they reported that; your BME staff report more positive experiences than your white staff on a lot of questions (and significantly worse on none). This is a really positive outcome for the Trust and will be monitored for a similar pattern in next year s survey Actions and outcomes The above results were reported to the Staff & Patient Experience Committee and actions have been incorporated into the Trust s D&E action plan; each directorate to develop action plans, in-depth staff survey on bullying & harassment, development of support advisor for staff experiencing discrimination, E&D team to conduct ward/clinic walks, attend staff meetings and develop staff diversity forum. 2.7) Key Employment Relations Indicators Table 8; Employment Relations Summary Data by Ethnicity 2014 Number and % of total workforce: BME White Subject to all disciplinary procedure 13(1.1) 46 (0.7) Involved in bullying & harassment 7 (0.6) 24 (0.4) Subject to all capability procedure 20 (1.7) 184 (3.1) Promoted Adverse Impact Ratio Subject to all disciplinary procedures Involved in bullying & harassment Subject to all capability procedure Information not available at present see action plan Adverse Ethnic Group 0.46 BME Unable to calculate 0.6 White Analysis In relation to disciplinary procedures; 1.1% of BME staff have been involved in the disciplinary process compared to 0.7% of white staff. This calculates to 0.46 adverse impact ratio. The differences between BME & White staff were tested using chi-square and were statistically significant (p= 0.01). The relative risk is 2.1% (95% confidence interval 1.2 to 3.9); BME staff are twice more likely to be subjected to disciplinary action than White Staff. When comparing capability: 3.1% of White staff have been involved in the capability procedures compared to 1.7% of BME staff. This calculates to 0.6 adverse impact ratio. The differences between BME & White staff were tested using chi-square and were statistically significant (p= 0.01). The relative risk is 0.6 (95% confidence interval 0.3 to 1.0), White Staff are 50% more likely to be involved in a capability procedure that BME staff Actions Although these results conflict with the positive outcomes shown in the staff survey, this will require further investigation; the above analysis will be presented to the Trust s Page 11

12 Diversity & Equality subgroup for detailed scrutiny & analysis and resulting actions will be incorporated into the Trust s D&E action plan and progress report. 3) Sex (gender) 3.1 Gender profile of SRFT against the local population Table 9; Gender Profile of SRFT against the Local Population Local Population * Staff Profile at Sep 14 Female % Male % (2011 Census) Analysis Tables 9 indicates that, as with most NHS Employers, the workforce by gender, is not reflective of the local population indicating nearly 30% more female staff than the local population. This is due to general higher take up of female s within the NHS occupations, in particular Nursing & Midwifery, AHP and Administrative and Clerical posts. The breakdown of staff by sex within occupation profiles will be explored later on in this section. 3.2 Recruitment & Selection analysis by Gender Monitoring the selection stages of recruitment by gender (only includes vacancies and appointments made via TRACC from October 13 Sept 14) Table 10: Analysis of recruitment and selection data by sex status Applicat s Received % of applicants Invited to interv rate at S/L Appointed rate at inter rate overall % of appoint s Female % % % 6.1% 73% Male % % % 5.4% 26% Undis 30 Data excluded as <2% of all candidates Total Table 11 Adverse Indicator Calculation v Female Candidates Short-listing Appointed Overall Male 0.5 No adverse impact Analysis of Results Table 10 shows that female candidates are more successful at the selection stage of the recruitment process than men (29% compared to 24%) while men are slightly more successful at interview stage (22% compared to 21%). Overall female candidates have higher success across the recruitment & selection process with 6.1% compared with 5.4% men. Table 11 highlights there is an impact adverse indicator when comparing outcomes for male applicants v female applicants at short-listing stage and in the overall success of the recruitment & selection process. Page 12

13 percentage Traditionally it has often been the view that women experienced higher levels of discrimination in the recruitment and selection process, however, this analysis indicates that females are more successful than male applicants. Further analysis on a) the grade of post applied for and b) starting salary, may be required to support the initial findings of this analysis on success of applicants by sex. 3.3 Workforce Monitoring Data by Gender Graph 3: % of Staff Groups by Gender Sept 2014 Gender profile of staff groups compared to their average employment rate Female, Female 30 Male Male, 10 0 Prof & Tech Add Admin AHPs Estates Health Scien M&D N&M Table 12: Distribution profile by sex by staff group across the Trust Sept 2014 Gender Prof & Tech Add Clinic Services Admin AHPs Estates Health Scien M&D N&M Total % Female % Male % Total % Analysis Graph 3 indicates % split by gender within each staff group. When compared to the average employment rate by gender, female staff (78%) are over-represented in Nursing & Midwifery (by 11%), AHP s (by 8%) and additional clinical services (by 7%) and underrepresented in Medical & Dental (by 42%) and estates and ancillary posts by (26%). This is, in the main, due to the wider social occupational divisions we see across occupations and the predominance of females in Nursing & Midwifery, Allied Health Professionals (physiotherapists etc) and healthcare support workers (additional clinical services). Page 13

14 Percentage 3.4) Leavers by Gender Graph 4 Turnover by Gender Oct 13 Sept 14 % Turnover by Gender Oct Sep Female Male % Turnover Trust Avg Gender % Turno Analysis Graph 10 shows turnover rates by Gender. The information indicates that turnover for men is slightly higher than the Trust average (10.5% compared to 9.6% respectively) Table 13 Adverse Impact Ratio Analysis on turnover by Gender Table 13: Turnover of staff by Gender Oct 2013 Sept 2014 Sex Actual Number of Leavers Turnover % Adverse Impact Female Males Analysis Turnover rates are calculated at 9.43% for female staff and 10.54% for male staff which has increased slightly compared to The adverse impact ratio for turnover rate is 0.85, indicating no adverse impact difference between gender. However, regardless of impact ratio s, we must ensure that we monitor leaver rates across the Trust and this is monitored by the Trust Board.. Page 14

15 3.5) Pay Analysis by Gender Graph 5; % spilt of Payband by Gender as at Sept Analysis Graph 5 shows % split of pay bands by gender compared to the average employment. The graph indicates that female staff are underrepresented at Band 1, Bands 8a,b/d & other paybands. Male staff are over-represented at Band s 1, 8b/d s and other (which covers Medical & Dental and some Trust Manager grades), which is fairly similar of the overall gender split of the NHS Recommendations Though analysis of pay bands is complex and has clear links to Staff Groups, this report recommends that this information is explored in great detail through the Trust s D&E subgroup, including reviewing career structure and progress by gender through the organisation. Page 15

16 3.6) Staff Survey Results ; Table 14 Staff Survey Results by Gender Table 7: Staff Survey Key Results by Gender ) Professional & career development c) % appraised in the last 12 months 96% men & 90% female 2) Up take of training and development d) % receiving job-relevant training, learning or development in the last 12 months ; 86% men & 86% female 3) Equality & Diversity a) believing the Trust provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion: 88% men & 92% female b) experiencing discrimination at work in the last 12 months; 9% men & 7% female 4) Bullying & Harassment e) % experiencing physical violence from patients/relatives; 8% men & 13% female f) % experiencing physical violence from staff 1% men & 3% female g) % experiencing H&B from patients/ relatives 20% men & 26% female h) % experiencing H&B from staff 19% men & 23% female Analysis of Staff Survey Results The staff survey results indicate that based on gender, staff report equal outcomes on work-life balance, good opportunities, appraisals, job training & development and equal opportunities. Female staff experience slightly higher levels of violence and bullying and harassment, with male staff reporting slightly higher experiences of discrimination at work. Analysis of staff survey by PICKER indicated no statistically difference of outcomes across all the whole survey by gender. Page 16

17 3.7) Key Employment Relations Indicators 3.7.1; Table 15 Employment Relations Summary Data 2014 Number and % of total workforce: Men Women Subject to all disciplinary procedure 18 (1.17) 41 (0.75) Involved in bullying & harassment 10 (0.65) 21 (0.3) Subject to all capability procedure 41(2.6) 166 (3.5) Promoted Data not available at present see action plan Adverse Impact Ratio Table 16 Adverse impact ratio in relation to gender Subject to all disciplinary procedure 0.2 male Of those dismissed Involved in bullying & harassment 0.6 Subject to all capability procedure Of those dismissed * (statistically significant) Analysis In relation to disciplinary procedures; 1.1% of male staff have been involved in the disciplinary process compared to 0.75% of female staff. Compared with 2012/13 data the Trust has seen an increase of 15% in numbers of staff being subject to disciplinary procedure and an increase of 63% in numbers involved in bullying and harassment which could be an indication of the success the Trust has had with tackling bullying & harassment. There has also been a decrease of 1.8% in the numbers of staff subject to all capability which could indicate that the Trust commitment to supporting staff with disabilities in the workplace is working. This calculates to 0.2 adverse impact ratio. The differences between female & male staff were tested using chi-square and were statistically significant (p= 0.01). The relative risk is 1.5 % (95% confidence interval 1.2 to 1.9); male staff are one and half times more likely to be subjected to disciplinary action than female staff Recommendations Further analysis of this information needs to be undertaken, for example, is there a link to higher disciplinary rates and departments or job roles which may have a higher gender bias? Before any firm conclusion can be made. However this report recommends that these results are reviewed by the D&E subgroup. Page 17

18 4) Age Analysis 4.1 Age profile of SRFT against the local population Table 17: Age Profile of SRFT compared to the local population Table 17: Age Profile of SRFT against the Local Population Local Population * Staff Profile at Sep 13 Staff Profile at Sep (15-19) 6% 1% 0.69% % 18% 20.4% % 25% 25% % 29% 27% 51 + (51 64) 16% 27% 26% (ONS 2011 Census data (slight variation in age grouping on census data as shown in bracket) Analysis Table 17 highlights that the Trust is under-represented of under 20 s when compared to the local population and over-represented at all other ages. Given the basic skill and education standards required for a number of posts, this data profiling is probably to be expected. Further age profiling against staff groups and skills required for posts may give a fairer indication of under or over representation by age. This information will need to analysed with recruitment & selection data to assess workforce in relation to applicants for posts Actions Present above data to the D&E subgroup for scrutiny and further data analysis. 4.2 Recruitment & Selection Analysis by Age Table 18; Recruitment & Selection by Age Group Table 18: Analysis of recruitment and selection by age group Applicat s Received % of applicants Invited to interview rate at S/L Appoint rate at interview rate overall % of appoint s % % % 6% 44% % % % 6% 27% % % % 5% 19% % % % 5% 10% Total Table 19: Adverse Impact Ratio by age groups v (most successful group) Short-listing (40-49) Appointed (16-29) Overall (no impacts) No adverse Impact No adverse Impact No adverse Impact No adverse impact No adverse Impact 51+ No adverse Impact 0.8 No adverse impact Analysis of Results Table 18 highlights that the and age groups are the most successful groups overall within the recruitment and selection process, with being the most successful group at short-listing stage. Overall age groups & 50+ report same success. Page 18

19 Percentage Given the current research, one of the most surprising results in the report appears within the age analysis. Candidates in the 51+ category do not experience an adverse impact in comparison to other age groups, which appears to be in contrast to the view that older workers experiences discrimination when applying for jobs (Personnel Today, Ageism in recruitment, 2010). It is interesting to note that at short-listing stage the age group are the most successful group, and age group are the least successful. Further analysis of the criteria of the person specifications for post would be recommended to assess if this is potentially excluding younger candidates from the recruitment process. There also appears to be a significant gap between the success rates at interview stage, with age groups and 50+ being the least successful. 4.3) Leavers by Age Graph 6 Turnover by Age Groups Oct 13 Sept 14 (excluding Doctors in training) % Turnover by Age Group Oct Sep % Turnover Trust Avg Over 61+ % Turnover Trust Avg Analysis Graph 16 highlights Turnover by age groups. The information indicates that turnover for age group and 61+ is higher than the Trust average. Further analysis of this information will be required to establish any firm conclusions. The age group with the highest turnover rate is 61+ compared to the Trust average, given that staff with this age group will leave due to retirement this data should be reviewed excluding natural wastage. Turnover rates for the age group is higher than the Trust average but the small numbers employed within this group make any comparisons across the age groups difficult. Turnover rates are reviewed by the Trust Board and analysis by different groups is monitored on a regular basis Recommendations Further analysis of this data in comparison to other acute Trust s would have to be made to made to evaluate the Trust s performance in this area. Page 19

20 4.5) Pay Analysis by age groups Graph 7; % spilt of Payband by Age as at Sept Analysis Graph 7 shows % split of pay bands by age groups; age group are in paybands 1,2 & 3 which would be expected given the level of skill and expertise required for other roles across the organisation. Age Group is varied across the pay bands with a fairly similar representation at bands 1-4, over representation at band 5 and lower representation at pay bands 7-8a,8b but interestingly a number of staff at this age group employed in pay bands 8d & other. Age groups & show a fairly similar rate across all pay bands. Band 9 has been included into this year s report which is made up entirely of the age groups and 51-60, which can be explained as a reflection of the skills and expertise required for roles at this level Actions Information by pay bands requires some further investigation, the picture of pay bands can be complex and interlinked to wider factors such as; length of service, staff groups. Pay band data needs to be reviewed in context to these other related factors. Refer to the Deputy Director of HR for further scrutiny. Page 20

21 4.6) Staff Survey Results Table 20: Staff Survey Key Summary Data Results 2013 Table 20: Staff Survey Key Results by Gender ) Professional & career development e) % appraised in the last 12 months % % % % 2) Up take of training and development f) % receiving job-relevant training, learning or development in the last 12 months ; % % % % 3) Equality & Diversity a) believing the Trust provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion: % % % % b) experiencing discrimination at work in the last 12 months; % % % % 4) Bullying & Harassment i) % experiencing physical violence from patients/relatives; % % % % j) % experiencing physical violence from staff % % % % k) % experiencing H&B from patients/ relatives % % % % l) % experiencing H&B from staff % % % % Page 21

22 4.6.2 Analysis of Staff Survey Results The staff survey results indicate that based on age groups; staff report similar outcomes on good opportunities, appraisals, job training & development, equal opportunities and bullying and harassment. However the age group reported the lowest % for appraisals, and the highest % experiencing discrimination at work and physical violence from patients. Interestingly there was a 10% increase on 2012 results, from staff in the 50+ age group reporting that they believe the Trust provides equal opportunities for career progression. 4.7) Key Employment Relations Indicators Table 21; Summary Data Analysis of Key Employment Data 2014 Number and % of total workforce: Subject to all disciplinary procedure Involved in bullying & harassment Subject to all capability procedure (0.8) 21(1.2) 16(0.8) 10(0.5) 4 (0.2) 10(0.5) 10 (0.5) 7 (0.3) 64 (4.2) 44 (2.5) 53 (2.7) 46 (2.5) Adverse Impact Ratio Subject to all disciplinary procedure Involved in bullying & harassment Subject to all capability procedure Of those dismissed * (not statistically significant) best result * * * Data too small to calculate best result * Analysis Disciplinary procedures; analysis on all age groups indicates that the age group 51+ experience the lowest level of disciplinary procedures at 0.5. When compared to all other age groups, these results did indicate adverse impact however it was not statistical significance. The age group experienced the highest level of disciplinary procedures at 1.2% Capability procedure; analysis on all age groups indicates that the age groups and 51+ experiences the lowest level of capability at 2.5%. While experience the highest level of capability at 4.2% & 51+ indicate an adverse impact in comparison to this age group, however, the results for 51+ were not statistically significant and the number of staff under the 6-30 group are too small to calculate for statistical significance. Age group did not indicate an adverse impact in relation to this age group. Page 22

23 5) Disability 5.1 Graph 8 Disability profile at SRFT 30 th Sept Disability Profile & the Local Population At September 2014 the Trust has 3.77% of staff that declared themselves as having a disability or long term health condition, with 65.77% declaring No, 30.47% wishing to not disclose (not declared) and 0.01% as undefined Salford has a higher than average incapacity benefit claimants rates, therefore, one may expect to see a higher than average rate of employees declaring themselves with a disability or long-term health condition. However, it is difficult to judge how this would be reflected in the workforce as some of these claimants have declared themselves not fit for work. It should be acknowledged in 2011 that; 1.71 declared their disability, 54% of the workforce showed as undefined and 8% were not declared, these figures needed to be improved as such, it was highlighted as an equality objective for the Trust Actions & Recommendations The number of staff declaring themselves on ESR has increased over the last 12 months from 3.39% to 3.77% and undefined has now been removed as an option. The Trust acknowledges that there is still much room for improvement and given that 16% of staff declared they have a disability in the staff survey (2013) the current ESR data does not appear to be reflective of the workforce. This will continue to be addressed in the Trust s E&D action plan. Page 23

24 5.2) Recruitment & Selection Analysis by Disability Table 22: Analysis of recruitment and selection data by disability status Applicat s Received % of applicants Invited to interview rate at S/L Appointed rate at interview rate overall % of appoint s Disabled % % 25 12% 2.5% 3.9% Not Disabled % % % 5% 91% Undisclosed 232 1% Total Table 23 Adverse Impact Indicator Calculation v non disabled candidates Short-listing Appointed Overall Disabled * 0.8 (* adverse impact indicated but results are not statistically significant) Analysis of results Table 22 indicates that not disabled candidates are twice as successful as disabled candidates in the recruitment and selection process. Disabled candidates are more successful than not disabled candidates at shortlist stage with 30% and 27% respectively which highlights the effectiveness and continued commitment to the two ticks campaign. Table 23 shows that disabled candidates are more successful at short-listing stage than not disabled candidates; we would expect to see this positive result as the Trust advocates the two ticks campaign which supports short-listing all disabled candidates who meet the minimum criteria. It also indicates that there is an adverse impact when comparing disabled v not disabled candidates at appointment stage but that this result is not statistically significant. 5.3) Workforce data by disability Actions Due to the small numbers of staff reporting to have a disability on the Electronic Staff records systems it is not currently possible to undertake an analysis on comparisons on the workforce data. Work is currently underway to improve the reporting in relation to Disability (see D&E Action Plan and Report) Page 24

25 5.4) Staff Survey Results on Disability 2013 Table 24: Staff Survey Key Results by Disability ) Professional & career development g) % appraised in the last 12 months 90% disabled & 92% not disabled 2) Up take of training and development h) % receiving job-relevant training, learning or development in the last 12 months ; 84% disabled & 85% not disabled 3) Equality & Diversity a) believing the Trust provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion: 81% disabled & 93% not disabled b) experiencing discrimination at work in the last 12 months; 14% disabled and 6% not disabled 4) Bullying & Harassment m) % experiencing physical violence from patients/relatives; 15% disabled and 11% not disabled n) % experiencing physical violence from staff 4% disabled and 2% not disabled o) % experiencing H&B from patients/ relatives 30% disabled and 24% not disabled p) % experiencing H&B from staff 37% disabled and 19% not disabled Analysis of Staff Survey Results The staff survey results indicate that based on disability, staff report equal outcomes on appraisals and job training and development. Disabled staff reported higher experiences of bullying and harassment, discrimination and lower levels of belief that the Trust offers equal opportunities. Results from PICKER also indicate that the % of staff with a disability stating that they have experienced bullying & harassment from staff (37%) compared to staff without a disability is statistically significant. Compared to 2013 results, there has been a decrease in those disabled and experiencing B&H (41% to 37% respectively) and an increase in those not disabled and experiencing B&H (16% to 19% respectively) Actions & Recommendations This information has been presented to the Trust s D&E subgroup and also was given due consideration in the Trust s action plan to improve outcomes in relation to bullying and harassment. It will also form a significant work stream for the Trust s Staff Equality Network. The Trust has enrolled the services of Salford Disability Forum, a local community group, who will carry out targeted workshops with staff, independently, and report back its findings of potential issues and concerns in relation to staff experience and disability. Page 25

26 6) Religion & Belief 6.1 Staff profile of SRFT by Religion and Belief Graph 9: Salford Royal Staff by Religion and Belief September Analysis Graphs 9 shows the profile of the workforce by Religion & Belief as at September The data indicates that there has been a decrease in staff who do not wish to declare their religion/belief from 37% in 2013 to 33% in 2014 which reflects the positive work the Trust has been doing to improve the reporting of equality data across the organisation. As you would expect with targeting improved reporting of this data, there has been a rise of individuals declaring their religion across all groups. Trust is considering including this as an equality objective when they are reviewed in ) Religion Profile & the Local Population Table 25: Religion & Belief Profile (breakdown) of SRFT against the Local Population Local Population % Staff Profile at Sept 13 Staff Profile at Sept 2014 Christianity 64.2% 46% 48.7% Atheism 22.3% 7.0% 7.8% Judaism 3.3 % 0.4% 0.3% Islam 2.6% 2.5% 2.8% Hinduism 0.6% 1.3% 1.2% Buddhism 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% Other 0.3% 5.2% 5.2% Sikhism 0.1% 0.1% 0.07% Do not wish to 6.2% 37% 33% Page 26

27 declare Table 25 shows the current profile of Salford Royal by Religion and Belief. At present 33% of staff have not declared a religion or belief, therefore, it is not possible to undertake a current analysis in relation to the local population Actions The Trust is currently reviewing how it can improve the reporting by staff on religion and Belief and this has been incorporated into the Trust s D&E Progress Report and Action Plan. 6.3) Recruitment & Selection Analysis by Religion and Belief Table 26; Analysis of Recruitment & Selection Data by Religion and Belief Table 26: Analysis of recruitment and selection by Religion/Belief Applicat s Received % of applicants Invited to interview rate at S/L Appointed rate at interview rate overall % of appointm s Christian % % % 6% 53% All other relig % % % 5% 31% Undisclosed % % % 9% 15% Total Table 27: Adverse Impact Ratio: V Undisclosed Short-listing Appointed Overall All other religions 0.75 No adverse Impact 0.73 Christian No adverse impact No adverse Impact No adverse impact (all data in red = p<0.05 statistically significant) Analysis of results Table 26 shows that the most successful group in the recruitment process by religious group are candidates who chose not to disclose their religion. 9% of candidates chose not to disclose their religion. Christian candidates were more successful at selection stage, an increase of 2% compared with 2013 data, and candidates from other religions and undisclosed having success rates decline by up to 10% from (35% to 26% and 36% to 25% respectively) Further investigation is needed to explore the reasons for this drop Actions Present results to the Trust s Diversity & Equality Subgroup for scrutiny and further analysis. 6.4) Workforce Data Analysis, Key Employment Relations Data & Staff Survey Due to the current under-reporting of staff on declared Religion & Belief it is not possible at present to undertake an analysis of key workforce data and employment relations data. Currently the Staff Survey data does not present analysis on Religion and Belief Actions The Trust is currently reviewing how it can improve the reporting by staff on Religion and Page 27

28 Belief and this has been incorporated into the Trust s D&E Progress Report and Action Plan. 7) Sexual Orientation 7.1 Graph 10; Salford Royal Workforce Profile by Sexuality as at September Graph 11; Salford Royal Workforce Profile by Sexuality as at September Analysis of 2013 data to 2014 Graph 10 & 11 show the reporting of sexual orientation across the workforce comparing September 2013 & September In line with the Trust s 2013 action plan to improve reporting of equality monitoring data across the workforce the category undefined has now been removed. As a result the data is more accurate and there has been a rise in staff declaring their sexuality across all groups; including a rise in declaration of heterosexual Page 28

29 (from 65% to 69%), a significant rise in declaration of Gay (from 61% to 78%) and a slight rise in declaration of Lesbian (from 26% to 28%). Do not wish to Disclose has fallen significantly from 33% to 29% Actions The Trust will continue to be committed to improving the recording and monitoring of sexual orientation data and with the Staff Inclusion and Equality Network, continue to undertake positive actions across the organisation to also look to reduce Do not wish to disclose category. The Stonewall Health Champion programme that the Trust has signed up to will further support improvements by training staff who record data and recruiting champions within areas to promote equality. 7.2) Recruitment & Selection Analysis by Sexual Orientation Table 28: Analysis of recruitment and selection data by sexual orientation Applicat s Received % of applicants Invited to interview rate at S/L Appointed rate at interview rate overall % of appoint s Heterosexual % % % 5.6% 91% L, G, B % % 44 24% 7% 3% Undisclosed % % % 9% 6% Total Table 29 Adverse Indicator Calculation v Heterosexual Candidates Short-listing Appointed Overall L,G & B No adverse Impact Analysis of Results Table 28 indicates that candidates who do not disclose their sexuality have a significantly higher success rate at interview (37%) and overall are the most successful across the recruitment process. Table 29 indicates that although an adverse impact is detected at appointment & overall these results are not statistically significant. 7% of all applicants opted not to disclose their sexuality. 7.3) Workforce Data Analysis, Key Employment Relations Data & Staff Survey Due to the current under-reporting of staff who have declared their Sexual Orientation it is not possible at present to undertake an analysis of key workforce data and employment relations data. Currently the Staff Survey data does not present data analysis by Sexual Orientation Actions The Trust is currently reviewing how it can improve the reporting by staff on Sexual Orientation and this has been incorporated into the Trust s D&E Progress Report and Action Plan. Page 29