Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES) 2017 Reporting template Name of organisation Name and title of Board lead for the Workforce Race Equality Standard Name and contact details of lead manager compiling this report Names of commissioners this report has been sent to Care Quality Commission (CQC) Paul Corrigan, Non-Executive Board Member Ruth Bailey, Director of People (ruth.bailey@cqc.org.uk) Not applicable Name and contact details of co-ordinating commissioner this report has Not applicable been sent to Unique URL link on which this Report and associated Action Plan will be http://www.cqc.org.uk/content/equality-and-human-rights found This report has been signed off by on behalf of the Board Signed off by Executive Sponsor: 5 September 2017 Circulated to Board members: 8 September 2017 1. Background narrative a. Any issues of completeness of data We do not currently hold the data for indicator 4. Our data is obtained from our Electronic Staff Records (ESR) and covers all employees. Our staff survey data is managed by an independent employee research company. b. Any matters relating to reliability of comparisons with s Please see explanation provided in the 'narrative' column regarding indicators 1, 2 and 3. 2. Total numbers of staff a. Employed within this organisation at the date of the report 3172 b. Proportion of BME staff employed within this organisation at the date of the report 3. Self-reporting a. The proportion of total staff who have self reported their ethnicity 90.7% b. Have any steps been taken in the last reporting period to improve the level of self-reporting by ethnicity 12.4% (unchanged from last year) The self-service element of ESR was introduced during 2016 for all staff. There have been a series of promotions, communications and engagement about the system, particularly as we now use the ESR system for all payslips, rather than sending them in a hardcopy format, 1
c. Are any steps planned during the current reporting period to improve the level of self-reporting by ethnicity everyone can now log in to view their pay slip. So there is a natural pull towards the use of the system, our focus moving forward will be to increase awareness of the importance of the diversity data, and engagement about how we might use that information. To utilise uptake and engagement with our ESR self-service functionality and encourage staff to update their records; to increase the numbers of staff that provide monitoring information as part of our annual staff survey. This will include intranet messaging, wider organisational communications and joint communication from our three equality networks regarding the importance of providing this information to the organisation - including how it is used and to provide assurance regarding anonymity. We will publish reminders for all staff to complete their ESR diversity fields from March 2017. We will be undertaking a full campaign over the summer about confidentiality and anonymity of data, to ensure all staff are aware of our responsibilities regarding data, and why the data is so important in shaping the work that we undertake on inclusion and equality. We will work on a joint network approach for all networks to work together to improve the self -reporting for ethnicity, LGBT and disability as we recognise the importance of understanding intersections of equality. We will monitor these figures on an ongoing through the year. 4. Workforce data a. What period does the organisation s workforce data refer to? 01 April 2016-31 March 2017 2
5. Workforce Race Equality Indicators Please note that only high level summary points should be provided in the text boxes below the detail should be contained in accompanying WRES Action Plans. Indicator For each of these four workforce indicators, compare the data for White and BME staff 1 Percentage of staff in each of the AfC Bands 1-9 and VSM (including executive Board members) compared with the percentage of staff in the overall workforce. Organisations should undertake this calculation separately for non-clinical and for clinical staff. Overall: White: 86.3% BME: 13.7% Grade E1,E2,E3 (VSM, B9,B8d): White: 93.2% BME: 6.8% Grade A (B8b,c) White: 91.4% BME: 8.6% Grade B (B8a): White: 86.3% BME: 13.7% Grade C (B7): White: 80.5% BME: 19.5% Grade D (B6): White: 80.4% BME: 19.6% Grade E (B5): White: 83.7% BME: 16.3% Grade F (B4): White: 87% BME: 13% Grade G (B3,B2, B1): White: 81.2% Overall: White: 86.4% BME: 13.6% Grade E1,E2,E3 (VSM, B9,B8d): White: 92.8% BME: 7.2% Grade A (B8b,c) White: 90.9% BME: 9.1% Grade B (B8a): White: 86.5% BME: 13.5% Grade C (B7): White: 80.8% BME: 19.2% Grade D (B6): White: 81.3% BME: 18.7% Grade E (B5): White: 76.5% BME: 23.5% Grade F (B4): White: 83.4% BME: 16.6% Grade G (B3,B2, B1): White: 89.5% CQC does not use AfC bandings. For the purpose of this report, CQC grades are provided with the equivalent AfC bands/ranges shown in brackets. Figures provided in the 2016 report included the proportion of staff whose ethnicity was not disclosed or unknown. These figures have been revised and are listed in the ' ' column so as to enable meaningful comparison for the current reporting year. The proportion of BME staff overall is stable. However, there has been an increase in BME representation at Grade G and a similar decrease at Grade F; representing a change of 6 roles. This change was most likely the result of organisational modernisations in NCSC and business support. It is worth noting that there is some variation in levels of self-reporting across the CQC's grade structure. Ethnicity data is not currently known for 13% of executive grades 14% of Grade E and 12% of Grade F staff. 3 CQC does not use EDS2. Our staff-focused equality objective for the period 2017-19 states, Continue to improve equality of opportunity for our staff and those seeking to join CQC. Further information about how we are committed to embedding this objective is detailed in the narrative for indicator 7 below.
Indicator BME: 18.8% BME: 10.5% 2 Relative likelihood of staff being appointed from shortlisting across all posts. White 1.47 times more likely than BME to be appointed from shortlisting. No. shortlisted: White: 1300 BME: 324 No. appointed: White: 183 BME: 31 Likelihood of shortlisting/ appointed: White: 0.141 BME: 0.096 (0.141/0.096 = 1.471) White 1.51 times more likely than BME to be appointed from shortlisting. No. shortlisted: White: 1826 BME: 593 No. appointed: White: 209 BME: 45 Likelihood of shortlisting/ appointed: White: 0.114 BME: 0.076 (0.114/0.076 = 1.508) 2016/17 refers to all internal and external recruitment activity. Data for the refers to volume recruitment posts during 2015/16 (Inspection Manager, Inspector, Analyst Team Leader, Senior Analyst roles). Whilst like-for-like comparison is not available, the data indicates that the situation remains static. The majority of our Black and minority ethnic staff are currently represented between grades G and B. We will develop our talent at these grades and invest in further training and development opportunities. In the past year, our leadership development opportunities have focused the development skills of managers, as agreed in our strategy from 2012 16 and to address organisational culture. We will expand this out to all staff as we move forward. We will undertake a diagnostic beginning in September 2017 to understand how our recruitment processes could be improved to ensure better outcomes for BME staff and BME candidates. The diagnostic will lead to the recommendations for improvement, and an action plan aligned to our equality strategy, to ensure our focus is right for the best recruitment outcomes and opportunities for BME staff, and all staff with protected characteristics. 4
Indicator 3 Relative likelihood of staff entering the formal disciplinary process, as measured by entry into a formal disciplinary investigation. This indicator will be based on data from a two year rolling average of the current year and the previous year. 4 Relative likelihood of staff accessing non-mandatory training and CPD. BME 1.33 times more likely to enter formal process than White. No. of cases / Staff in workforce: White: 22 / 2578 BME: <5 / 407 Likelihood entering process: White: 0.0086 BME: 0.0098 (0.0098/0.0086 = 1.331) Data not available BME 1.68 times more likely to enter formal process than White. No. of cases / Staff in workforce: White: 17 / 2463 BME: <5 / 347 Likelihood entering process: White: 0.0070 BME: 0.0114 (0.0114/0.0070 = 1.679) Data not available The figure provided in the 2016 report covered data for one year rather than a two year rolling average. This has been revised and is now listed in the ' ' column so as to enable meaningful comparison for the current. Due to very low numbers of formal disciplinaries involving BME staff, caution is urged when reviewing the overall figure and drawing conclusions. CQC's learning management system does not currently contain the relevant data to enable this indicator to be reported on. An analysis has been undertaken to understand the grade of individuals entering the formal disciplinary process. From this (combined with very small numbers), there is no apparent pattern. A revised disciplinary policy will be rolled out later in 2017 with input from representatives from our trade unions and staff equality networks. Support and coaching will be offered for all line managers to ensure that the policy is implemented confidently and consistently. Non-mandatory training within CQC is determined by role and as such is targeted at individuals in a particular role, regardless of ethnicity or background. However, we are committed to having visibility of opportunities for BME staff and this will involve initialising the data in our learning management system. A piece of work to incorporate diversity data within CQC's learning management system will commence in 2017. It is anticipated that we will be able to report on this indicator in 2018. 5
Indicator National NHS Staff Survey indicators (or equivalent) For each of the four staff survey indicators, compare the outcomes of the responses for White and BME staff. 5 KF 25. Percentage of staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from patients, relatives or the public in last 12 months. White: 7% BME: 9% White: 8% BME: 5% CQC's staff survey question is slightly different to KF 25: "In the last 12 months, I have experienced harassment, bullying or abuse at work from people other than CQC staff". The year-on-year BME increase equates to 8 staff. 6 KF 26. Percentage of staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from staff in last 12 months. White: 11% BME: 14% White: 10% BME: 11% The year-on-year BME increase equates to 7 staff. Our 2016 staff survey included for the first time a number of sub-questions regarding the form of harassment or bullying, and from whom they experienced it. For BME staff, this is most likely to have been ignoring or ostracising, and the tone and style of email. As with white colleagues, this behaviour is most likely to have originated from their line manager or senior manager. This data has been shared with equality network leads. These questions will be repeated in our 2017 survey that takes place later in the year. This will enable us to be more targeted in our approach to addressing the underlying issues. 6
Indicator 7 KF 21. Percentage believing that trust provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion. White: 56% BME: 44% White: 61% BME: 52% CQC's staff survey question is slightly different to KF 21: "I believe that CQC provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion". During 2017 we are extending the roll out of our talent management framework to Grade A s initially, and others will follow. This will enable the development of bespoke interventions for certain staff identified as talent. We will work with our colleagues in CQC s Race Equality Network (REN), and within the BME community, to ensure this is an opportunity for all which enables individuals to flourish, and really highlights some great role models to inspire the BME community, and all CQC staff. 8 Q17. In the last 12 months have you personally experienced discrimination at work from any of the following? b) Manager/ team leader or other colleagues White: 4% BME: 8% White: 5% BME: 7% The year-on-year BME increase equates to 2 staff. Our 2016 staff survey included for the first time a number of sub-questions regarding the form of discrimination, and from whom they experienced it. For BME staff, this is most likely to have been due to race. As with white colleagues, this behaviour is most likely to have originated from their line manager. This data has been shared with equality network leads and these questions will be repeated in our 2017 survey that takes place later in the year. 7
Indicator Board representation indicator For this indicator, compare the difference for White and BME staff. 9 Percentage difference between the organisations Board voting membership and its overall workforce. (i) Board nonexecutive membership: +4.3% (ii) Board executive membership: -12.4% -12.4% Senior HR leaders involved in executive level recruitment work with our approved recruitment agents and emphasise the importance of diversity in applicant lists as part of each assignment briefing. Prospective recruitment partners are asked about how they ensure they present a diversity of talent as part of the selection interview. The Chair of CQC has asked that during recruitment of non-executive board members, all due account should be given to ensure that issues of diversity are appropriately incorporated into the recruitment process. We will undertake a diagnostic beginning in September 2017 to understand how our recruitment processes could be improved to ensure better outcomes for BME staff and BME candidates. The diagnostic will lead to the recommendations for improvement, and an action plan aligned to our equality strategy, to ensure our focus is right for the best recruitment outcomes and opportunities for BME staff, and all staff with protected characteristics. 6. Are there any other factors or data which should be taken into consideration in assessing progress? 7. Organisations should produce a detailed WRES Action Plan, agreed by its Board. Such a Plan would normally elaborate on the actions summarised in section 5, setting out the next steps with milestones for expected progress against the WRES indicators. It may also identify the links with other work streams agreed at Board level, such as EDS2. You are asked to attach the WRES Action Plan or provide a link to it. 8
WRES Action Plan CQC has developed a strategy for the equality and diversity agenda, which we have called the journey to 2021, and moves our focus from equality and diversity, towards inclusion. It highlights our focus for the next few years, and the proposed deliverables. Setting out the strategy ensures we have one vision to enable CQC to be an inclusive place to work, and brings together the activities of our equality networks. It is important that the inclusion agenda becomes part of the fabric of CQC and that the equality networks can be a focus of celebration and promotion of the equality agenda, and a focus of challenge for CQC to ensure we are always stretching ourselves to be the best we can be. We are committed to improving race equality as an important part of the inclusion agenda, and will continue to work closely with our staff Race Equality Network (REN). The key activities in the strategy for the year ahead include: Undertake a cultural assessment to benchmark the culture now, and determine what we need to do over coming years to ensure we continually push our ambitions. This began in March 2017, is entitled Shaping our future, and is designed to focus on when we are able to give of our best, exploring what attributes are common to us in CQC when we give of our best, and to enable us to be our best more of the time. We are ambitious for CQC and would like to strive to be excellent, one of our core values. The cultural discussions are ongoing and will be supported by a move towards quality improvement, which is a structured approach to enabling everyone to be curious, creative and enabled. The initial interviews were structured to ensure we had active voices from representational slice of CQC, including representation from the BME community, we will ensure those voices continue to grow and engage in this work as we move forward. We will work with the REN to ensure that we encourage the involvement of our black and ethnic staff in these conversations. Enable our Leaders to be inclusive and confident. Our Inspire programme, which is a leadership development programme produced by Ashridge, will complete in December 2018, with 700 managers going through the programme. It is important because it is the first time that we have invested in giving our leaders a common language about our cultural aspirations, set out our expectations are of leaders, and equipping them with the tools to enable them to achieve those expectations. We recognise that that many of our BME colleagues are in grades that were not targeted in the original design and are looking, as explained above at how we can further involve colleagues in other grades. Other programmes could now be explored, to complement Inspire, with a clear focus on inclusion, including race equality. The mental health awareness training, focused on enabling leaders to support staff, colleagues and peers, if they are experiencing mental health challenges. This training was very well received by all delegates, so we need to learn from both Inspire and the MH training so that further training, support or learning for managers and leaders is equally impactful over the coming 18 months. Our mentoring programme does has a specific focus on enabling BME staff to take part in the programme, and a proportion of places were designated to BME staff members to ensure their needs were met. The feedback from individuals has been fantastic, with 6 people from the first cohort achieving promotion prior to the end of the mentoring programme. We are now entering cohort 3, and currently have over 50 trained mentees and mentors across CQC, whose expertise we should harness. With the introduction of data analysis of training outcomes by protected characteristic, we will be in a better position to respond to the needs of the BME community and their bespoke leadership needs. In addition to the cultural or organisational development programmes, individuals from the BME community can also access the NHS stepping up programme, and work should continue to explore how we can best communicate and promote those external opportunities to develop individuals, and broaden their exposure outside of CQC. 9
Harness staff expertise. With a huge array of skills and experience across our BME and non-bme staff, it will be hugely important to engage internal experts, and enthusiasts for the inclusion agenda. Working with the REN we can ensure that our inclusion agenda is right and appropriate, and communicated effectively, so that where possible we can accelerate the benefits for staff. The positive action mentoring programme will also begin its third cohort in November, so we need to evaluate and engage with the experts we have already developed through cohorts 1 and 2, to ensure that we continue to develop those skills, we refine the programme to make it better based on their experience, and we assess what is working well, and what might need further focus. We now have a bank of trained mentors so this should enable the programme to reach more people more often. We have also appointed two new Dignity at work advisors from the BME community over the past year. Dignity at Work Advisors (DAWAs) provide support for colleagues who believe they have experienced bullying or harassment, have had had a complaint made against them, or have witnessed a colleague being bullied. The recruitment of BME staff to these roles is important to ensure our BME community feel like they have a pathway to share concerns and raise issues as needed. And that they have a voice in CQC. Enabling policies, processes and systems, monitoring and analysis. Continue to promote population of diversity data within ESR and the staff survey to ensure effective monitoring of progress as a cross-network activity. We will be proceeding with our plans for an internal diversity dashboard which will align to the inclusion agenda, and will ensure accurate and relevant data is ready to influence day-to-day decision-making, ensuring that inclusion becomes part of the way everyone works, rather than just the few. For 2017 we will be purchasing a bespoke EDHR report direct from our staff survey supplier so that the analysis can be processed and digested quicker, and we can move more swiftly into action. With regards to Recruitment processes, we will assess how these are working to support our EDHR strategy, and focus on the ways we can influence every part of the employee lifecycle for better and more diverse recruitment results. External benchmarking. We must continue to use external references, including but not limited to WRES, to hold us to account and to ensure we are pushing ourselves to be the best we can be. We will explore how we can promote the working practices of other companies, and learn from their experiences, during Black history month in October. Recruitment. In the population of the UK (according to the census in 2011), 14% are from BME background, and it is the same percentage in the NHS (according to the 2016 staff survey). We will undertake a diagnostic beginning in September 2017 to understand how our recruitment processes could be improved to ensure better outcomes for BME staff and BME candidates. The diagnostic will lead to the recommendations for improvement, and an action plan aligned to our equality strategy, to ensure our focus is right for the best recruitment outcomes and opportunities for BME staff, and all staff with protected characteristics. 10