AGCAS Social Mobility Toolkit Literature Review (September 2019)

Introduction

The issue of social mobility has been a hot topic of debate for some time. It is likely to remain a focus of

multiple stakeholders and policy makers given that several major reports recently highlighted the UK is

falling behind other developed countries in progressing social mobility. In fact, inequality in the UK is

widening.

Tackling inequality remains high on the government agenda. The Office for Students shifted

disproportionate focus on accessing H.E. and expects Institutions to deliver improved student experience

(participation) and employment outcomes (success) for all students from all backgrounds. This shift in focus

was supported by the Social Mobility Commission whose research found that, although an increasing

number of disadvantaged students were going to University, once there, they were more likely to drop out

and went on to earn significantly less than others five years after graduating. Furthermore, people from

professional backgrounds are 80 per cent more likely to get into a professional job than their less privileged

peers.

Employers too have an increased focus on equality of opportunity, recognising the benefits of recruiting and

supporting a diverse workforce. The percentage of employers identifying social mobility as a key issue to

address has risen from under 20% five years ago to over 60% in 2018 (ISE).

Much has been written about social mobility in the UK and multiple research references the important role

education plays in addressing social mobility issues with many put higher education in a central position in

the debate. With an increased focus on graduate outcomes at both a national and institutional level much is

written about the contribution effective careers guidance can make.

This is a concise review of some of the key reports and research conducted by major organisations who

have a principal focus around social mobility. It will summarise core, commonly identified factors and

barriers to improving social mobility focusing on the Higher Education Sector. The evidence and

recommended actions inform the social mobility toolkit and audit tool.

(A further reading list is included in the AGCAS Social Mobility Toolkit webpage under the “Inform” section)

Social Mobility and University Careers Services (Bridge Group/UPP Foundation, 2017)

The first report to focus explicitly on the role of university careers servicing in addressing the gap in

graduate outcomes and, significantly, to give voice to practitioners who are leading institutional strategies.

The report includes a wide-ranging review of literature and policy and includes evidence from interviews

with leading practitioners.

Background

The historical assumption that simply accessing higher education would have a social levering effect is a

myth. Students from higher socio-economic backgrounds have better graduate outcomes compared to

those from less affluent backgrounds, earning on average 25% more (10% after controlling for institution

attended and subject studied).

The gap in graduate outcomes by socio-economic background is likely to construct of a range of factors

including experiences prior to HE, differential participation in extra-curricular activities and work experience

and marketing / selection practices of employers.

Key Findings

Students from lower socio-economic backgrounds are less likely to move away to study and if they

do, they are more likely to return to their home region after graduation.

Students from lower socio-economic backgrounds have lower retention rates nearly half of the

difference is due to background rather than prior attainment.

A quick and comfortable transition to University plays an important role in graduate outcomes and

there is evidence to suggest students from lower socio-economic background often find the

transition more challenging.

Transition can affect students’ early participation in key activities which then shapes their

participation in subsequent years. It also impacts on students’ perceptions of the need to balance

academic and extra-curricular activities.

Students from lower socio-economic backgrounds participate less in extra-curricular activities

valued by employers (clubs & societies, work-based learning, international work/study). The

evidence suggests this is because they often have a more acute focus on academic work but also

face personal finance issues as many students access money from families in order to participate.

There are also implications for commuter students, those with caring responsibilities or those who

must work alongside studies to support themselves financially all of whom are more likely to come

from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

Effective career guidance in higher education can significantly contribute to more equal outcomes

for students from low socio-economic backgrounds. The sector has “pockets of good practice” but

“scale and reach are problematic” and many institutions face “operational challenges” about

segregating students from less affluent backgrounds.

Many impactful activities are small scale and provide minimal evidence of what works.

Students’ experiences of careers education prior to University are formative. Evidence indicates a

correlation between understanding of career readiness at point of entry to higher education and

graduate outcomes in part because they are more likely to maximise opportunities available to

develop employability.

Students have an advantage in developing career capability if they attended a school with strong

CEIAG, have a family network placing high value on career thinking & planning, and have a

proactive / confident approach in seeking information and opportunities.

There is significant geographical variation in the level of employer engagement in careers provision

in higher education. Regional institutions need to devote more resource to fostering collaborations

and opportunities.

Employer behaviours and recruitment practices can impact critically on students’ outcomes.

Unsupportive practices include limiting marketing to a small number of institutions, screening by

school attainment and conscious bias to more affluent candidates. The report acknowledges the

progress made to address these negative practices.

Conclusions / Recommendations:

Students from lower socio-economic groups are not homogenous and there needs to be more

qualitative study to better understand the needs of specific groups (e.g. care leavers, students from

rural/coastal communities).

More sophisticated use of data analytics and predictive analytics is becoming increasingly important

in designing, targeting and evaluating careers serves and in identifying students most at risk of

weaker graduate outcomes.

Far greater focus and resource should be given to analysing the impact of careers activities to build

an evidence base which should be shared across the sector.

A dedicated, trained member of academic staff (champion) in each department with responsibility

and shared accountability for partnering with careers professionals to embed careers provision into

the curriculum and improving graduate outcomes. This will go some way to removing the optional

nature of careers provision.

NUS / Student Unions should collate and submit robust diversity data on participation in student

clubs and societies and collaboratively develop an institution strategy to close participation gaps

(provide resources such as bursaries, technologies, support) which should be shared across sector.

Careers programmes that formalise, recognise and provoke students to reflect on their experiences

should be common practice. Participation in such programmes should be monitored to ensure

those most likely to benefit are participating.

Universities cannot work alone – employer practices can cap or nullify any gains achieved through

university practices. Careers professionals should act as advocates to guide/support employers to

be more experimental.

Careers professionals need to work with employers to challenge cultural assumptions. Encouraging

applications from students from lower socio-economic backgrounds needs targeting but also a

review of the definition of ‘talent’ characteristics and selection criteria. There is a building evidence

base to show strength based rather than competency-based testing is a better predictor of future

performance.

Advocate a four-week limit on unpaid internships and strongly encourage employers to advertise all

opportunities.

Promote flexible approaches to internships to enable more SMEs to deliver them and ensure

students who rely on part-time paid work are not financially vulnerable if they participate.

Create meaningful employment opportunities on campus and offer students from lower socio-

economic backgrounds reduced / pro bono accommodation to enable access to opportunities during

vacations.

Ensure access to international work experience is not reliant on students accessing significant

personal finance.

Encourage and enable alumni to support students from lower socio-economic groups to help raise

students’ expectations, be important role models and help them build social and professional

networks.

Working in Partnership: Enabling Social Mobility in Higher Education (UUK, 2016)

Final Report of Social Mobility Advisory Group set up at the request of Jo Johnson MP, Minister of State for

Universities & Science. The aim of the Advisory Group was to focus efforts on improving educational and

career outcomes for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, those with a disability as well as those

from BAME backgrounds. They were asked to identify practical ways to address inequality in higher

education and the report focuses primarily on higher education in England.

Background

Universities transform lives but not everyone benefits in the same way.

The report was written at a time of considerable change for students and universities. The HE sector

continues to expand and diversify with new opportunities and pathways and there is an increased focus on

the value and benefit derived from going to university.

The report focuses on the entire student journey: from application to experience at university and then

graduate outcomes.

Key Findings

Fewer students from socially & economically disadvantaged backgrounds go to University and there

is growing acknowledgement that disadvantage is present throughout university and reflected in

graduate outcomes.

Socio-economic disadvantage is the most significant driver of inequality in terms of access to and

outcomes from higher education.

Outreach - NCOP (National Collaborative Outreach Programme) is an important mechanism for

cohesive and coordinated partnership working between all sectors

Outreach – a much stronger focus on targeting mature students is critical.

Mature students often have different priorities and needs, they are often less able to engage in full

range of activities & social aspects of campus life and may feel marginalised if their needs are not

addressed.

There is overwhelming correlation between a students’ experience at school and their success at

University reinforcing the importance of universities working with schools to raise attainment.

An increased number of students are entering HE with vocational qualifications (mainly BTECs): a

high proportion come from low participation neighbourhoods and report having no parents with HE

experience. As a result, they may need additional bridging support in making the transition.

More privileged students more likely to benefit from effective IAG from schools, parents and broader

networks. Highlights the importance of effective IAG pre-HE but IAG in state schools is often patchy

and largely non-existent for mature students.

Emphasises importance of embedding employability into the curriculum and refers to HEA

Framework for embedding employability across Institutions.

Less opportunities for students from less privileged backgrounds to benefit from extracurricular

activities and outward mobility programmes as they often have less time to participate due to having

to work alongside study or have caring responsibilities.

International experience can improve academic and employment outcomes but students from

disadvantaged / ethnic minority backgrounds underrepresented.

Students from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to go into professional employment and if

they do are likely to be paid less

Graduate outcomes are influenced by ‘push factors’ (students from lower socio-economic

backgrounds less likely to engage in extra-curricular activities) and ‘pull factors’ (employers’

practices).

Evidence of a strong bias from certain employers to engage with and recruit from high tariff

universities.

Increased importance of SMEs in labour market

Conclusions/Recommendations

No one organisation or sector can resolve such deep-rooted inequalities. Change can only be

achieved if education sector, governments, employers, students’ unions and charitable sector work

together – more collaboration, greater coordination and coherence at policy, regional and

institutional level

Need for rigorously evidence-based approach with an emphasis on interventions that maximise

outcomes. Focus on evaluation & impact is essential to drive future developments.

Championing of what works and sharing good practice across sector is important. to be able to

scale up activities and enhance progress - recommends ‘Evidence and Information Exchange’

(TASO)

Complex issues and universities are profoundly diverse. Meaningful responses need to reflect

geographical location and circumstances. There needs to be an increased focus on regional

responses and partnerships in regions (LEPs) that align with broader regional agendas

Monitor admissions, retention, attainment, transition to PG study and graduate employment.

Identify gaps in relation to social groups and explore how they can be addressed

Generic characteristics of social groups (primarily socio-economic background, race, gender,

disability) overlap and do not reflect self-determined cultural identities and students from such

groups will not behave in the same way.

Develop shared basket of indicators in relation to socio-economic disadvantage

No one WP model will meet the needs of every individual. Effective responses much take account

of both the generic characteristics and the individual.

Need to develop institution-wide approach to addressing differences in degree attainment (BAME,

Disabled). There is no single solution but activity already under way needs to be evaluated and

more widely shared (inclusive curriculums, university culture, staff diversity).

Multiple factors influence attainment gaps. Teaching & Learning (T&L) experiences are significant

and institutions need a strategic approach to explore T&L practices and ensure they are inclusive

(curriculum development, delivery, assessment and marking) and consider students different

experiences (cultures/backgrounds, relationships to staff and each other, understanding what is

expected and required of them).

Mature students need more flexibility to be able to engage in full range of activities as well as

support for financial concerns and family commitments.

Provide more opportunities for students disadvantaged / ethnic minorities to access international

experiences. Share best practice across the sector.

Utilise Behavioural Insights data (refers to work of KCL/Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team)

to understand what most successful students do (beneficial behaviours). This can be shared with

other students alongside addressing “barrier behaviours” and designing and implementing nudges

to encourage engagement and behaviours which support successful outcomes.

Employers should engage with students academically (workshops, case studies, seminars &

lectures) to enable engagement with a more diverse audience as well as with students who may be

less likely to opt into extracurricular activities.

Employers to ensure recruitment practices are inclusive and do not undermine efforts in education

sector. They should monitor & publish recruitment data and share effective practice and

interventions.

Graduate employers to adopt a more robust approach to coordinate and promote monitoring &

publication of data on recruitment of underrepresented groups (feedback loop with Universities on

employability skills and extra support needed) and better coordination of outreach activities

Importance of SMEs in labour market increasing. Strategies to develop links are important.

Use of employer mentors and alumni to increase social capital

Create a directory of charitable third sector organisations

The Role of Family in Social Mobility: Impact of Family Resources on Young People’s

Progression (Emily Rainsford – Newcastle University, Laura Jane Rawlings & Lauren Mistry –

Youth Employment UK, 2017)

A report created by Youth Employment UK in partnership with Newcastle University. The report focuses on

the role the family has in supporting young people as they transition between school and work. It draws on

unique empirical data of 18-35 year olds from the Cultural Pathways to Economic Self-Sufficiency and

Entrepreneurship (CUPESSE) project. The report uses the work of Bourdieu to refer to the capital

available in the family: economic (amount of money available), cultural (education and values from

education) and social (trust and networks) and looks closely at the work and educational values that are

transmitted in the family.

Background

Despite 20 years of programmes and investment in social mobility there hasn’t been much progress.

Intergenerational inequalities are very high and young people today are more likely to experience

downward mobility compared to their parents.

Not all young people are reaching their potential. If policies and services are not developed that ensure

every child has the same life chances, inequalities will not end and evidence suggests they will in fact

widen.

Family is the first place a child gets socialisation cues which can be positive or negative. Family is a

resource but can also be a hindrance for young people to gain independence.

Transitions from education to employment have become more fragmented and are less straightforward and

taking longer. This generation is facing a future they are not prepared for with an uncertain labour market,

rise of the gig economy and zero hours contracts. The family provides scaffolding and support in

smoothing the transition.

Current generation of young people are more reliant on their family to provide financial support. Young

people’s progress and social mobility is connected with their family status and values and resources

available within it; inequality of opportunity is hindered by inequalities between families. By understanding

where the gaps are in a young persons homelife better services can be built to support those gaps.

Key Findings

There is a direct link in how family resources impact young people’s self-sufficiency and also their

ambition. Young people whose families had economic and cultural capital are more likely to be

dependant and less ambitious, whilst those who received less family support were more

independent.

The current generation of young people is more likely to rely on parents for financial support than

the parental generation. The associated risks come if there is not enough support, too much

support or is support is withdrawn.

Parental attitudes towards the value of work affects young people’s ambitions. Young people whose

parents showed them that work and money are connected (through talking about work or by taking

them to a workplace) had a clearer and more concrete ambition to become economically

independent of their parents compared with those whose parents did not make this direct link.

The models parents and grandparents provide about work ethic and work importance has a strong

influence on these values among their children.

Where young people do not have access to the world of work they will struggle to progress.

Implications for care leavers / estranged students.

Parental economic capital is transformed into young people’s cultural capital by the parents paying

for education. Where parents have social capital (trust and good quality networks), this is

transformed to economic capital among their children who have more money available than those

whose parents do not have social capital.

Unpaid internships are a barrier to a sustainable career and social mobility as they are only open to

those who have the resources to work for free. (“Internships – Unpaid, Unadvertised, Unfair”,

Rebecca Montacute, The Sutton Trust, 2018)

Conclusions/Recommendations

Bold action needs to be taken by all actors: government, educators, employers and third sector to

bring about lasting change. Educators, careers advisors, Government policy and support

organisations have an influence especially when family cannot help.

A one-size-fits all approach is not enough. Service and support providers should look at an

individual level and deliver tailored support to each young person as it is needed.

Understand both the young person and their family’s individual circumstances in terms of capital

and values when providing support and guidance.

Social and cultural capital needs to be built in more places than the family. – civic organisations can

play a key role and educational institutions can facilitate better access to good quality/meaningful

networks that expand beyond peers and link to employer networks.

Educate about the value of networks and how to develop and utilise them. Show the clear link

regarding value of meeting employers and facilitating work experience.

Young people need access to good quality work experience. In curriculum learning, project based

work and online resources can support face to face work experience.

More access to paid work experience (weekend jobs, part-time work, seasonal jobs) to help instil

value that work pays.

Consider all financial barriers to work experience (e.g. lack of affordable transport or lack of

resources to do unpaid work).

Encourage the ambition to be economically self-sufficient/independent. Employer role models play

a key role here.

Knowledge of the local labour market and careers education linked to good earnings and market

predictions helps to show the link between work and earning money.

Inspiring Policy: Graduate Outcomes and Social Mobility (Bridge Group, 2016)

“Social inequality is reproduced in both higher education and the professions. This report highlights the

importance of a joined-up, collaborative approach to improve the graduate outcomes of individuals from

lower socio-economic backgrounds. We share insights from a range of colleagues (representing the higher

education, charity, and employer sectors) to expose the key challenges affecting progression amongst

individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds and identify solutions. We offer challenge and debate

and highlight where policy innovation is required to catalyse change.”

There is acknowledgement that the report focuses on the recruitment process as perceived by institutional

leaders and employers and the student voice is not represented. Conclusions recommend future work

captures student experience.

Background

There is a strong evidence base to challenge previous assumptions about the levelling effect of higher

education.

The increased focus on graduate outcomes and progression into the professions is one of the most

significant developments in social mobility over the last decade.

This trend has been matched by an increasing interest from employers in achieving greater diversity in

recruitment responding to a need for new approaches to seek and identify potential and guard against

overlooking talent. Political pressure is no doubt a factor.

Universities plays a critical role in enabling social mobility but do not “hold the panacea”.

Key Findings

Across much of HE sector resourcing of careers services significantly lags behind increased

importance of the profession. This is exacerbated by employers increased expectations about the

capacity of careers services to broker links internally, aid quest for talent and reach students

traditionally hard to engage.

Refers to Bridge Group (2016) research: established evidence base that students from lower socio-

economic backgrounds are less likely to move away from home to study and if they do they are

more likely to return to their home region on graduation.

Certain assumptions, such as the idea that students from lower socio-economic backgrounds lack

certain characteristics that might aid progression, are controversial and uncomfortable. A more

informed and candid debate with employers is needed.

Most large employers are now actively seeking greater socio-economic diversity in their workforce

and are commercially driven to discover hidden talent.

Stephen Isherwood (Chief Executive, ISE) – “employers from all sectors are coming to the

realisation that business performance is at risk. Talent that could give a competitive advantage is

being overlooked and a workforce that does not relate to its clients and customers is going to

struggle competitively”.

Improved data (on the quality and impact of engagement activities, recruitment practices and

outcomes) is helping to draw out good practice, highlight areas for improvement and monitor

progress. But there is still much to do and the use of different diversity datasets between employers

makes comparison difficult and risk doing more harm than good.

Research evidence and practical experience shows new recruitment practices such as contextual

recruitment or the removal of academic screening are effective.

Increasing role of SMEs in graduate labour market but often feel overlooked by Universities in

favour of large graduate employers.

Graduates working for SMEs were found to be more likely to have secured their job through

personal contacts.

There has been a significant increase in the number of social enterprises and charitable

organisations aimed at promoting social mobility. The role the third sector plays is critical to

sustaining and scaling up activity however the sectors current fragmentation and duplication risks it

being unnavigable for employers.

David Johnston (Chief Executive, Social Mobility Foundation)

o “Universities should target less privileged undergraduates from the first term of the first year

with a programme that actively builds their understanding, knowledge and confidence to

approach employer recruitment processes (regularly undertake employer assessment tasks,

practice networking).”

o “As a matter of course create partnerships with firms that ensure undergraduates do not

need to have an uncle at an investment bank to get a placement at one.”

Students from low socio-economic backgrounds have particular needs in relation to careers

services and operational challenges arise in targeting interventions from employing effective data

and objections from students not included.

HESCU research appears to show students from higher socio-economic groups (SEBs) prioritise

drivers such as salary, personal responsibility, status and prestige whereas lower SEB groups

prioritise work-life balance, leadership style and job security.

Exercise caution when considering aggregated views of diverse student cohorts – limits

understanding of distinct populations within a group.

Skills learnt through extra-curricular activities affect graduate outcomes considerably but students

from lower socio-economic backgrounds have lower levels of participation. Research by Mary

Stuart, University of Lincoln (2011) indicates low levels of participation are due to a combination of

individual characteristics and preferences, opportunities available and the role of networks and work

experience.

Employers value graduates who can demonstrate competencies associated with global experiences

and much evidence indicates overseas work and study experiences boost student employability.

But access to international opportunities too often participation rates skewed towards the most

affluent.

Alumni are a significantly under-used resource in promoting student progression amongst students

from low socio-economic groups and policy initiatives to mobilise alumni could have significant

impact on progression outcomes as well as being important sources of fundraising (bursaries and

scholarships).

Conclusions/Recommendations

Students from lower socio-economic backgrounds are less likely to participate in extra-curricular

activities attractive to employers and are less likely to make use of careers services or apply for

internships.

Once graduated students from lower socio-economic backgrounds may find the job market is

skewed against them due to selection criteria and recruitment processes.

Student progression is a joint, joined up endeavour and multi-faceted process. Collective

responsibility and collaborative action across universities, employers and the third sector is needed

to solve the challenges of social mobility.

Learning gain – more institutional data mining and predictive analytics needed to help define the

characteristics of students who typically underachieve in employment outcomes and identify

interventions that have greatest impact. Create a plain and common language.

HE sector needs to develop a more sophisticated understanding of students’ views on employment

priorities and how these may vary between socio-economic groups.

New recruitment practices must be assessed with rigour and a new holistic model of recruitment

should be created which optimises the chance of achieving diversity.

Need to develop a more regional approach linking universities with employers and the third sector to

recognise distinct geographical issues.

Employers need to give greater considerable to students from lower socio-economic backgrounds

whose geographical mobility may be more limited. Develop more work experience and graduate

opportunities outside of London and the South East.

Unpaid and unadvertised internships are an important factor in restricting fair access. Universities

need to work in partnership with employers to address challenges.

Need to look more closely at progression routes at a local level to better understand geographical

patterns in educational inequality.

Universities, employers and students have a collective responsibility in addressing the deficit in

participation in extra-curricular activities in order to achieve sustainable solutions.

Alumni can be mobilised to contribute to graduate success through mentoring, placements,

application and interview support and facilitating access to professional networks that more affluent

students have access to through family links.

Socio-economic Background and Early Career Progression in the Law (Bridge Group, 2018)

“Working with eight global law firms and the Sutton Trust, this study examines the correlation between

background characteristics and early career progression in the legal profession. The research includes the

analysis of data relating to over 2,800 early career professionals and interviews with sixty early careers

professionals (current and former employees) and senior partners. It provides a compelling evidence base

to drive a shift in mindset, and to boost firms’ efforts to increase socio-economic diversity and inclusion in

the legal sector.”

Although the report focuses on the Law, many of the key findings and recommendations are relevant to

other sectors seeking to improve diversity and inclusion.

Background

Diversity in the legal profession is receiving increased attention due to concerns about equality and access

to talent and in response from policy makers and the media.

Extensive research highlights key factors including: unequal educational attainment, access to careers

guidance, university access, financial obstacles, access to work experience and recruiting practices of

employers.

Encouraging efforts have been made to increase diversity amongst entry hires but less attention is being

paid to how trainees may progress differently by socio-economic background.

Key Findings

Study reveals unequal progression amongst trainees and associates and lack of diversity.

Those from lower socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to be the highest performers in firms

but appear on average less likely to progress in their early career.

Population of trainees and associates is deeply unrepresentative of the eligible candidate pool

(across 8 firms in the study).

Employees who attended state schools are less likely to be retained.

Many drivers of diversity and unequal progression are societal (unequal access to HE, economic

and cultural capital flowing from person’s background, family and professional networks established

from a young age). Addressing these macro issues is not just down to law firms.

Significant factors identified that contribute to unequal attrition and progression by socio-economic

background (effects of dominant cultures, way in which talent is defined and identified, mechanisms

for scaffolding experience and allocating work).

o Employees and leavers interviewed recognised “unconscious bias” citing the dominant

culture of firms typically benefits those from higher socio-economic backgrounds. Those

from lower socio-economic backgrounds feel pressure to assimilate into the dominant

culture.

o Personality traits considered essential to get ahead are closely linked to social background

and often have little correlation to work performance (extroverted, confident, charismatic,

having ‘gravitas’).

o Significant evidence of “micro-aggressions”: everyday words / acts that communicate

denigrating messages to certain groups perceived as different (e.g. by gender, ethnicity,

socio-economic background). Over time these can erode confidence or lead to feelings of

not fitting in. Many employees from low socio-economic backgrounds manage carefully their

differences to assimilate (toning down accents, adjusting speech, avoiding certain

conversation topics or feigning interest in them.

o Evidence of aggressive ‘macho’ cultures in certain areas of work/in certain teams which

many from low socio-economic backgrounds are not drawn to (e.g. litigation).

o Evidence of inconsistent and often ambiguous definitions associated with ‘talent’ within and

between firms.

o Study considers these barriers are the consequence of how socio-economic background and

ethnicity shape perceptions about who is deemed appropriate for progression and promotion

which determines who has access to opportunities to progress to senior roles.

Conclusions / Recommendations

Socialise this research and its findings to open conversations at all levels.

o challenge erroneous yet dominant views and perceptions about lack of diversity in the law.

o Use conversations as a platform for developing a strong single narrative about diversity and

inclusion with respect to socio-economic background.

o Critical to have senior managers in the debate

Initiatives and programmes (e.g. mentoring) are important but impact on addressing inclusion

challenges is minimal and do not address more fundamental and systematic issues (e.g. definitions

of talent).

Interrogate the way in which talent is defined and identified. e.g. what makes a good solicitor?

Legal firms and SRA should follow Bridge Group best practice guidance on collection and analyses

of socio-economic data. Detailed workforce diversity data should be submitted to a trusted third

party to benchmark data anonymously across the sector and explore significant variances between

firms.

Greater transparency relating to decisions about progression, promotion and work allocation.

Diversity needs to be managed throughout the entire talent pipeline and not just at the recruitment

level (to support retention and career progression).

Employee insight session should be embedded as part of wider diversity training to address key

issues highlighted in the report.

Deliver a strong message about the implications and consequences of micro-aggressions

addressing the fact that seemingly innocent behaviours are ‘conscious’ and harmful.

Ensure networking and social events do not exclude certain groups (e.g. those with caring or other

responsibilities). Give support to help under-represented groups to acclimatise rather than

assimilate to different cultural practices.

Better practice would reap significant rewards including a more representative, productive, profitable

and committed legal workforce and would reinforce the sectors place as a national thought leader

on social mobility.

Socio-Economic Diversity in the Fast Stream (Bridge Group, 2016)

“The Cabinet Office commissioned the Bridge Group, in collaboration with the Centre for Evaluation and

Monitoring at Durham University, to report on socio-economic diversity in the Fast Stream (the

government's main graduate development programme). The Bridge report is the first of its kind

published by any employer in the country and includes analysis of recruitment data relating to almost

140,000 candidates. It looks at why applicants from lower socio-economic backgrounds are less likely

to apply to the Fast Stream, and less likely to succeed if they do apply. It sets out recommendations to

address the lack of social mobility across the public and private sectors.”

Although the report focuses on the Civil Service Fast Stream, many of the key findings and

recommendations are relevant to other sectors seeking to improve diversity and inclusion.

Background

The Fast Stream is the Governments flagship graduate development programme, equipping candidates

to become future leaders of the Civil Service. It was created to ensure that present and future

governments are supported by leaders able to respond to diverse situations and changing priorities.

Many good practices to secure socio-economic diversity in the Fast Stream are well developed

(collection and publication of socio-economic background data, removal of candidate screening criteria,

targeting of marketing activity based on campus diversity, internship programme for under-represented

groups) and much progress has been made in relation to some diversity indicators (BAME and

Disability). However, in relation to socio-economic diversity the Fast Stream is unrepresentative of the

population at large (the intake profile is less diverse than the student population of the University of

Oxford).

Key Findings

Candidates from highly selective universities are more likely to apply to the Fast Stream and

within each university group students with higher socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to

apply. Factors include:

o low levels of awareness of Fast Stream amongst students from low socio-economic

backgrounds relative to peer employers (evidenced by Trendence data).

o Limited monitoring and tracking of students – not able to evaluate diversity of audience

reached and the impact of campus activity.

o A perception amongst lower socio-economic backgrounds that the programme is both

attractive and intimidating likely deterring them from applying. Perception largely due to:

A view of the wider Civil Service as bureaucratic and for ‘white, male and

Oxbridge’ students, a view often formed prior to entering university

Uncertainty about the selection process, more fundamentally about the specific

behaviours and skills that are sought by the Fast Stream (definition of ‘talent’)

which may lead to assumptions based on their view of a ‘typical Fast Streamer’

deterring them from applying.

Recruitment process is significantly longer than average length amongst peer

employers. (18-31 weeks vs average 11.5 weeks) which may put off lower socio-

economic students from applying and if they do apply they are less likely to take

the risk of not accepting job offers elsewhere during the process.

Geographical focus on London is a deterrent – research shows students from low

socio-economic backgrounds are less likely to move to London.

Publication of success rates by institution give transparency but are also likely to

deter students who feel less confident about applying,

Salary does not appear to be a significant factor in deterring applications from low

socio-economic background students.

A higher proportion of candidates from higher socio-economic backgrounds progress at every

stage of the recruitment process despite neither being considered in selection. A larger

proportion of low socio-economic background candidates do not proceed beyond the registration

stage (44% vs 36% from higher SEB)

Candidates from more selective universities have higher odds of passing each recruitment

stage.

A high proportion of applicants are from academic subjects (Literature, History) which are

among the least diverse with regards to socio-economic backgrounds.

There is a strong linear relationship between UCAS points and performance in all test scores

although less strong for the online competency test which is most closely linked to the Civil

Service Competency framework and cannot be practiced like the verbal and numerical tests.

‘White’ candidates are more likely to achieve higher scores in the online tests.

At assessment centre stage, lower socio-economic background candidates have lower overall

candidate scores.

At assessment centre stage being an Oxbridge graduate is particularly strong and Oxbridge

candidates perform on average over a point better than candidates who graduated from other

highly selective universities.

Interviews with candidates suggest the ordering of assessment centre exercises (starting with

Group activities) and the lack of diversity of assessors could be having a negative impact on the

success of low socio-economic background candidates,

Conclusions / Recommendations

Adopt a more robust methodology for measuring and monitoring socio-economic diversity

(based on research and established practice in HE sector).

Adopt a more strategic approach to engage and increase the pool of quality candidates from a

wider range of backgrounds.

Establish clearer senior leadership accountability for socio-economic diversity underpinned by

proposed measures of success / targets.

Introduce enhanced data insights to direct resource more effectively during the attraction

process including on targeting, evaluating impact of activities and use of live recruitment data.

Mobilise those already on the Fast Stream programme to be involved in attraction activities.

More curriculum-based interactions with universities and greater engagement with widening

participation teams.

Interrogate the approach to selection which focus on social and cultural competencies

associated with candidates from more affluent backgrounds.

Critically review the way ‘talent’ is defined and identified and work towards more inclusive

methods of identifying potential that have a clearer link to the strengths required to perform in

the job.

Enhance candidate experience and thus engagement e.g. through gamification techniques and

enhance/remove aspects of the selection process that are especially prohibitive (data informed).

Ensure diversity of Fast Stream assessors by age, socio-economic backgrounds, occupational

background.

Research why there is a high drop out rate at registration stage among candidates from under-

represented groups.

Review engagement with schools and invest more in school outreach programmes to make a

greater contribution to changing perceptions of the Civil Service. Greater operational budget

should be allocated to such programmes and monitor participants to evaluate overall impact.

Breaking down the barriers to Student Opportunities and Youth Social Action (UUK and

NUS, 2015)

“This report by NUS and UUK explores how levels of social action and volunteering can be increased. The

report addresses how barriers such as time constraints, money, pressures of study, aspiration, family

commitments and paid work commitments can be effectively addressed.”

Background

Student unions and universities all have a civic responsibility to work in the interests of society and create a

better world. Universities and their students make a positive contribution to society

Student volunteering develops life skills, enhances student experience and employability and tackles

societal concerns and inequalities. Enabling as many students to volunteer as possible is a key ingredient

of a world class student experience.

The #iwill campaign’s collective goal is to increase the number of 10-20 year olds in the UK participating in

meaningful social action (volunteering) from 40% to 60% by 2020.

Key Findings

Students recognise the need to get as much out of the university experience as they can and value

the wider student experience including opportunities to develop personal and social skills.

Research by NUS found:

o over 725,000 students currently volunteer (31 % of the higher education student population).

o Students volunteer on average for 44 hours a year (based on an average 32 week term).

o Student volunteering contributes £175million per year to the UK economy

o Motivations for volunteering: Improving things/help people (78%), developing skills (66%)

o Barriers: Majority of students who do not currently volunteer (69%) cited ‘not enough time’

either due to the pressures of study, paid work, family commitments or involvement in other

activities. 18% of all students said they did not think they could afford to do more

volunteering than their current levels.

o Activities: Students get involved in a wide range of opportunities. Teaching/Tutoring (37%),

organising activities/events (33%), raising money or taking part in sponsored events (29%).

o More than half of students (56%) would prefer to volunteer for a school/education

organisation or a local charity.

o Majority of student volunteers (38%) first became involved in volunteering at school, 23% at

college/sixth form.

o Majority of student volunteers (48%) found out about volunteering through family or friends,

39% through place of study, 27% through internet search. 26% contacted the organisation

directly.

Barriers and challenges students face:

o Language and understanding – different terms (clubs, societies, volunteering) can be

confusing. Need to create meaningful points of engagement tailored to students and an

awareness of diversity of needs and cultures.

o Motivation – students volunteers are more likely to do because of personal values

o Time – offer opportunities with different time commitments and outside normal working day

as well as within the curriculum.

o Management of volunteering – allow flexibility and choice. Ensure students have access to

information about opportunities and associated benefits to make their own choice.

o Perception and previous negative experience – students unions and universities to work

with local organisations to challenge negative perceptions about students and help them

understand value and benefit they can bring.

o Financial – Embed youth social action (volunteering) into institutional priorities to ensure

long-term sustainability. Develop compelling evidence base on impact and direct funding to

high-impact programmes. Also, address financial burdens that prevent participation through

upfront payment of expenses and additional funding.

o Space – physical, access. Utilise social media etc to create online communities to promote

opportunities.

o Environment – create step change in behaviours, values and attitudes where students are

more likely to lean towards opportunities which benefit self-interest.

o Access to expert support and advice – encourage peer learning and support

o Bureaucracy – explore how processes, systems or procedures can be made efficient and

as user-friendly as possible.

(Refer to report for further details).

Conclusions / Recommendations

40% of students said that education institutions linking volunteering opportunities to their course or

academic qualification would encourage them to do more volunteering.

A third of students said they would like to see more one-off opportunities to encourage them to

volunteer.

Young Foundation six principles of great youth social action:

o Reflective – recognising contributions and valuing critical reflection and learning

o Challenging – stretching and ambitious as well as enjoyable and enabling

o Youth-led – Led, owned and shaped by young person’s needs, ideas and decision-making

o Socially impactful – a clear intended benefit to the community, cause or social problem

o Progressive – sustained and providing links to other activities and opportunities

o Embedded – accessible to all and well-integrated to existing pathways to become a habit for

life.

Higher Education Student Opportunities and Social Action Framework (see Appendix) – a two stage

practical tool aimed at supporting both universities and students’ unions to identify actions required

to remove barriers to students participating in social action and to increase the quality of the

opportunities provided.