sandwell and west birmingham wres report and action plan … · 2019-09-02 · sandwell and west...
TRANSCRIPT
Sandwell and West Birmingham WRES Report and Action Plan
1.1. Executive Summary
The main purpose of the Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES) is to help local and
national NHS organisations to review their data against the nine WRES indicators and to
produce an action plan to improve the workplace experiences of Black, Asian and Minority
Ethnic (BAME) staff. The WRES also places an obligation on NHS organisations to improve
BAME representation at Board level.
In 2014, NHS England and the NHS Equality and Diversity Council agreed action to ensure
employees from BAME backgrounds have equal access to career opportunities and receive
fair treatment in the workplace. The WRES was introduced and implemented as mandatory
for NHS Trusts in April 2015.
This report provides an update to the Governing Body on overall progress made against the
WRES report since its previous publication in 2017/18. This report also provides an action
plan against the nine workforce indicators when compared with the baseline data for 2017/19.
To also provide assurance to NHS England, the CCG is required to publish its WRES report
and Action Plan on its website.
1.2 Background
The NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES) was made available to the NHS from
April 2015 and was included within the NHS standard contract from 2015. WRES baseline
data has been provided and published by the NHS from 1st July 2015.
The main purpose of the WRES is to help local and national NHS organisations to review their
data against the nine WRES indicators and to produce an action plan to improve the workplace
experiences of Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority (BAME) staff. The WRES also places an
obligation on NHS organisations to improve BAME representation at Board level. As such, the
‘business case’ for race equality in the NHS, and for the WRES, is now a powerful one and
the WRES provides a real impetus for NHS organisations to improve workforce race equality
for the benefit of staff and patients.
For the purpose of this report BAME is defined as anyone who comes from a visible ethnic
minority background e.g. White & Black, Asian, Black African, Caribbean, Chinese. Please
see 2011 census data categories in Appendix 1.
1.2.1 The WRES Reporting Tool
The WRES is a tool designed for both providers of NHS services (including NHS and
independent providers of NHS services) and NHS Commissioners. It can also be applied to
national healthcare bodies, many of whom are also implementing and using the WRES.
WRES Report Page 2 of 24
As a Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) Sandwell and West Birmingham CCG
(SWBCCG) have two roles in relation to the WRES. We are commissioners of NHS services
and we are also employers. In both roles, our work is shaped by key statutory requirements
and policy drivers including those arising from:
▪ The NHS Constitution;
▪ The Equality Act (2010) and the Public Sector Equality Duty
▪ The NHS standard contract and associated documents
▪ The CCG Improvement and Assessment Framework
In addition to the NHS standard contract, the CCG Improvement and Assessment Framework
also requires us as a CCG to give assurance to NHS England that our providers are
implementing and using the WRES. As a consequence, implementing the WRES and working
on its results and subsequent action plans is a part of contract monitoring and negotiation
between Sandwell and West Birmingham CCGs and our provider organisations.
1.3 The Nine WRES Indicators
With over one million employees, the NHS is mandated to show progress against several
indicators of workforce equality, including a specific indicator to address the low numbers of
BAME board members across the organisation.
Appendix 2 reveals the nine WRES indicators the NHS organisations must report against on
an annual basis, which are based on existing data sources such as Electronic Staff Records
(ESR) and the NHS Staff Survey results.
In order to assist with the implementation of the WRES, as a CCG we are required to: -
▪ Collect data on our workforce
▪ Carry out data analyses
▪ Produce an annual report
▪ Report on the WRES and produce an action plan
1.4 WRES 2017/18 – Key Findings
Appendix 3 provides the WRES reporting template for Sandwell and West Birmingham CCG
for 2017/18, which has been completed by the Senior HR and OD Business Partner.
Where WRES indicator data has been unavailable/incomplete, or where low percentage
figures are at risk of identifying individual members of staff, the CCG has been unable publish
the data within the reporting template. This has been considered in the WRES action plan for
2017/18.
Having compared the results of the WRES information and action plan for the last two
consecutive years, the following key areas are highlighted below.
Data Analysis in Relation to the Local Demographic
The overall WRES data from Sandwell and West Birmingham CCG for 2017/2018 indicates
that our CCG is not fully representative of the community it serves, particularly in relation to
its workforce profile at senior levels.
WRES Report Page 3 of 24
The table below reveals that the Sandwell and West Birmingham region has a relatively
diverse population with approximately 26% of its residents deriving from a BAME background.
The highest proportion of BAME staff living in the Sandwell and West Birmingham Region is
of Asian Indian origin at 12% with the lowest number being of Black British origin at 6%.
In comparing the local demographic with the SWBCCG, BAME staff members make up
34.17% of the workforce which suggests a higher proportion of BAME employees employed
with the CCG when compared to those living within the locality. The purpose of the report is
to present an overview of SWBCCG’s performance against the nine indicators, the analysis
which is as follows: -
WRES INDICATOR 1 – Staff Bandings
WRES Indicator 1 requires our CCG to carry out an analysis of the percentage of Black Asian
and Minority Ethnic Staff in each of the AFC Bands 1-9 and Very Senior Managers (VSM)
roles (including executive Board members) compared with the percentage of staff in the overall
workforce. In addition, as part of this analysis there is a requirement to undertake a separate
examination of clinical and non-clinical staff1.
Indicator 1 - Results
The data reveals that when compared with 2017/18 results, there has been an increase in
BAME employees occupying roles within Bands 2, 3, 5 and 6. However during the same
period, there has been decrease in the number of BAME Staff occupying roles within Bands
1, 3, 4 7 and 8a. More positively there has been an increase in BAME staff occupying roles
between in Bands 8b and 8c. In contrast however there are no BAME employees at Very
Senior Management (VSM) level.
Clinical and Non-Clinical Breakdown
1 Clinical Staff includes any member of staff from a clinical background /discipline e.g. Doctors, Nurses, HealthCare Scientists, Pharmacists, Radiographers. Non-clinical means any member of staff in an Administrative and Clerical role e.g. HR manager, Communication and Engagement Lead.
12% 8%
6%
50%
24%
Sandwell and West BirminghamPopulation Breakdown
Asian Indian
Asian Pakistani
Black British /Caribbean
White
Other Groups
WRES Report Page 4 of 24
In comparing results for clinical and non-clinical employees, at 46%, BAME staff make up
almost half of the clinical workforce, although there has been a 2% decrease when compared
to the 2017/18 results. In comparison, during the same period, non-clinical BAME employees
make up less than one third of the organisation. At 27%, this figure remains the same as the
previous reporting year.
Given that Sandwell and West Birmingham CCG has a BAME population of 26%, the CCG
staffing demographic overall is wholly representative of the community it serves.
Nevertheless, some investigation is required to ascertain whether there is an underlying issue
with recruitment, and selection of BAME candidates into more senior roles, which does not
reflect the diversity of the Sandwell and West Birmingham region.
NHS Improvement Commentary
Whilst the SWBCCG structure is representative of a traditional hierarchal model, the senior
management composition is much less diverse. NHS Improvement recognises that the
composition of leadership should not only include the best range of talent, skill sets and
experience available, but it should also broadly reflect those who work in the CCG
organisations and the community it serves.
WRES 2 INDICATOR – Recruitment
This indicator analyses the relative likelihood of BAME staff being appointed following
shortlisting. Whilst 2017/18 recruitment data revealed that White staff are twice as likely to be
appointed from shortlisting when compared to BAME, there has been some significant
improvement during 2018/19 as the data revealed that the proportion of BAME staff likely to
be appointed from shortlisting has increased to 0.06 percent; a figure which is higher than the
national average of 1.45.
EDC Commentary
The NHS Equality and Diversity Council has revealed that nationally, the relative likelihood of
White applicants being appointed from shortlisting across all posts when compared to BAME
employees is 1.45 greater2. Whilst the CCG has exceeded this target, we are a relatively small
workforce population when compared to larger NHS establishments and actions will need to
be taken to close disparities, particularly at more senior levels.
WRES INDICATOR 3 – Staff Entering the Formal Disciplinary Process.
This indicator measures the relative likelihood of staff entering the formal disciplinary process
as measured by entry into a formal disciplinary investigation (based on data from a 2-year
rolling average of current and previous year).
2 Workforce Race Equality Standard 2018
WRES Report Page 5 of 24
Whilst it is reported that nationally that BAME staff are 1.24 times more likely to enter the
formal disciplinary process3, as no staff have been subject to any disciplinary action during
this period, there is no data to report on.
WRES INDICATOR 4 – Relative Likelihood of staff Accessing Non-Mandatory Training
Whilst the 2017/18 data revealed that relative likelihood of white staff accessing non
mandatory study leave and non-mandatory corporate training was 1.1 and 1.15 times greater
respectively, this gap has narrowed significantly when comparing 2018/19 data.
It is important to note that whilst White staff accessed 8% and 10% respectively more non
mandatory study leave and corporate training during 2018/19 compared to BAME staff when
analysing the wider SWBCCG population, proportionally per ethnic breakdown the gap is
much narrower. Further analysis of the data revel drilling down with BAME staff accessing
0.17% more non mandatory study leave and corporate training when compared to their white
counterparts.
It is important to note that, not only have the gaps narrowed significantly; overall SWBCCG
is performing better when compared to the national average which is reported to be 1.15 in
favour of white staff.
WRES INDICATOR 5 - Bullying and harassment from Patients, Relatives or the Public
Given the relatively low number of SWBCCG staff having direct contact from Patients,
Relatives or the Public, this WRES indicator has not been reported on. Nationally 28.7%
BAME staff reported bullying and Bullying and harassment from Patients, Relatives or the
Public which is slightly higher than the 27.7% figure reported by White staff.
WRES INDICATOR 6 - Bullying and harassment from Staff
Whilst the 2017/18 data revealed that the relative likelihood of staff experiencing bullying and
harassment from staff and colleagues was 0.2 times greater for BAME Staff, 2018/19, data
revealed that 12.59% of staff reported4 that they had personally experienced bullying or
harassment in the workplace.
Of those that reported bullying and harassment, three staff members disclosed their BAME
background whereas other respondents did not disclose their ethnicity. Whilst the data reveals
that BAME staff are 17% more likely to experience bullying and harassment, this result needs
to be taken into context given that a larger majority of respondents did not disclose their ethnic
background.
Furthermore, it is difficult to drill down on this indicator any further as the SWBCCG staff survey
analyses bullying and harassing behaviour in its entirety and does not separate race.
Furthermore, the data is unable to reveal if the perpetrators are more likely to be a line
manager, team member(s) or colleagues. Nevertheless, the reported bulling and harassing
figures revealed at the CCG are lower than the national average which currently stands at
29%.
3 Workforce Race Equality Standard – 2018 Data Analysis Report 4 Staff that completed the staff survey
WRES Report Page 6 of 24
WRES INDICATOR 7 – Equal Opportunities for Career Progression
The CCG did not ask this question as part of the local staff survey and consequently there is
no data to report on. However, in reviewing the national picture, 72% of BAME staff believe
that they are provided with equal opportunities for career progression or promotion which is a
slight decrease on the 2017 national figure of 76%.
WRES INDICATOR 8 – Discrimination
This indicator measures the relative likelihood of staff experiencing discrimination at work from
a manager, team leader or other colleague. This data is based on information gleaned from
the local staff survey.
Of the 145 staff who answered this question in the staff 17 (11.72%) reported that they had
witnessed or personally experienced discrimination from a manager, team leader or other
colleague. Of the 17 staff who reported discrimination, 7 (46.67%) reported that the
discrimination was due to race. Of those that reported race discrimination, two staff members
identified as BAME, however the other respondents did not disclose their ethnicity. Whilst the
data reveals that BAME staff are 29% more likely to experience discrimination, this result
needs to be taken into context given that a large majority of respondents did not disclose their
ethnic background.
Nationally, the percentage of staff that experienced discrimination in the last 12 months has
increased from 13.8% to 15.0%, almost double the 6.6% figure reported by White staff.
WRES INDICATOR 9 – Board Membership
The data reveals that BAME staff are proportionally less represented at board level by 20%,
whereas white staff are 4.15% less represented at board level. It is important to note that
these figures are not wholly accurate as 16 members (7%) of the board have not disclosed
their ethnic group.
When compared to the national picture, 7.4% of board members are from a BAME background
however is significantly lower compared to 19.1% of in the total BAME workforce in NHS trusts.
WRES Report Page 7 of 24
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The purpose of the WRES Reporting is to analyse the annual workforce data, to highlight and
trends and hotspots and to recommend action plans to address unwanted variation between
staff groups. A number of measures are being introduced to ensure continuous embedding of
equality measures; the details of which are highlighted below.
Networking Groups
HR assumes regular attendance and representation at regional STP networking groups,
working collaboratively and sharing best practice that will maximise opportunities to advance
equality of opportunity.
Recruitment
Whilst there do not appear to be barriers to joining SWBCCG, BAME staff are less likely, to be recruited or promoted into senior roles. However, it is important that staff can look at their leaders and see themselves represented in more senior positions across the workforce pipeline. To identify and understand the underlying reasons for this underperformance, a root cause
analysis should be considered to understand this underperformance and remedial actions
implemented.
The CCG may benefit from learning from the achievement of other organisations5 who regard
their organisational success on the desire to meet the needs of their diverse customers, to be
an employer of choice and the desire to create a strong corporate reputation and community
profile.
CIPD recommend taking recruitment a stage further by involving multiple selectors in the
candidate review process but preventing each individual from seeing each other’s feedback –
a technique which is generally favoured by those keen to ensure genuine independent thinking
among selectors.6 Research into tried and tested practices of successful recruitment practices
will be undertaken with a view to making recommendations for robust governance measure to
the OD Committee and Governing Body to ensure continued best practice.
Nevertheless, SWBCCG has taken active steps in meeting WRES priorities. These are
highlighted as follows: -
BAME Staff Accessing Non-Mandatory Training
The CCG actively encourages under-represented staff groups to access learning and development opportunities including the NHS Stepping Up and Ready Now Leadership Academy programmes that address national BAME under-representation in senior positions.
5 The Lloyds’s Group is increasingly recognised as an industry leader in promoting diversity and has won a number of national and international endorsements and awards. In addition, Aetna a leading diversified health care benefits company with its long-standing commitment to diversity has led to national recognition of the organisation as a leader in diversity management, together with their acquisition of a number of prestigious diversity awards 6 https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/promoting-diversity-through-recruitment/
WRES Report Page 8 of 24
Furthermore, the CCG implemented the Equality and Diversity business fundamentals training
for its workforce to ensure they understand their legal duties and know how to discharge them
in the delivery of their roles.
On a wider level, the CCG delivered a programme of Unconscious Bias training for staff the
purpose being to promote greater awareness particularly in relation diversity on interview
selection panels.
Staff Inclusion Network
As a result, the analysis as detailed, SWBCCG is currently developing an organisation
development plan to address the gaps revealed.
As a starting point, SWBCC has launched a Staff Inclusion Network. The purpose of the
inclusion group is to promote equality and diversity across the CCG and take appropriate
action to address inequalities for the benefit all CCG employees. Whilst the Network is in its
infancy the Committee has made some strides in developing an inclusivity agenda and
promoting inclusive practice.
Furthermore, the Human Resources team regularly revises, refreshes and scrutinises HR
policies including Bullying and Harassment, PDR as well as Recruitment and Selection to
ensure SWBCCG remains legally compliant.
WRES Report Page 9 of 24
WRES ACTION PLAN
WRES Indicator Action Plan Timeline
Indicator 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: non-clinical and clinical staff calculated separately.
Through coaching, recruitment and selection training and lunch and learns, to make career planning an integral part of the appraisal so that as a matter of course a career plan is developed, linked to personal development objectives and consideration of 'on the job' development opportunities: secondments and projects. To also recognise and challenge BAME cultures which prevents them from putting themselves forward for more senior roles. To also publicise success stories of BAME staff and who are in senior leadership positions to demonstrate what can be achieved.
Ongoing, reviewing on a quarterly basis
Indicator 2: Relative likelihood of staff being appointed from shortlisting across all posts.
As part of the Beyond Fundamentals OD Programme, a selection of CCG staff have undertaken in-house Recruitment and Section training where the importance of diversity and includes learning outcomes, particularly in relation to the Equality Act 2010, direct and indirect discrimination The Staff Inclusion Network has recommended that the Recruitment and Selection Policy includes guidance that all recruitment panels as far as practicably possible are gender and ethnically diverse. HR to monitor and detect any unfair bias in decisions taken by line managers and to respond accordingly. HR to actively promote the CCG’s values and Behaviours through Recruitment procedure, Induction and training sessions.
Ongoing, reviewing on a quarterly basis
WRES Report Page 10 of 24
Indicator 3: Relative likelihood of staff entering the formal disciplinary process, as measured by entry into a formal disciplinary investigation, based on data from a two-year rolling average of the current year and the previous year.
To undertake regular analysis of themes, and demographical data on staff member entering the process.
Ongoing, reviewing on a quarterly basis
Indicator 4: Relative likelihood of staff accessing non-mandatory training and CPD. (CPD includes professional development courses as well as training for the unqualified workforce.) The figures are based on the number of applications received by the Learning & Development Team.
Take active steps to ensure there is an increase in staff access in NHS Leadership Programmes including (Nye Bevan, Mary Seacole and Stepping up Programme. All staff are actively encouraged to attend the OD Growing you Programmes which underpins the principals of personal development, growth and personal resilience.
Ongoing, reviewing on a quarterly basis
Indicator 5: Percentage of staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from patients, relatives or the public in last 12 months.
To roll out training for Listening Ears Champions which will enable employees to raise issues confidentially to a trained champion. Where required, HR to educate and coach line managers in early identification and intervention of bullying, harassment concerns.
Roll out training by December 2019
Indicator 6: Percentage of staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from staff in
To rerun unconscious bias training for anyone with responsibility for addressing bullying or harassment issues by patients, relative or the public against staff.
Roll out training by March 2020.
WRES Report Page 11 of 24
Indicator 7: Percentage believing that trust provides equal opportunities for career progression/ promotion.
Where required, engage with BAME staff to gain their views on equality of opportunity through targeted communication and engagement. The Senior HR & OD Business Partner will continue to at attend Staff Inclusion Network Meetings to discuss issues and agree any actions raised.
Ongoing dialogue from various mechanisms such as OD Committee, Staff Council and the Staff inclusion Network.
Indicator 8: In the last 12 months have you personally experienced discrimination at work from any of the following? Manager/team leader or other colleagues
Engage with BAME staff to gain their views on discrimination in the CCG / staff survey. Produce an action plan based on evidence and general viewpoints.
Ongoing dialogue from various mechanisms such as OD Committee, Staff Council and the Staff inclusion Network.
Indicator 9: Percentage difference between the organisations’ Board voting membership and its overall workforce.
It is understood that the voting board is diverse, although many of the members did not disclose their ethnicity. Steps will be taken to remedy this to provide a more accurate analysis of this indicator. Furthermore, there is scheduled to be a change in the Board in December 2019.
Evaluation of current position by December 2019.
WRES Report Page 12 of 24
Conclusion
SWBCCG is committed to using to using data, intelligence and real stories to understand and respond
to any issues of inequality which may occur. Where there is also scope for improvement, the CCG will
use Networks and wider groups to raise such issues of inequality and will provide scope for
improvement through support and guidance, empowering BAME staff, as well as the wider workforce
to drive change throughout the organisation and as such, developing a reputation as an employer of
choice.
WRES Report Page 13 of 24
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
White Mixed/multiple ethnic groups
Asian/Asian British Black/ African/Caribbean/ Black British
English/ Welsh/Scottish/ Northern Irish/British
White & Black African Indian African
Irish White & Black Caribbean
Pakistani Caribbean
Gypsy or Irish Traveller White & Asian Bangladeshi Any other black background
Any other White Background
Any other mixed background
Chinese
Any other Asian Background
Other ethnic group
Arab
Any other ethnic group
WRES Report Page 14 of 24
Appendix 2
Table A
Nine WRES Indicators:
Workforce indicators For each of these four workforce indicators, compare the data for White and BAME 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
Note: Organisations should undertake this calculation separately for non-clinical
and for clinical staff.
2. Relative likelihood of staff being appointed from shortlisting across all posts.
3. Relative likelihood of BAME staff entering the formal disciplinary process compared
to that of white staff. Note: This indicator will be based on data from a two-year rolling average of the current year and the previous year.7
4. Relative likelihood of staff accessing non-mandatory training and CPD.
National NHS Staff Survey indicators (or equivalent)
For each of the four staff survey indicators, compare the outcomes of the responses for White and BAME staff.
5. KF 25. Percentage of staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from
patients, relatives or the public in last 12 months.
6. KF 26. Percentage of staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from staff in last 12 months.
7. KF 21. Percentage believing that trust provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion.
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.
Board representation indicator
For this indicator, compare the difference for White and BAME staff.
9. Percentage difference between the organisations’ Board voting membership and its overall workforce. Note: Only voting members of the Board should be included when considering this indicator.
WRES Report Page 15 of 24
Appendix 3 – WRES DATA 2018/19
Workforce Profile
2018/19 2017/2018
Ethnic Group Number Percentage Ethnic Group Number Percentage
BAME 80 35% BAME 64 29.63
White 134 58% White 124 57.41
undisclosed 16 7% undisclosed 28 12.96
WRES INDICATOR 1
2018/19 2017/2018
BAME % White % Undisclosed % BAME %
Band 1* 1 0.43% 0 0.00% 0.00% Band 1 3 1.50%
Band 2 5 2.17% 0 0.00% 0.00% Band 2 1 0.50%
Band 3 4 1.74% 9 3.91% 0.00% Band 3 4 2.01%
Band 4 3 1.30% 9 3.91% 0.43% Band 4 5 2.51%
Band 5 2 0.87% 14 6.09% 1 0.00% Band 5 5 2.51%
Band 6 13 5.65% 8 3.48% 1 0.43% Band 6 8 4.02%
Band 7 13 5.65% 27 11.74% 2 0.87% Band 7 14 7.03%
Band 8a 10 4.35% 15 6.52% 1 0.43% Band 8a 10 5.02%
Band 8b 7 3.04% 16 6.96% 1 0.43% Band 8b 5 2.51%
Band 8c 3 1.30% 6 2.61% 0.00% Band 8c 1 0.50%
Band 8d 0 0.00% 8 3.48% 0.00% Band 8d 2 1.00%
Band 9 0 0.00% 1 0.43% 0.00% Band 9 0 0.00%
VSM 0 0.00% 2 0.87% 2 0.87% VSM 0 0.00%
Specials 19 8.26% 19 8.26% 8 3.48% Specials
Total 80 134 16
WRES Report Page 16 of 24
Total number of Staff (including Governing Body Members) = 230
Clinical Breakdown
2018/2019 2017/18
Profile number percentage Number Percentage
BAME 43 46% 32 48%
White 36 37% 34 51%
Undeclared 16 17% 1 1.5%
Non-Clinical Breakdown
2018/2019 2017/18
Profile BAME number BAME percentage Number Percentage
BAME 37 27% 36 27%
White 98 73% 91 69%
Undeclared 0 0 5 4%
WRES INDICATOR 2
This indicator measures the relative likelihood of staff being appointed from shortlisting.
2018/19 2017/2018
Ethnic Group Number Appointed Ratio Ethnic Group Number Percentage Ratio
BAME 53 17 0.32% BAME 197 46.30% 0.07%
White 70 18 0.26% White 211 49.60% 0.07%
undisclosed 4 2 0.50% undisclosed 17 4%
Total 127 37 425
WRES Report Page 17 of 24
Highlights
The proportion of BAME staff likely to be appointed from shortlisting is 0.06% greater.
WRES Report Page 18 of 24
WRES INDICATOR 3
This indicator measures the relative likelihood of staff entering the formal disciplinary process as measured by entry into a formal disciplinary investigation
(based on data from a 2-year rolling average of current and previous year).
2018/19 2017/2018
Ethnic Group Number of Disciplinaries
Percentage Ratio Ethnic Group Number of Disciplinaries
Percentage Ratio
BAME BAME 0 BAME 0 0
White White 0 White 1 0.008%
undisclosed undisclosed 0 undisclosed 0
Total 0
Note: -
As no staff have been subject to any disciplinary action during this period, there is no data to report on.
WRES Report Page 19 of 24
WRES INDICATOR 4
This indicator measures the relative likelihood of staff accessing non mandatory training and CPD.
2018/19 2017/2018
Ethnic Group (number per
group)
Non-Mandatory Study Leave
% of whole
number of employees
Non-mandatory Corporate Training*
% Of whole
number of employees
Proportion of staff per
ethnic group
Ethnic Group Non-Mandatory Study Leave
% of whole
number of employees
Non-mandatory Corporate Training
%
BAME (80) 27 11.74% 31 13.48% 33.75% BAME 14 20.58% 14 (20.58%)
White (134) 45 19.57% 54 23.48% 33.58% White 28 22.4% 29 (23.2%)
undisclosed 0 0.00% 0 0.00% n/a undisclosed 1 16.6% n/a n/a
The relative likelihood of BAME staff accessing non mandatory study leave and corporate training is 0.07% more.
Relative likelihood of white staff accessing non mandatory study
leave = 1.1 times greater.
Relative likelihood of white staff accessing non mandatory corporate training is 1.15 times greater.
*This represents a sample of the staff numbers of have accessed non mandatory corporate training during 2018/19.
Highlights
Whilst overall, white staff accessed more 8% and 10% respectively more non mandatory study leave and corporate training when considering the wider
population, proportionally per ethnic breakdown the gap is much narrower with BAME staff accessing 0.17% more non mandatory study leave and corporate
training when compared to their white counterparts.
WRES INDICATOR 5
This WRES indicator measures the percentage of staff who have reported experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from patients, relatives or the public
in the last 12 months. As the CCG did not ask this question as part of the local staff survey, there is no data to report on.
WRES Report Page 20 of 24
WRES INDICATOR 6
This indicator measures the relative likelihood of staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from staff in the last 12 months. This data is based on
information gleaned from the local staff survey.
2018/19 2017/2018
Ethnic Group Number % Ratio Number % Ratio
BAME 3 17% 17% BAME 5 62.5% 0.22%
White 0 0% % White 3 37.5% 0.044
undisclosed 15 83% % undisclosed 0 0 0
18 The likelihood of staff experiencing bullying and harassment is 0.2 times greater for BAME Staff.
Highlights
Overall 82% of the CCG staffing complement completed the staff survey.
Of the 143 staff who completed the staff survey 18 (12.59%) reported that they had personally experienced bullying or harassment in the workplace. Of those
18 responses, 8 reported (42.11%) the behaviour had been a one-off incident whilst 11 (57.89%) reported the behaviours had occurred over a period of time.
Of those that reported bullying and harassment, three staff members identified as BAME, however the other respondents did not disclose their ethnicity.
Whilst the data reveals that BAME staff are 17% more likely to experience bullying and harassment, this result needs to be taken into context given that the
larger majority of respondents did not disclose their ethnic background.
WRES INDICATOR 7
WRES Report Page 21 of 24
This indicator asks if employees believe the organisation provides equal opportunities for career progression and promotion. As the CCG did not ask this
question as part of the local staff survey, there is no data to report on.
WRES Report Page 22 of 24
WRES INDICATOR 8
This indicator measures the relative likelihood of staff experiencing discrimination at work from a manager, team leader or other colleague. This data is
based on information gleaned from the local staff survey.
Overall 82% of the CCG staffing complement completed the staff survey
2018/19 2017/2018
Ethnic Group Number % Ratio Ethnic Group Number % Ratio
BAME 2 29% 29% BAME 5 62.5% 0.22%
White 0 0 0% White 3 37.5% 0.044
undisclosed 5 71% 71% undisclosed 0 0 0
*For the purpose of this exercise, discrimination based on race was analysed more closely than the other Equality stands.
Of the 145 staff who answered this question in the staff 17 (11.72%) reported that they had witnessed or personally experienced discrimination from a
manager, team leader or other colleague. Of the 17 staff who reported discrimination, 7 (46.67%) reported that the discrimination was due to race. Of those
that reported race discrimination, two staff members identified as BAME, however the other respondents did not disclose their ethnicity. Whilst the data
reveals that BAME staff are 29% more likely to experience discrimination, this result needs to be taken into context given that the larger majority of
respondents did not disclose their ethnic background.
WRES Report Page 23 of 24
WRES INDICATOR 9
This indicator measures the percentage difference between the organisation’s Governing Body voting membership and its overall workforce.
2018/19 2017/2018
Ethnic Group
Voting Board Headcount
Voting Board % Staff numbers % Difference in representation
with ethnic group
Ethnic Group Voting Board Number
% Ratio
BAME 2 15.38% 80 35% -20% BAME 10 45.45%
White 7 53.85% 134 58% -4.15% White 12 54.54%
undisclosed 4 30.77% 16 7% undisclosed 0
Highlights
The data reveals that BAME staff are proportionally less represented at board level by 20%, whereas white staff are 4.15% less represented at board level.
It is important to note that these figures are not wholly accurate as 16 members (7%) of the board have not disclosed their ethnic group.
WRES Report Page 24 of 24