Diversity survey 2012

In 2012, we carried out an anonymous and voluntary diversity survey of our Board and Consumer Panel members and staff. Once our results were tabulated, we destroyed the individual inputs. In presenting the results, we have decided not to include percentages; industry or sector comparators; or, general or economically active comparators because we do not think that such comparators are directly applicable to very small organisations. For us, one person in any category represents a 2% shift and as we break the organisation down into levels of seniority, one person can shift results by as much as 15%. The results should therefore be used to ‘paint a picture’ rather than assess performance.

Key findings and points to consider

Points of note Commentary/response Action
Good response rate of 41 out of 45 We were pleased to see an improvement in response rate from 2010 and will look to improve further when the survey is next repeated with an aspiration for 100% completion. Continue to build case for completion when survey repeated
Ambiguity in classification of role means we can’t be sure if Consumer Panel members are included in Board Members or Other. This was an error due to a late decision to include Consumer Panel members and has resulted in our results being less clear than we would like. When we repeat the survey, we will clarify either by introducing a separate Consumer Panel member category or by combining into a Non-Executive category.
Two respondents skipped the ‘role’ question (as they were entirely at liberty to do) but went on to answer other questions. This means that for some charts, alongside the Board member/Director and Head of/ Other classifications, we also show ‘unknown’. This is an inevitable consequence of allowing questions to be skipped but we do not propose to alter this in future surveys. A picture can still be painted of the broad make-up of our diversity by including these responses
We are predominantly white/male at senior levels, including Board Improving Board diversity was a recommendation from the Triennial Review and will be a feature of the MoJ’s forthcoming campaign for two new Board members and our own for all other recruitment. We will continue to press any recruitment agency we use to secure a diverse range of candidates
Three respondents reported considering that they have a disability and four reported limitations on their day to day activity because of a long-term health problem or disability Where applicants, or colleagues, require reasonable adjustments to enable them to work to the best of their abilities, we ensure these are made. We will continue to ensure our recruitment processes are open and encourage applications from a diverse range of candidates.
The majority of respondents reported having no religion or belief The lack of religious diversity within the organisation may mean we fail to take religious considerations into account in our activities. No immediate action required
The majority of respondents reported being the first generation of their family to attend university and attending state school. This shows a positive story on social mobility. No immediate action required
A significant number of colleagues with caring responsibilities We must remain alert to the needs of carers and ensure, that for staff members in particular, we have a flexible enough approach to employment to allow colleagues to combine their caring commitments with their work.