Quantitative equality analysis of the NHS Nene CCG ... · been redacted from the contingency...

Quantitative equality analysis of the NHS Nene CCG workforce at November 2016 THIS REPORT HAS BEEN REDACTED FOR PUBLICATION

THIS REPORT HAS BEEN REDACTED FOR PUBLICATION

Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

The Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty ........................................................... 1

The publication of equality information ........................................................................................ 2

Gender pay gap reporting ........................................................................................................... 2

The anonymisation of information about employees within this report ......................................... 3

Main findings ................................................................................................................... 4 Data quality and missing data ..................................................................................................... 4

Gender pay gap and the underrepresentation of women at higher levels within the organisation 5

Overview of the report ..................................................................................................... 8 Section 2 - Detailed data analysis Findings of the quantitative equality analysis ................................................................ 11

How well does Nene CCG’s workforce reflect the population that it serves? ............................. 12

Summary of significant findings ...................................................................................... 12

Age ................................................................................................................................ 13

Disability ......................................................................................................................... 14

Ethnicity ......................................................................................................................... 15

Gender ........................................................................................................................... 16

Marital Status ................................................................................................................. 17

Religion or Belief ............................................................................................................ 18

Sexual Orientation .......................................................................................................... 19

The equality profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across working patterns ..................................... 20


Age ................................................................................................................................ 21

Disability ......................................................................................................................... 22

Ethnicity ......................................................................................................................... 23

Gender ........................................................................................................................... 25

Marital status .................................................................................................................. 26

Pregnancy and maternity ................................................................................................ 27

Religion or belief ............................................................................................................ 28

Sexual orientation........................................................................................................... 30

The equality profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across pay bands .............................................. 31


Age ................................................................................................................................ 32

Disability ......................................................................................................................... 33


Ethnicity ......................................................................................................................... 34

Gender ........................................................................................................................... 36

Marital status .................................................................................................................. 37




The equality profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across occupational groups ............................... 42


Age ................................................................................................................................ 43

Disability ......................................................................................................................... 44

Ethnicity ......................................................................................................................... 45

Gender ........................................................................................................................... 47

Marital status .................................................................................................................. 48




The equality profile of Nene CCG’s recruitment process ........................................................... 53


Age ................................................................................................................................ 54

Disability ......................................................................................................................... 55

Ethnicity ......................................................................................................................... 56

Gender ........................................................................................................................... 59

Marital status .................................................................................................................. 60



The equality profile of Nene CCG’s workforce in terms of non-mandatory training uptake ......... 64

The equality profile of promotions in Nene CCG’s workforce ..................................................... 65


Age ................................................................................................................................ 66

Disability ......................................................................................................................... 67

Ethnicity ......................................................................................................................... 68

Gender ........................................................................................................................... 70

Marital status .................................................................................................................. 71




The equality profile of applications for flexible working in Nene CCG’s workforce ..................... 75



Age ................................................................................................................................ 76

Disability ......................................................................................................................... 77

Ethnicity ......................................................................................................................... 78

Gender ........................................................................................................................... 79

Marital status .................................................................................................................. 80




The equality profile of employee relations cases (complaints of bullying and harassment, disciplinary cases, capability cases, grievances) in Nene CCG’s workforce .............................. 84

The equality profile of those leaving Nene CCG’s workforce ..................................................... 85


Age ................................................................................................................................ 86

Disability ......................................................................................................................... 88

Ethnicity ......................................................................................................................... 90

Gender ........................................................................................................................... 95

Marital status .................................................................................................................. 97


Sexual orientation......................................................................................................... 102

Gender pay gap reporting: Nene CCG’s workforce at 3rd November 2016 .............................. 104

Summary of significant findings .................................................................................... 105

Differences in the mean hourly rates of pay of men and women ................................... 106

Differences in the median hourly rates of pay for men and women ............................... 109

Differences in the proportions of men and women in the lower, lower middle, upper middle and upper quartile pay bands ....................................................................................... 112

Appendix: Data Quality ............................................................................................... 113 Appendix: Methodology ............................................................................................... 115

The dataset ............................................................................................................................. 115

Analytical techniques .............................................................................................................. 118

Workforce demographics by protected characteristics and assessments of equity in representation compared to the local population .......................................................... 118

Workforce demographics by protected characteristics and assessments of equity in representation across pay bands, occupational groups, and full-time and part-time working patterns ........................................................................................................................ 118

The demographics of applicants, those shortlisted, and appointees, by protected characteristics, and assessments of equity in the recruitment process ......................... 118

Workforce demographics by protected characteristics and assessments of equity in the uptake of non-mandatory training, in promotions, in employee relations, in flexible working, and amongst workforce leavers .................................................................................... 119


Gender pay gap ........................................................................................................... 119

Key to interpreting the tables of overrepresentation and underrepresentation ......................... 121

Colour coding within the tables of overrepresentation and underrepresentation ........... 121

Reading the tables of overrepresentation and underrepresentation .............................. 122

Local population estimates ...................................................................................................... 123

1

Introduction This document presents a quantitative equality analysis of NHS Nene Clinical Commissioning Group’s workforce (Nene CCG). The aim of the analysis is to inform decision-making and workforce planning from an equality perspective. The analysis will also contribute towards Nene CCG’s statutory duty to publish equality information about its workforce, in line the directions set out in the Equality Act 2010. An overview of the Equality Act 2010, the public sector equality duty, and the specific duty to publish equality information is given below. This report also considers Nene CCG’s position with regard to the “gender pay gap”—the government has proposed to introduce mandatory gender pay gap reporting from April 2017, initially for organisations with 250 or more employees. The Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty The Equality Act 2010 describes a ‘public sector equality duty’ (section 149). The ‘public sector equality duty’ applies to listed public authorities and others who exercise public functions. Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, the public sector equality duty:

(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to— (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

(2) A person who is not a public authority but who exercises public functions must, in the exercise of those functions, have due regard to the matters mentioned in subsection (1). (3) Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to—

(a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic; (b) take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it; (c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.

The public sector equality duty covers people across nine protected characteristics: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership*; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation. (Marriage or civil partnership status is only covered by the first aim of the public sector equality duty, to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act.)

2

The publication of equality information Listed public authorities must publish information to demonstrate compliance with the duty imposed by section 149(1) of the Act, at least annually. The information that a listed public authority publishes in compliance with paragraph (1) must include information relating to persons who share a relevant protected characteristic who are—

(a) its employees; (b) other persons affected by its policies and practices.

Only listed public authorities with 150 or more employees need publish information on their workforce. The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s technical guidance on the public sector equality duty for England (August 2014) suggests that the types of information that listed public authorities could publish regarding employees include1:

• The profile of staff at different grades, levels and rates of pay, including any patterns of occupational segregation and part-time work.

• The profile of staff at different stages of the employment relationship, including recruitment, training, promotion, and leavers, and the numbers of complaints of discrimination and other prohibited conduct.

• Details of, and feedback from, any engagement exercises with staff or trade unions. • Any records of how it has had due regard in making workforce decisions, including any

assessments of impact undertaken and the evidence used. The present report addresses the first two bullet points above, using quantitative information about the equality profile of Nene CCG’s workforce. Gender pay gap reporting The government has proposed to introduce mandatory gender pay gap reporting from April 2017 with the intention of using this tool as part of a wider strategy to tackle pay inequality between men and women. The duty to report on the gender pay gap will be placed on all organisations with 250 or more employees, and may be extended to more organisations after assessing the burden of the reporting process during its first year of operation. The reporting will be based on a snapshot of the workforce at 5th April each year from 2017 and should include all employees, including those on zero-hours contracts who are paid within the pay period that contains the census date. One exception to this rule is that employees who are being paid at a reduced rate at the census date because of leave (of various types including maternity, paternity, adoption, sick and annual leave) should be excluded from the calculations. Organisations subject to the duty will be required to publish (Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017) their gender pay gap information using the approved calculations at any point during the relevant financial year.

1 Equality and Human Rights Commission: Equality Act 2010 Technical Guidance on the Public Sector Equality Duty England (August 2014), page 70, paragraph 6.13

3

The anonymisation of information about employees within this report This version of the report has been redacted and edited to allow publication on a website accessible to the public. The report contains counts of numbers of employees, analysed in several contingency tables, by their protected characteristics (e.g., age group, gender) and a domain of interest relating to their employment (e.g., pay band, occupational group). The use of these contingency tables to produce aggregated summaries of employee counts has the effect of anonymising much of the information and protecting the identities of individual employees. However, some analyses contain very small counts of employees in some groups, especially when broken down by certain domains of interest. Such small counts could be used to identify individual employees, even after aggregation. Consequently, these small counts might be considered personal information that is protected by the Data Protection Act 1998 and other legislation. Where there is a risk that individuals could be identified from a small count, these counts have been redacted from the contingency tables. Where the redacted count can be deduced from other counts in a contingency table, these other counts have been redacted as well. In the present report, as a start point for the anonymisation process, counts below 10 have been redacted to mitigate the risk that individuals might be identifiable. The anonymisation process has followed guidance issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office2.

2 Information Commissioner’s Office: Anonymisation: managing data protection risk code of practice (November 2012)

4

Main findings Data quality and missing data

• There were high levels of missing data for the protected characteristics of disability, religion or belief, and sexual orientation within the workforce.

• Additionally, there is the possibility of bias in the distribution of these missing values.

Analyses of disability, religion or belief, and sexual orientation should be regarded as potentially flawed and should be interpreted with caution. Missing data codes recorded in the Electronic Staff Record indicate that the missing data relate almost exclusively to employees choosing not to disclose certain information. Work should be undertaken to discover why some employees choose to withhold this information and then to address these concerns. Once any concerns have been addressed, employees should then be asked to update and complete their equality monitoring information held on the Electronic Staff Record.

• It is especially important that work is undertaken to encourage employees to declare on the Electronic Staff Record whether or not they have a disability. A “Workforce Disability Equality Standard” (WDES) is likely to be mandated via the NHS Standard Contract in England from April 2018, with a preparatory year in 2017/18. Reporting against this metric will be hampered by incomplete data on disability amongst employees.

• Additionally, no data were available on the uptake of non-mandatory training amongst employees. This will hamper the organisation’s ability to fulfil its Public Sector Equality Duty and to report against the Workforce Race Equality Standard (which contains an indicator on the uptake of non-mandatory training and which is now a mandatory reporting requirement for NHS Commissioners).

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Age

Disability

Ethnicity

Gender

Marital status

Maternity/adoption leave

Religion or belief

Sexual orientation

Valid values Missing data

5

Gender pay gap and the underrepresentation of women at higher levels within the organisation

• There was a statistically significant overrepresentation of men in senior clinical roles, alongside a trend for decreasing proportions of women at higher levels in the organisation amongst both clinical and non-clinical staff.

• Similarly, using the government’s proposed gender pay gap methodology based on hourly rates of pay, men were overrepresented in the highest paid quartile of the organisation and there was a trend for decreasing proportions of women with increasing pay quartile.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Overall workforce (n=184)Clinical staff:

Very Senior Managers (n=14)Bands 8B and above (n=16)

Bands 7 to 8A (n=12)Band 6 (n=15)

Non-clinical staff:Very Senior Managers (n=11)

Bands 8B and above (n=38)Bands 7 to 8A (n=35)

Bands 3 to 6 (n=43)

Female Male

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Upper pay quartile (n=45)

Upper middle pay quartile (n=44)

Lower middle pay quartile (n=45)

Lower pay quartile (n=45)

Female Male

6

• These patterns were also reflected in lower mean and median pay for women within the

organisation. Using the government’s proposed gender pay gap methodology, at Nene CCG men were paid 48.5% more than women in terms of mean pay and 32.9% more than women in terms of median pay (median pay offers a measure of average pay that is less skewed by very high levels of pay at the highest levels within an organisation, thereby better reflecting typical levels of pay within an organisation).

• The government has proposed to introduce mandatory gender pay gap reporting from April

2017 with the intention of using this tool as part of a wider strategy to tackle pay inequality between men and women. The duty to report on the gender pay gap will be placed on all organisations with 250 or more employees, and may be extended to more organisations after assessing the burden of the reporting process during its first year of operation. This will place gender inequality in pay and progression under greater scrutiny in the coming years. We would also hope to show using the NHS Agenda for Change system which allocates posts to set pay bands, using the Job Evaluation Scheme demonstrates that there is parity in pay between men and women for each role.

£0.00

£10.00

£20.00

£30.00

£40.00

£50.00

£60.00

£70.00

Fem

ale,

n=1

25

Mal

e, n

=54

Hou

rly ra

te o

f pay

: Mea

n ±

95%

CI

£0.00

£20.00

£40.00

£60.00

£80.00

£100.00

£120.00

Fem

ale,

n=1

25

Mal

e, n

=54Hou

rly ra

te o

f pay

: Med

ian,

IQ ra

nge,

Min

, Max

£420.00

8

Overview of the report

• A quantitative equality analysis of Nene CCG’s substantive workforce at 3rd November 2016 was undertaken. The structure of the workforce was considered in terms of the protected characteristics detailed in the Equality Act 2010 (where data were available), and across the employment domains highlighted in the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Equality Act 2010 Technical Guidance on the Public Sector Equality Duty for England (published August 2014).

• Data were available to varying extents for the protected characteristics of age, disability,

ethnicity, gender, marital status, pregnancy and maternity (using maternity or adoption leave as a proxy), religion or belief, and sexual orientation. Analyses of ethnicity took two forms, one adopted the ethnicity categories defined by the Workforce Race Equality Standard, and a further considered a more detailed breakdown of ethnic subgroups. Similar simplistic and detailed analyses were also undertaken for religion or belief. Information on gender reassignment was not recorded in the Electronic Staff Record.

• Initially, the question “How well does Nene CCG’s workforce reflect the population that it

serves?” was addressed. Underrepresentation or overrepresentation of protected characteristic subgroups was assessed relative to their representations in the working age population of the local area.

• Then the equality profiles of the internal structure of the workforce were considered.

Underrepresentation or overrepresentation of protected characteristic subgroups was assessed within working patterns (part-time or full-time), pay bands, and occupational groups, relative to their representations in the workforce as a whole.

• The equality profile of Nene CCG’s recruitment process was analysed to assess equity of

representation for each protected characteristic subgroup at the different stages of recruitment: application, shortlisting, and appointment. At the application stage, underrepresentation or overrepresentation of protected characteristic subgroups amongst applicants was assessed relative to their representations in the working age population of the local area. At the shortlisting stage, underrepresentation or overrepresentation of protected characteristic subgroups amongst those shortlisted was assessed relative to their representations amongst those who applied but who were not shortlisted. At the appointment stage, underrepresentation or overrepresentation of protected characteristic subgroups amongst appointees was assessed relative to their representations amongst those who were shortlisted but not appointed. The point of reference for comparison was adjusted at each stage of the recruitment process in order to allow the stage of recruitment at which any overrepresentation or underrepresentation occurred to be identified.

• Next the equality profiles of the uptake of non-mandatory training, promotions, flexible

working, and employee relations (complaints of bullying and harassment, disciplinary cases, capability cases, grievances) were each considered sequentially. Within each domain, where data were available, underrepresentation or overrepresentation of the protected characteristic subgroups was assessed relative to their representations in the workforce as a whole.

9

• With respect to workforce leavers, underrepresentation or overrepresentation of the

protected characteristic subgroups amongst leavers was assessed relative to their representations in the workforce as a whole. Additionally, underrepresentation or overrepresentation of the protected characteristic subgroups was assessed for each reason for leaving, relative to their representations amongst all leavers considered together.

• Additional analyses were performed to assess Nene CCG’s position against the gender pay gap reporting requirement being introduced for organisations with 250 or more employees from the 2017/18 financial year.

• In the first appendix to the report, data quality was analysed, and the influence of missing

data on the interpretation of the findings of the analyses was discussed.

• In the second appendix to the report, the methods and analytical techniques used were summarised.

• For quick reference, a table that highlights those areas where there have been statistically significant deviations from proportional representation (in numerical terms) or other significant findings for one or more protected characteristic subgroups is given below (Table 1; the table includes hyperlinks to each table of analysis, for each protected characteristic in each area).

10

Table 1: Significant deviations from proportional representation and other significant findings (including hyperlinked table references) Please note that not all statistically significant findings will reflect an equality priority or an undesirable inequality. Suggested high priority issues have been highlighted in the “Main findings” section of this report. A key to interpreting the colour coding in the tables of analysis hyperlinked below can found in the Methodology appendix. Workforce domain Age Disability Ethnicity Gender Marital

Status Pregnancy

and Maternity

Religion or Belief

Sexual Orientation

Comparisons against the local, working age population Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Working pattern (full time or part time) Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Pay band Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Occupational group Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 Table 29 Table 30 Table 31 Table 32 Recruitment Table 33 Table 34 Table 35 Table 36 Table 37 Table 38 Table 39 Non-mandatory training No data available Promotions Table 40 Table 41 Table 42 Table 43 Table 44 Table 45 Table 46 Table 47 Flexible working Table 48 Table 49 Table 50 Table 51 Table 52 Table 53 Table 54 Table 55 Employee relations No cases recorded Leavers Table 56 Table 58 Table 60 Table 62 Table 64 Table 66 Table 68 Gender pay gap Table 70

Table 71 Table 72

Data quality Table 73 Table 73 Table 73 Table 73 Table 73 Table 73 Table 73 Table 73

Proportional numerical representation or no other significant finding

Significant numerical deviation from proportional representation or other significant finding

11

Section 2

Detailed data analysis

12

Findings of the quantitative equality analysis How well does Nene CCG’s workforce reflect the population that it serves? This section evaluates how well Nene CCG’s workforce reflects the population that it serves. Nene CCG’s substantive workforce at 3rd November 2016 was 184 people. The equality profile of Nene CCG’s overall workforce was compared, where possible, to the working age population of the area served by Nene CCG; referred to as the local working age population. Summary of significant findings Compared to equality profile of the local working age population, in Nene CCG’s workforce:

• people aged 29 years old and under were underrepresented, whilst people aged 30 to 49 years old were overrepresented (Table 2);

• BME people (particularly, Asian British people and people of ethnicities other than Mixed or Black British) were overrepresented (Table 4);

• men were underrepresented, whilst women were overrepresented (Table 5); • people who were single and people who were divorced, legally separated or widowed were

underrepresented, whilst people who were married or in a civil partnership were overrepresented (Table 6);

• Atheism was underrepresented, whilst people of religions other than Christianity (including Hinduism and Islam) were overrepresented (Table 7);

• there were high levels of missing data regarding disability (29.9%), religion or belief (44.6%), and sexual orientation (41.8%) within the workforce.

13

Age Compared to the age profile of the local working age population, in Nene CCG’s workforce:

• people aged 29 years old and under were underrepresented; • people aged 30 to 49 years old were overrepresented.

Please refer to Table 2. Table 2: Overview of the age profile of Nene CCG’s workforce compared to the local working age population

Age group Nene CCG area working age population*

Nene CCG workforce

n % n % 16 to 29 years old 103148 25.8% 11 6.0% 30 to 49 years old 175702 43.9% 105 57.1% 50 to 64 years old 121276 30.3% 68 37.0%

Total known 400126 100.0% 184 100.0% Not known† 0 0.0% Grand total 184

* population aged 16 to 64 years old, ONS 2015 mid-year population estimate † percentage calculated using the grand total as the base

14

Disability Compared to the disability profile of the local working age population, in Nene CCG’s workforce:

• people who were disabled and people who were not disabled were proportionately represented;

• however, there was a high percentage of the workforce for whom there was no information on disability status (29.9%); this sheds doubt on the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic.

Please refer to Table 3. Table 3: Overview of the disability profile of Nene CCG’s workforce compared to the local working age population

Disability Nene CCG area working age population*

Nene CCG workforce

n % n % Disabled‡ 17503 4.4% R Not Disabled 375920 95.6% R


* population aged 16 to 64 years old, 2011 UK Census—a note on statistical disclosure control by the ONS: in order to protect against disclosure of personal information from the 2011 Census, there has been swapping of records in the Census database between different geographic areas; this process has had an effect on the overall counts and counts by disability category in CCG areas † percentage calculated using the grand total as the base ‡ disability criterion for the local population figure: day-to-day activities limited a lot R - Redacted

15

Ethnicity Compared to the ethnicity profile of the local working age population, in Nene CCG’s workforce:

• BME people were overrepresented when ethnicity was categorised using the Workforce Race Equality Standard methodology (all BME groups pooled together);

• specifically, Asian British people and people of ethnicities other than Mixed or Black British were overrepresented when ethnicity was considered in greater detail.

Please refer to Table 4. Table 4: Overview of the WRES and detailed ethnicity profiles of Nene CCG’s workforce compared to the local working age population

Ethnicity (Workforce Race Equality Standard)

Nene CCG area working age population*

Nene CCG workforce

n % n % White 361668 90.8% 145 83.3% BME 36543 9.2% 29 16.7%


Ethnicity (detailed) Nene CCG area working age population*

Nene CCG workforce

n % n % White 361668 90.8% 145 83.3% Mixed 6630 1.7% R Asian or Asian British 17446 4.4% R Black or Black British 10655 2.7% R Other 1812 0.5% R


* population aged 16 to 64 years old, 2011 UK Census † percentage calculated using the grand total as the base R - Redacted

16

Gender Compared to the gender profile of the local working age population, in Nene CCG’s workforce:

• men were underrepresented; • women were overrepresented.

Please refer to Table 5. Table 5: Overview of the gender profile of Nene CCG’s workforce compared to the local working age population

Gender Nene CCG area working age population*

Nene CCG workforce

n % n % Females 201043 50.2% 129 70.1% Males 199083 49.8% 55 29.9%


* population aged 16 to 64 years old, ONS 2015 mid-year population estimate † percentage calculated using the grand total as the base

17

Marital Status Compared to the marital status profile of the local working age population, in Nene CCG’s workforce:

• people who were single and people who were divorced, legally separated or widowed were underrepresented;

• people who were married or in a civil partnership were overrepresented. Please refer to Table 6. Table 6: Overview of the marital status profile of Nene CCG’s workforce compared to the local working age population

Marital status Nene CCG area working age population*

Nene CCG workforce

n % n % Single 148750 37.4% 33 18.9% Marriage or Civil Partnership 189780 47.7% 127 72.6% Divorced, Legally Separated or Widowed 59681 15.0% 15 8.6%


* population aged 16 to 64 years old, 2011 UK Census † percentage calculated using the grand total as the base

18

Religion or Belief Compared to the religion and belief profile of the local working age population, in Nene CCG’s workforce:

• Atheism was underrepresented whilst people of religions other than Christianity were overrepresented;

• specifically, Hinduism, Islam, and “other” religions (other than Sikhism) were overrepresented when religion and belief was considered in greater detail;

• however, there was a high percentage of the workforce for whom there was no information on religion or belief (44.6%); this sheds doubt on the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic.

Please refer to Table 7. Table 7: Overview of the simplistic and detailed religion or belief profiles of Nene CCG’s workforce compared to the local working age population

Religion or belief (simplistic) Nene CCG area working age population*

Nene CCG workforce

n % n % Atheism 124543 33.5% 16 15.7% Christian 228607 61.4% 61 59.8% Other 19141 5.1% 25 24.5%

Total known 372291 100.0% 102 100.0% Not known† 25920 6.5% 82 44.6% Grand total 398211 100.0% 184

Religion or belief (detailed) Nene CCG area

working age population*

Nene CCG workforce

n % n % Atheism 124543 33.5% 16 15.7% Christian 228607 61.4% 61 59.8% Hinduism 5717 1.5% 11 10.8% Islam 7282 2.0% R 5.9% Sikhism 1824 0.5% R 1.0% Other 4318 1.2% R 6.9%

Total known 372291 100.0% 102 100.0% Not known† 25920 6.5% 82 44.6% Grand total 398211 184


19

Sexual Orientation Compared to a national estimate of the sexual orientation profile of adults, in Nene CCG’s workforce:

• heterosexual and LGB people were proportionately represented; • however, there was a high percentage of the workforce for whom there was no information

on sexual orientation (41.8%); this sheds doubt on the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic.

Please refer to Table 8. Table 8: Overview of the sexual orientation profile of Nene CCG’s workforce compared to a national estimate of the sexual orientation profile of adults

Sexual orientation National estimate of the sexual orientation

profile of adults*

Nene CCG workforce

n % n % Heterosexual 22489 97.8% R LGB 506 2.2% R


* British Crime Survey 2009/10 † percentage calculated using the grand total as the base R - Redacted

20

The equality profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across working patterns This section evaluates how the equality profile of Nene CCG’s workforce varied across working patterns using the equality profile of Nene CCG’s overall workforce as a benchmark. At 3rd November 2016, 34.8% of the workforce worked part time (64 of 184 substantive staff). Summary of significant findings Compared to the overall equality profile of Nene CCG’s workforce:

• each subgroup of each of the protected characteristics was proportionately represented across working patterns; • there were high levels of missing data regarding disability (29.9%), religion or belief (44.6%), and sexual orientation (41.8%), each with

disproportionately high levels of missing data amongst part time staff.

21

Age Compared to the overall age profile of Nene CCG’s workforce:

• each age band (29 years old and under, 30 to 49 years old, 50 years old and over) was proportionately represented across working patterns. Please refer to Table 9. Table 9: Overview of the age profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across working patterns

Age group Overall Full Time Part Time n % n % n % 29 years old and under 11 6.0% R R 30 to 49 years old 105 57.1% 69 57.5% 36 56.3% 50 years old and over 68 37.0% R R

Total known 184 120 64 Not known† 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Grand total 184 120 64

† percentage calculated using the grand total as the base R - Redacted

22

Disability Compared to the overall disability profile of Nene CCG’s workforce:

• staff who were Disabled and staff who were Not Disabled were each proportionately represented across working patterns; • however, there was a high percentage of the workforce for whom there was no information on disability status (29.9%, with disproportionately

high levels amongst part time staff); this sheds doubt on the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic.

Please refer to Table 10. Table 10: Overview of the disability profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across working patterns

Disability Overall Full Time Part Time n % n % n % Disabled R R R Not Disabled R R R



23

Ethnicity Compared to the overall ethnicity profile of Nene CCG’s workforce:

• White and BME people were proportionately represented across working patterns when ethnicity was categorised using the Workforce Race Equality Standard methodology (all BME groups pooled together);

• each ethnic group was also proportionately represented across working patterns when ethnicity was considered in greater detail. Please refer to Table 11. Table 11: Overview of the WRES and detailed ethnicity profiles of Nene CCG’s workforce across working patterns

Ethnicity (Workforce Race Equality Standard) Overall Full Time Part Time n % n % n % White 145 83.3% 98 84.5% 47 81.0% BME 29 16.7% 18 15.5% 11 19.0%


† percentage calculated using the grand total as the base

24

Table 11 continued: Overview of the WRES and detailed ethnicity profiles of Nene CCG’s workforce across working patterns

Ethnicity (detailed) Overall Full Time Part Time n % n % n % White 145 83.3% 98 84.5% 47 81.0% Mixed R R R Asian British R R R Black British R R R Other R R R



25

Gender Compared to the overall gender profile of Nene CCG’s workforce:

• men and women were proportionately represented across working patterns. Please refer to Table 12. Table 12: Overview of the gender profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across working patterns

Gender Overall Full Time Part Time n % n % n % Female 129 70.1% 83 69.2% 46 71.9% Male 55 29.9% 37 30.8% 18 28.1%


† percentage calculated using the grand total as the base

26

Marital status Compared to the overall marital status profile of Nene CCG’s workforce:

• people of each marital status (single, married or in a civil partnership, and divorced, legally separated or widowed) were proportionately represented across working patterns.

Please refer to Table 13. Table 13: Overview of the marital status profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across working patterns

Marital status Overall Full Time Part Time n % n % n % Single 33 18.9% R R Married / Civil Partnership 127 72.6% 78 68.4% 49 80.3% Divorced / Legally Separated / Widowed 15 8.6% R R



27

Pregnancy and maternity Compared to the overall maternity or adoption leave profile of Nene CCG’s workforce amongst women aged under 50 years old:

• staff who were on maternity or adoption leave and staff who were not on maternity or adoption leave were proportionately represented across working patterns.

Please refer to Table 14. Table 14: Overview of the maternity or adoption leave profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across working patterns (women aged under 50 years old only)

Maternity or adoption Overall Full Time Part Time n % n % n % Maternity / Adoption R R R Not Maternity / Adoption R R R



28

Religion or belief Compared to the overall religion and belief profile of Nene CCG’s workforce:

• each religion or belief group considered (Atheism, Christianity, Other) was proportionately represented across working patterns; • each religion or belief group was also proportionately represented across working patterns when religion or belief was considered in greater

detail; • however, there was a high percentage of the workforce for whom there was no information on religion or belief (44.6%, with disproportionately

high levels amongst part time staff); this sheds doubt on the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic.

Please refer to Table 15. Table 15: Overview of the simplistic and detailed religion and belief profiles of Nene CCG’s workforce across working patterns

Religion or belief (simplistic) Overall Full Time Part Time n % n % n % Atheism 16 15.7% R R Christianity 61 59.8% 42 56.8% 19 67.9% Other 25 24.5% R R



29

Table 15 continued: Overview of the simplistic and detailed religion and belief profiles of Nene CCG’s workforce across working patterns

Religion or belief (detailed) Overall Full Time Part Time n % n % n % Atheism 16 15.7% R R Christianity 61 59.8% 42 56.8% 19 67.9% Hinduism 11 10.8% R R Islam R R R Sikhism R R R Other R R R



30

Sexual orientation Compared to the overall sexual orientation profile of Nene CCG’s workforce:

• heterosexual and LGB staff were each proportionately represented across working patterns; • however, there was a high percentage of the workforce for whom there was no information on sexual orientation (41.8%, with

disproportionately high levels amongst part time staff); this sheds doubt on the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic.

Please refer to Table 16. Table 16: Overview of the sexual orientation profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across working patterns

Sexual orientation Overall Full Time Part Time n % n % n % Heterosexual R R R LGB R R R



31

The equality profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across pay bands This section evaluates how the equality profile of Nene CCG’s workforce varied across pay bands, using the equality profile of Nene CCG’s overall workforce as a benchmark. At 3rd November 2016, 8.2% of the workforce were at Clinical Band 6 (15 people), 6.5% of the workforce were at Clinical Bands 7 to 8A (12 people), 8.7% of the workforce were at Clinical Bands 8B and above (16 people), 7.6% of the workforce were Clinical Very Senior Managers (14 people) , 23.4% of the workforce were at Non-clinical Bands 3 to 6 (43 people), 19.0% of the workforce were at Non-clinical Bands 7 to 8A (35 people), 20.7% of the workforce were at Non-clinical Bands 8B and above (38 people), and 6.0% of the workforce were Non-clinical Very Senior Managers (11 people). Summary of significant findings Compared to the overall equality profile of Nene CCG’s workforce:

• overall White and BME people were proportionately represented across pay bands when ethnicity was categorised using the Workforce Race Equality Standard methodology (all BME groups pooled together); however, when ethnicity was considered in greater detail, Asian British staff were overrepresented at Clinical Bands 7 to 8A and amongst Clinical Very Senior Managers (Table 19);

• men were overrepresented amongst Clinical Very Senior Managers (Table 20)—similarly, in the gender pay gap analyses there was a disproportionately high number of men amongst employees in the upper pay quartile, reflecting a trend for the proportion of women to decrease as pay quartile increased from the lower quartile, through the lower middle and upper middle quartiles, to the upper quartile (Table 72);

• there were high levels of missing data regarding disability (29.9%), religion or belief (44.6%), and sexual orientation (41.8%).

32


• each age band (29 years old and under, 30 to 49 years old, 50 years old and over) was proportionately represented across pay bands. Please refer to Table 17. Table 17: Overview of the age profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across pay bands Clinical Non-clinical Age group Overall Band 6 Bands 7 to

8A Bands 8B

and above Very

Senior Managers

Bands 3 to 6

Bands 7 to 8A

Bands 8B and above

Very Senior Managers

n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % 29 years old and under 11 6.0% R R R R R R R R 30 to 49 years old 105 57.1% R R R R 19 44.2% 21 60.0% 28 73.7% R 50 years old and over 68 37.0% R R R R R R R R

Total known 184 15 12 16 14 43 35 38 11 Not known† 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Grand total 184 15 12 16 14 43 35 38 11


33


• staff who were Disabled and staff who were Not Disabled were each proportionately represented across pay bands; • however, there was a high percentage of the workforce for whom there was no information on disability status (29.9%); this sheds doubt on

the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic. Please refer to Table 18. Table 18: Overview of the disability profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across pay bands Clinical Non-clinical Disability Overall Band 6 Bands 7 to

8A Bands 8B

and above Very

Senior Managers

Bands 3 to 6

Bands 7 to 8A

Bands 8B and above

Very Senior

Managers n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Disabled R R R R R R R R R Not Disabled R R R R R R R R R



34


• White and BME people were proportionately represented across pay bands when ethnicity was categorised using the Workforce Race Equality Standard methodology (all BME groups pooled together);

• however, when ethnicity was considered in greater detail, Asian British staff were overrepresented at Clinical Bands 7 to 8A and amongst Clinical Very Senior Managers.

Please refer to Table 19. Table 19: Overview of the WRES and detailed ethnicity profiles of Nene CCG’s workforce across pay bands Clinical Non-clinical Ethnicity (Workforce Race Equality Standard)

Overall Band 6 Bands 7 to 8A

Bands 8B and above

Very Senior

Managers

Bands 3 to 6

Bands 7 to 8A

Bands 8B and above

Very Senior

Managers n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % White 145 83.3% R R R R R R R R BME 29 16.7% R R R R R R R R



35

Table 19 continued: Overview of the WRES and detailed ethnicity profiles of Nene CCG’s workforce across pay bands Clinical Non-clinical Ethnicity (detailed) Overall Band 6 Bands 7 to

8A Bands 8B

and above Very

Senior Managers

Bands 3 to 6

Bands 7 to 8A

Bands 8B and above


n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % White 145 83.3% R R R R R R R R Mixed R R R R R R R R R Asian British R R R R R R R R R Black British R R R R R R R R R Other R R R R R R R R R



36


• men were overrepresented amongst Clinical Very Senior Managers. Please refer to Table 20. Table 20: Overview of the gender profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across pay bands Clinical Non-clinical Gender Overall Band 6 Bands 7 to

8A Bands 8B

and above Very

Senior Managers

Bands 3 to 6

Bands 7 to 8A

Bands 8B and above

Very Senior

Managers n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Female 129 70.1% R R R R R 25 71.4% 23 60.5% R Male 55 29.9% R R R R R 10 28.6% 15 39.5% R



37


• people of each marital status (single, married or in a civil partnership, and divorced, legally separated or widowed) were proportionately represented across pay bands.

Please refer to Table 21. Table 21: Overview of the marital status profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across pay bands Clinical Non-clinical Marital status Overall Band 6 Bands 7 to

8A Bands 8B

and above Very

Senior Managers

Bands 3 to 6

Bands 7 to 8A

Bands 8B and above

Very Senior

Managers n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Single 33 18.9% R R R R R R R R Married1 127 72.6% R R R R 23 56.1% 20 62.5% R R Divorced2 15 8.6% R R R R R R R R


1 includes Civil Partnership 2 includes Legally Separated / Widowed † percentage calculated using the grand total as the base R - Redacted

38


• staff who were on maternity or adoption leave and staff who were not on maternity or adoption leave were each proportionately represented across pay bands.

Please refer to Table 22. Table 22: Overview of the maternity or adoption leave profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across pay bands (women aged under 50 years old only) Clinical Non-clinical Maternity or adoption Overall Band 6 Bands 7 to

8A Bands 8B

and above Very

Senior Managers

Bands 3 to 6

Bands 7 to 8A

Bands 8B and above


n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Maternity/Adoption R R R R R R R R R Not Maternity/Adoption R R R R R R R R R

Total known 77 R R R R 21 15 16 R Not known† 0 0.0% R R R R 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% R Grand total 77 R R R R 21 15 16 R


39


• each religion or belief group considered (Atheism, Christianity, Other) was proportionately represented across pay bands; • each religion or belief group was also proportionately represented across pay bands when religion or belief was considered in greater detail; • however, there was a high percentage of the workforce for whom there was no information on religion or belief (44.6%); this sheds doubt on

the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic. Please refer to Table 23. Table 23: Overview of the simplistic and detailed religion and belief profiles of Nene CCG’s workforce across pay bands Clinical Non-clinical Religion or belief (simplistic)


Bands 8B and above

Very Senior

Managers

Bands 3 to 6

Bands 7 to 8A

Bands 8B and above

Very Senior

Managers n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Atheism 16 15.7% R R R R R R R 0 Christianity 61 59.8% R R R R R R 15 57.7% 0 Other 25 24.5% R R R R R R R 0



40

Table 23 continued: Overview of the simplistic and detailed religion and belief profiles of Nene CCG’s workforce across pay bands Clinical Non-clinical Religion or belief (detailed)


Bands 8B and above

Very Senior

Managers

Bands 3 to 6

Bands 7 to 8A

Bands 8B and above

Very Senior

Managers n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Atheism 16 15.7% R R R R R R R 0 Christianity 61 59.8% R R R R R R 15 57.7% 0 Hinduism 11 10.8% R R R R R R R 0 Islam R R R R R R R R 0 Sikhism R R R R R R R R 0 Other R R R R R R R R 0



41


• heterosexual and LGB staff were each proportionately represented across pay bands; • however, there was a high percentage of the workforce for whom there was no information on sexual orientation (41.8%); this sheds doubt on

the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic. Please refer to Table 24. Table 24: Overview of the sexual orientation profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across pay bands Clinical Non-clinical Sexual orientation Overall Band 6 Bands 7 to

8A Bands 8B

and above Very

Senior Managers

Bands 3 to 6

Bands 7 to 8A

Bands 8B and above

Very Senior

Managers n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Heterosexual R R R R R R R R 0 LGB R R R R R R R R 0



42

The equality profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across occupational groups This section evaluates how the equality profile of Nene CCG’s workforce varied across occupational groups, using the equality profile of Nene CCG’s overall workforce as a benchmark. At 3rd November 2016, 69.0% of the workforce worked in the Administrative and Clerical occupational group (127 people), 17.4% worked in the Additional Professional Scientific and Technical occupational group (32 people), 7.6% worked in the Medical and Dental occupational group (14 people), and 6.0% worked in the Nursing and Midwifery Registered occupational group (11 people). Summary of significant findings Compared to the overall equality profile of Nene CCG’s workforce:

• men were overrepresented in the Medical and Dental occupational group (Table 28); • there were high levels of missing data regarding disability (29.9%), religion or belief (44.6%), and sexual orientation (41.8%).

43


• each age band (29 years old and under, 30 to 49 years old, 50 years old and over) was proportionately represented across occupational groups.

Please refer to Table 25. Table 25: Overview of the age profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across occupational groups

Age group Overall Additional Professional Scientific and

Technical

Administrative and Clerical

Medical and Dental

Nursing and Midwifery Registered

n % n % n % n % n % 29 years old and under 11 6.0% R R R R 30 to 49 years old 105 57.1% 19 59.4% 73 57.5% R R 50 years old and over 68 37.0% R R R R

Total known 184 32 127 14 11 Not known† 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Grand total 184 32 127 14 11


44


• staff who were Disabled and staff who were Not Disabled were each proportionately represented across occupational groups; • however, there was a high percentage of the workforce for whom there was no information on disability status (29.9%); this sheds doubt on

the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic. Please refer to Table 26. Table 26: Overview of the disability profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across occupational groups

Disability Overall Additional Professional Scientific and

Technical


Medical and Dental


n % n % n % n % n % Disabled R R R R R Not Disabled R R R R R



45


• White and BME people were proportionately represented across occupational groups when ethnicity was categorised using the Workforce Race Equality Standard methodology (all BME groups pooled together);

• each ethnic group was also proportionately represented across occupational groups when ethnicity was considered in greater detail. Please refer to Table 27. Table 27: Overview of the WRES and detailed ethnicity profiles of Nene CCG’s workforce across occupational groups


Overall Additional Professional Scientific and

Technical


Medical and Dental


n % n % n % n % n % White 145 83.3% R 105 87.5% R R BME 29 16.7% R 15 12.5% R R



46

Table 27 continued: Overview of the WRES and detailed ethnicity profiles of Nene CCG’s workforce across occupational groups

Ethnicity (detailed) Overall Additional Professional Scientific and

Technical


Medical and Dental


n % n % n % n % n % White 145 83.3% R 105 87.5% R R Mixed R R R R R Asian British R R R R R Black British R R R R R Other R R R R R



47


• men were overrepresented in the Medical and Dental occupational group. Please refer to Table 28. Table 28: Overview of the gender profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across occupational groups

Gender Overall Additional Professional Scientific and

Technical


Medical and Dental


n % n % n % n % n % Female 129 70.1% R 90 70.9% R R Male 55 29.9% R 37 29.1% R R



48


• people of each marital status (single, married or in a civil partnership, and divorced, legally separated or widowed) were proportionately represented across occupational groups.

Please refer to Table 29. Table 29: Overview of the marital status profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across occupational groups

Marital status Overall Additional Professional Scientific and

Technical


Medical and Dental


n % n % n % n % n % Single 33 18.9% R R R R Married/Civil Partnership 127 72.6% 27 84.4% 82 68.9% R R Divorced/Legally Separated/Widowed 15 8.6% R R R R



49


• staff who were on maternity or adoption leave and staff who were not on maternity or adoption leave were each proportionately represented across occupational groups.

Please refer to Table 30. Table 30: Overview of the maternity or adoption leave profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across occupational groups (women aged under 50 years old only)

Maternity or adoption Overall Additional Professional Scientific and

Technical


Medical and Dental


n % n % n % n % n % Maternity / Adoption R R R R R Not Maternity / Adoption R R R R R

Total known 77 R 53 R R Not known† 0 0.0% R 0 0.0% R R Grand total 77 R 53 R R


50


• each religion or belief group considered (Atheism, Christianity, Other) was proportionately represented across occupational groups; • each religion or belief group was also proportionately represented across occupational groups when religion or belief was considered in

greater detail; • however, there was a high percentage of the workforce for whom there was no information on religion or belief (44.6%); this sheds doubt on

the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic. Please refer to Table 31. Table 31: Overview of the simplistic and detailed religion and belief profiles of Nene CCG’s workforce across occupational groups

Religion or belief (simplistic)


Technical


Medical and Dental


n % n % n % n % n % Atheism 16 15.7% R R R R Christianity 61 59.8% R 41 61.2% R R Other 25 24.5% R R R R



51

Table 31 continued: Overview of the simplistic and detailed religion and belief profiles of Nene CCG’s workforce across occupational groups

Religion or belief (detailed)


Technical


Medical and Dental


n % n % n % n % n % Atheism 16 15.7% R R R R Christianity 61 59.8% R 41 61.2% R R Hinduism 11 10.8% R R R R Islam R R R R R Sikhism R R R R R Other R R R R R



52


• heterosexual and LGB staff were each proportionately represented across occupational groups; • however, there was a high percentage of the workforce for whom there was no information on sexual orientation (41.8%); this sheds doubt on

the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic. Please refer to Table 32. Table 32: Overview of the sexual orientation profile of Nene CCG’s workforce across occupational groups

Sexual orientation Overall Additional Professional Scientific and

Technical


Medical and Dental


n % n % n % n % n % Heterosexual R R R R R LGB R R R R R



53

The equality profile of Nene CCG’s recruitment process Recruitment data on applicants, shortlisting, and appointments were obtained from NHS Jobs 2 for the period 1st April 2016 to 31st October 2016. In this period, Nene CCG received 184 applications, shortlisted 43 people, and appointed fewer than 10 people. Equity in representation across the protected characteristics is assessed at each stage of Nene CCG’s recruitment process: application, short listing, and appointment. Representations amongst the subgroups of each of the protected characteristics available were compared between applicants and the local working age population, between those shortlisted and those who applied but were not shortlisted, and between appointees and those who were shortlisted but not appointed. Summary of significant findings At the application stage, compared to the overall equality profile of the local working age population (16 to 64 years old):

• middle-aged applicants (30 to 49 years old) were overrepresented, whilst older applicants (50 years old and over) were underrepresented (Table 33);

• White applicants were underrepresented and BME applicants were overrepresented when ethnicity was categorised using the Workforce Race Equality Standard methodology (all BME groups pooled together); specifically, Asian British, Black British, and “Other” ethnicities were overrepresented amongst applicants when ethnicity was considered in greater detail (Table 35);

• women were overrepresented and men were underrepresented amongst applicants (Table 36); • Atheism was underrepresented whilst people of religions other than Christianity were overrepresented amongst applicants; specifically,

people of religions other than Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism were overrepresented amongst applicants when religion and belief was considered in greater detail (Table 38).

At the short-listing stage, compared to the overall equality profile of those who applied but who were not shortlisted:

• older people (50 years old and over) were overrepresented amongst those shortlisted (Table 33). At the appointment stage, compared to the overall equality profile of those who were shortlisted but not appointed:

• older people (50 years old and over) were overrepresented amongst appointees (Table 33); • whilst White and BME people were proportionately represented amongst appointees when ethnicity was categorised using the Workforce

Race Equality Standard methodology (all BME groups pooled together), Asian British appointees were overrepresented when ethnicity was considered in greater detail (Table 35).

54

Age Compared to the overall age profile of the local working age population:

• middle-aged applicants (30 to 49 years old) were overrepresented, whilst older applicants (50 years old and over) were underrepresented. Compared to the overall age profile of those who applied but who were not shortlisted:

• older people (50 years old and over) were overrepresented amongst those shortlisted. Compared to the overall age profile of those who were shortlisted but not appointed:

• older people (50 years old and over) were overrepresented amongst appointees. Please refer to Table 33. Table 33: Overview of the age profile of Nene CCG’s recruitment process Application

Short listing

Appointment

Age group Nene CCG area working age population*

Applications

Not shortlisted

Shortlisted

Not appointed

Appointed

n % n %

n %

n %

n %

n % 16 to 29 years old 103148 25.8% 47 25.5%

R R

R R

30 to 49 years old 175702 43.9% 109 59.2%

88 62.4%

21 48.8%

R R 50 to 64 years old 121276 30.3% 28 15.2%

R R

R R

Total known 400126 100.0% 184 100.0%

141 100.0%

43 100.0%

R R Not known† 0 0.0%

0 0.0%

0 0.0%

R R

Grand total 184

141

43

R R * population aged 16 to 64 years old, ONS 2015 mid-year population estimates † percentage calculated using the grand total as the base R - Redacted

55

Disability Compared to the overall disability profile of the local working age population:

• applicants who were Disabled and applicants who were Not Disabled were each proportionately represented. Compared to the overall disability profile of those who applied but who were not shortlisted:

• people who were Disabled and people who were Not Disabled were each proportionately represented amongst those shortlisted. Compared to the overall disability profile of those who were shortlisted but not appointed:

• appointees who were Disabled and appointees who were Not Disabled were each proportionately represented. Please refer to Table 34. Table 34: Overview of the disability profile of Nene CCG’s recruitment process Application

Short listing

Appointment

Disability Nene CCG area working age population*

Applications

Not shortlisted

Shortlisted

Not appointed

Appointed

n % n %

n %

n %

n %

n % Disabled 17503 4.4% R R R R R Not Disabled 375920 95.6% R R R R R

Total known 393423 100.0% 182 100.0%

140 100.0%

42 100.0%

R

R Not known† 2 1.1%

1 0.7%

1 2.3%

R

R

Grand total 184

141

43

R

R * population aged 16 to 64 years old, 2011 UK Census—a note on statistical disclosure control by the ONS: in order to protect against disclosure of personal information from the 2011 Census, there has been swapping of records in the Census database between different geographic areas; this process has had an effect on the overall counts and counts by disability category in CCG areas † percentage calculated using the grand total as the base ‡ disability criterion for the local population figure: day-to-day activities limited a lot R - Redacted

56

Ethnicity Compared to the overall ethnicity profile of the local working age population:

• White British applicants were underrepresented and BME applicants were overrepresented when ethnicity was categorised using the Workforce Race Equality Standard methodology (all BME groups pooled together);

• specifically Asian British, Black British, and “Other” ethnicities were overrepresented amongst applicants when ethnicity was considered in greater detail.

Compared to the overall ethnicity profile of those who applied but who were not shortlisted: • White and BME people were proportionately represented amongst those shortlisted when ethnicity was categorised using the Workforce Race

Equality Standard methodology (all BME groups pooled together); • each ethnic group was also proportionately represented amongst those shortlisted when ethnicity was considered in greater detail.

Compared to the overall ethnicity profile of those who were shortlisted but not appointed: • White and BME people were proportionately represented amongst appointees when ethnicity was categorised using the Workforce Race

Equality Standard methodology (all BME groups pooled together); • however, Asian British appointees were overrepresented when ethnicity was considered in greater detail.

Please refer to Table 35.

57

Table 35: Overview of the WRES and detailed ethnicity profiles of Nene CCG’s recruitment process Application

Short listing

Appointment


Nene CCG area working age population*

Applications

Not shortlisted

Shortlisted

Not appointed

Appointed

n % n %

n %

n %

n %

n % White 361668 90.8% 125 70.2%

R R R R

BME 36543 9.2% 53 29.8%

R R R R Total known 398211 100.0% 178 100.0%

137 100.0%

41 100.0%

R

R

Not known† 6 3.3%

4 2.8%

2 4.7%

R

R Grand total 184

141

43

R

R


58

Table 35 continued: Overview of the WRES and detailed ethnicity profiles of Nene CCG’s recruitment process Application

Short listing

Appointment

Ethnicity (detailed) Nene CCG area working age population*

Applications

Not shortlisted

Shortlisted

Not appointed

Appointed

n % n %

n %

n %

n %

n % White 361668 90.8% 125 70.2%

R R

R R

Mixed 6630 1.7% R

R R

R R Asian British 17446 4.4% 16 9.0%

R R

R R

Black British 10655 2.7% 26 14.6%

R R

R R Other 1812 0.5% R

R R

R R

Total known 398211 100.0% 178 100.0%

137 100.0%

41 100.0%

R


4 2.8%

2 4.7%

R

R

Grand total 184

141

43

R

R * population aged 16 to 64 years old, 2011 UK Census † percentage calculated using the grand total as the base R - Redacted

59

Gender Compared to the overall gender profile of the local working age population (aged 16 to 64 years old, 2011 UK Census):

• women were overrepresented and men were underrepresented amongst applicants. Compared to the overall gender profile of those who applied but who were not shortlisted:

• men and women were proportionately represented amongst those shortlisted. Compared to the overall gender profile of those who were shortlisted but not appointed:

• men and women were proportionately represented amongst appointees. Please refer to Table 36. Table 36: Overview of the gender profile of Nene CCG’s recruitment process Application

Short listing

Appointment

Gender Nene CCG area working age population*

Applications

Not shortlisted

Shortlisted

Not appointed

Appointed

n % n %

n %

n %

n %

n % Females 201043 50.2% 151 82.5%

R R R R

Males 199083 49.8% 32 17.5%

R R R R Total known 400126 100.0% 183 100.0%

140 100.0%

43 100.0%

R

R

Not known† 1 0.5%

1 0.7%

0 0.0%

R

R Grand total 184

141

43

R

R

* population aged 16 to 64 years old, ONS 2015 mid-year population estimates † percentage calculated using the grand total as the base R - Redacted

60

Marital status Compared to the overall marital status profile of the local working age population (aged 16 to 64 years old, 2011 UK Census):

• applicants who were single, applicants in a marriage or civil partnership, and divorced, legally separated or widowed applicants, were each proportionately represented.

Compared to the overall marital status profile of those who applied but who were not shortlisted: • those who were single, those in a marriage or civil partnership, and those who were divorced, legally separated or widowed, were each

proportionately represented amongst those shortlisted. Compared to the overall marital status profile of those who were shortlisted but not appointed:

• those who were single, those in a marriage or civil partnership, and those who were divorced, legally separated or widowed, were each proportionately represented amongst appointees.

Please refer to Table 37. Table 37: Overview of the marital status profile of Nene CCG’s recruitment process Application

Short listing

Appointment

Marital status Nene CCG area working age population*

Applications

Not shortlisted

Shortlisted

Not appointed

Appointed

n % n %

n %

n %

n %

n % Single 148750 37.4% 62 35.6%

R R

R R

Marriage/Civil Partnership 189780 47.7% 95 54.6%

70 52.2% 25 62.5%

R R Divorced/Legally Separated/Widowed 59681 15.0% 17 9.8%

R R

R R

Total known 398211 100.0% 174 100.0%

134 100.0%

40 100.0%

R


7 5.0%

3 7.0%

R

R

Grand total 184

141

43

R

R * population aged 16 to 64 years old, 2011 UK Census † percentage calculated using the grand total as the base R - Redacted

61

Religion or belief Compared to the overall religion and belief profile of the local working age population (aged 16 to 64 years old, 2011 UK Census):

• Atheism was underrepresented whilst people of religions other than Christianity were overrepresented amongst applicants; • specifically, people of religions other than Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism were overrepresented amongst applicants when religion

and belief was considered in greater detail. Compared to the overall religion and belief profile of those who applied but who were not shortlisted:

• each religion or belief was proportionately represented amongst those shortlisted. Compared to the overall religion and belief profile of those who were shortlisted but not appointed:

• each religion or belief was proportionately represented amongst appointees. Please refer to Table 38. Table 38: Overview of the simplistic and detailed religion and belief profiles of Nene CCG’s recruitment process Application

Short listing

Appointment

Religion or belief (simplistic) Nene CCG area working age population*

Applications

Not shortlisted

Shortlisted

Not appointed

Appointed

n % n %

n %

n %

n %

n % Atheism 124543 33.5% 15 9.3%

R R

R R

Christian 228607 61.4% 99 61.5%

79 63.2%

20 55.6%

R R Other 19141 5.1% 47 29.2%

R R

R R

Total known 372291 100.0% 161 100.0%

125 100.0%

36 100.0%

R

R Not known† 25920 6.5% 23 12.5%

16 11.3%

7 16.3%

R

R

Grand total 398211 100.0% 184

141

43

R

R *population aged 16 to 64 years old, 2011 UK Census † percentage calculated using the grand total as the base R - Redacted

62

Table 38 continued: Overview of the simplistic and detailed religion and belief profiles of Nene CCG’s recruitment process Application

Short listing

Appointment

Religion or belief (detailed) Nene CCG area working age population*

Applications

Not shortlisted

Shortlisted

Not appointed

Appointed

n % n %

n %

n %

n %

n % Atheism 124543 33.5% 15 9.3%

R R

R R

Christian 228607 61.4% 99 61.5%

79 63.2%

20 55.6%

R R Hinduism 5717 1.5% R

R R

R R

Islam 7282 2.0% R

R R

R R Sikhism 1824 0.5% R

R R

R R

Other 4318 1.2% 35 21.7%

R R

R R Total known 372291 100.0% 161 100.0%

125 100.0%

36 100.0%

R

R

Not known† 25920 6.5% 23 12.5%

16 11.3%

7 16.3%

R

R Grand total 398211 184

141

43

R

R

*population aged 16 to 64 years old, 2011 UK Census † percentage calculated using the grand total as the base R - Redacted

63

Sexual orientation Compared to the overall sexual orientation profile of a national population estimate:

• heterosexual and LGB applicants were each proportionately represented. Compared to the overall sexual orientation profile of those who applied but who were not shortlisted:

• heterosexual and LGB people were each proportionately represented amongst those shortlisted. Compared to the overall sexual orientation profile of those who were shortlisted but not appointed:

• heterosexual and LGB appointees were proportionately represented. Please refer to Table 39. Table 39: Overview of the sexual orientation profile of Nene CCG’s recruitment process Application

Short listing

Appointment

Sexual orientation National estimate of the

sexual orientation profile of adults*

Applications

Not shortlisted

Shortlisted

Not appointed

Appointed

n % n %

n %

n %

n %

n % Heterosexual 22489 97.8% R R R R R LGB 506 2.2% R R R R R

Total known 22995 2.2% 169 100.0%

129 100.0%

40 100.0%

R


12 8.5%

3 7.0%

R

R

Grand total 184

141

43

R

R * British Crime Survey 2009/10 † percentage calculated using the grand total as the base R - Redacted

64

The equality profile of Nene CCG’s workforce in terms of non-mandatory training uptake Data on the uptake of non-mandatory training were not available for the period of interest (1st April 2016 to 3rd November 2016).

65

The equality profile of promotions in Nene CCG’s workforce This section evaluates the equality profile of staff who had been promoted, using the equality profile of Nene CCG’s workforce overall as a benchmark. Data on promotions were obtained for the period 1st April 2016 to 3rd November 2016 and were considered for those staff in post at 3rd November 2016. A promotion was defined as a permanent increase in pay band (as opposed to “acting up” or a temporary secondment). Overall, less than 5.4% of the workforce had been promoted (fewer than 10 of 184 substantive staff). Although little can be said about the equality profile of promotions given such a small number of promotions, the analyses have been performed for the sake of completeness and to demonstrate that this workforce dimension is subject to scrutiny, nonetheless. Summary of significant findings Compared to the overall equality profile of Nene CCG’s workforce:

• each subgroup of each of the protected characteristics was proportionately represented amongst those promoted; • there were high levels of missing data regarding disability (29.9%), religion or belief (44.6%), and sexual orientation (41.8%).

66


• each age band (29 years old and under, 30 to 49 years old, 50 years old and over) was proportionately represented amongst those promoted. Please refer to Table 40. Table 40: Overview of the age profile of Nene CCG’s workforce in relation to promotions

Age group

Overall

Promoted

n %

n %

29 years old and under

11 6.0%

R 30 to 49 years old

105 57.1%

R

50 years old and over

68 37.0%

R Total known 184

R

Not known† 0 0.0%

R Grand total 184

R


67


• staff who were Disabled and staff who were Not Disabled were each proportionately represented amongst those promoted; • however, there was a high percentage of the workforce for whom there was no information on disability status (29.9%); this sheds doubt on

the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic. Please refer to Table 41. Table 41: Overview of the disability profile of Nene CCG’s workforce in relation to promotions

Disability

Overall

Promoted

n %

n %

Disabled

R

R Not Disabled

R

R

Total known 129


R

Grand total 184

R † percentage calculated using the grand total as the base R - Redacted

68


• White and BME people were proportionately represented amongst those promoted when ethnicity was categorised using the Workforce Race Equality Standard methodology (all BME groups pooled together);

• each ethnic group was also proportionately represented amongst those promoted when ethnicity was considered in greater detail. Please refer to Table 42. Table 42: Overview of the WRES and detailed ethnicity profiles of Nene CCG’s workforce in relation to promotions


Overall

Promoted

n %

n % White

145 83.3%

R

BME

29 16.7%

R Total known 174

R

Not known† 10 5.4%

R Grand total 184

R


69

Table 42 continued: Overview of the WRES and detailed ethnicity profiles of Nene CCG’s workforce in relation to promotions

Ethnicity (detailed)

Overall

Promoted

n %

n %

White

145 83.3%

R Mixed

R

R

Asian British

R

R Black British

R

R

Other

R

R Total known 174

R


R Grand total 184

R


70


• men and women were proportionately represented amongst those promoted. Please refer to Table 43. Table 43: Overview of the gender profile of Nene CCG’s workforce in relation to promotions

Gender

Overall

Promoted

n %

n %

Female

129 70.1%

R Male

55 29.9%

R

Total known 184


R

Grand total 184


71


• people of each marital status (single, married or in a civil partnership, and divorced, legally separated or widowed) were proportionately represented amongst those promoted.

Please refer to Table 44. Table 44: Overview of the marital status profile of Nene CCG’s workforce in relation to promotions

Marital status

Overall

Promoted

n %

n %

Single

33 18.9%

R Married / Civil Partnership

127 72.6%

R

Divorced / Legally Separated / Widowed

15 8.6%

R Total known 175

R

Not known† 9 4.9%

R Grand total 184

R


72


• staff who were on maternity or adoption leave and staff who were not on maternity or adoption leave were each proportionately represented amongst those promoted.

Please refer to Table 45. Table 45: Overview of the maternity or adoption leave profile of Nene CCG’s workforce in relation to promotions for women aged under 50 years old

Maternity or adoption

Overall

Promoted

n %

n %

Maternity & Adoption

R

R Not Maternity / Adoption

R

R

Total known 77


R

Grand total 77


73

Religion or belief Data on the religion or belief of those promoted were missing due to incomplete information in the Electronic Staff Record. Please refer to Table 46. Table 46: Overview of the simplistic religion and belief profile of Nene CCG’s workforce in relation to promotions

Religion or belief (simplistic)

Overall

Promoted

n %

n %

Atheism

16 15.7%

0 Christianity

61 59.8%

0

Other

25 24.5%

0 Total known 102

0


R Grand total 184

R


74

Sexual orientation Data on the sexual orientation of those promoted were missing due to incomplete information in the Electronic Staff Record. Please refer to Table 47. Table 47: Overview of the sexual orientation profile of Nene CCG’s workforce in relation to promotions

Sexual orientation

Overall

Promoted

n %

n %

Heterosexual

R

0 LGB

R

0

Total known 107

0 Not known† 77 41.8%

R

Grand total 184


75

The equality profile of applications for flexible working in Nene CCG’s workforce Fewer than 10 employees made applications for flexible working in the period 1st April 2016 to 3rd November 2016 (less than 5.4% of the 184 staff in post at 3rd November 2016); all of which were successful. Although little can be said about the equality profile of applications for flexible working given such a small number of applications, the analyses have been performed for the sake of completeness and to demonstrate that this workforce dimension is subject to scrutiny, nonetheless. Summary of significant findings Compared to the overall equality profile of Nene CCG’s workforce:

• each subgroup of each of the protected characteristics was proportionately represented amongst those who made applications for and were granted flexible working;

• there were high levels of missing data regarding disability (29.9%), religion or belief (44.6%), and sexual orientation (41.8%).

76


• younger (29 years old and under), middle aged (30 to 49 years old), and older staff (50 years old and over) were each proportionately represented amongst those who made applications for and were granted flexible working.

Please refer to Table 48. Table 48: Overview of the age profile of Nene CCG’s workforce in relation to flexible working

Age group Overall Applied for flexible working

n % n % 29 years old and under 11 6.0% R 30 to 49 years old 105 57.1% R 50 years old and over 68 37.0% R

Total known 184 R Not known† 0 0.0% R Grand total 184 R


77


• staff who were Disabled and staff who were Not Disabled were each proportionately represented amongst those who made applications for and were granted flexible working;

• however, there was a high percentage of the workforce for whom there was no information on disability status (29.9%); this sheds doubt on the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic.

Please refer to Table 49. Table 49: Overview of the disability profile of Nene CCG’s workforce in relation to flexible working

Disability Overall Applied for flexible working

n % n % Disabled R R Not Disabled R R



78


• White and BME people were proportionately represented amongst those who made applications for and were granted flexible working when ethnicity was categorised using the Workforce Race Equality Standard methodology (all BME groups pooled together).

Please refer to Table 50. Table 50: Overview of the WRES ethnicity profile of Nene CCG’s workforce in relation to flexible working


Overall Applied for flexible working

n % n % White 145 83.3% R BME 29 16.7% R



79


• women and men were each proportionately represented amongst those who made applications for and were granted flexible working. Please refer to Table 51. Table 51: Overview of the gender profile of Nene CCG’s workforce in relation to flexible working

Gender Overall Applied for flexible working

n % n % Female 129 70.1% R Male 55 29.9% R



80


• people of each marital status (single, married or in a civil partnership, and divorced, legally separated or widowed) were proportionately represented amongst those who made applications for and were granted flexible working.

Please refer to Table 52. Table 52: Overview of the marital status profile of Nene CCG’s workforce in relation to flexible working

Marital status Overall Applied for flexible working

n % n % Single 33 18.9% R Married / Civil Partnership 127 72.6% R Divorced / Legally Separated / Widowed 15 8.6% R



81

Pregnancy and maternity Compared to the overall maternity/adoption leave profile of Nene CCG’s workforce amongst women aged under 50 years old:

• staff who were on maternity or adoption leave and staff who were not on maternity or adoption leave were each proportionately represented amongst those who made applications for and were granted flexible working.

Please refer to Table 53. Table 53: Overview of the maternity or adoption leave profile of Nene CCG’s workforce in relation to flexible working for women under 50 years old

Maternity or adoption Overall Applied for flexible working

n % n % Maternity & Adoption R R Not Maternity / Adoption R R



82


• each religion or belief group considered (Atheism, Christianity, Other) was proportionately represented amongst those who made applications for and were granted flexible working;

• however, there was a high percentage of the workforce for whom there was no information on religion or belief (44.6%); this sheds doubt on the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic.

Please refer to Table 54. Table 54: Overview of the simplistic religion and belief profile of Nene CCG’s workforce in relation to flexible working

Religion or belief (simplistic) Overall Applied for flexible working

n % n % Atheism 16 15.7% R Christianity 61 59.8% R Other 25 24.5% R



83


• heterosexual and LGB staff were proportionately represented amongst those who made applications for and were granted flexible working; • however, there was a high percentage of the workforce for whom there was no information on sexual orientation (44.6%); this sheds doubt on

the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic. Please refer to Table 55. Table 55: Overview of the sexual orientation profile of Nene CCG’s workforce in relation to flexible working

Sexual orientation Overall Applied for flexible working

n % n % Heterosexual R R LGB R R



84

The equality profile of employee relations cases (complaints of bullying and harassment, disciplinary cases, capability cases, grievances) in Nene CCG’s workforce This section evaluates the equality profiles of staff subjected to disciplinary proceedings or an investigation, using the equality profile of Nene CCG’s overall workforce as a benchmark. Data on this aspect of employee relations were obtained for the period 1st April 2016 to 3rd November 2016. No members of staff had raised a complaint of bullying and harassment, been the subject of disciplinary or capability proceedings or an investigation, or raised a grievance in the period of interest.

85

The equality profile of those leaving Nene CCG’s workforce This section evaluates the equality profiles of staff who left Nene CCG’s workforce, using the equality profile of Nene CCG’s overall workforce as a benchmark. Additionally, the equality profiles of leavers were analysed by reason for leaving, using the overall equality profile of Nene CCG’s leavers as a benchmark. Data on those leaving Nene CCG’s workforce and their reasons for leaving were obtained for the period 1st April 2016 to 3rd November 2016. Overall, turnover in the workforce was at 7.1% (13 members of staff left the workforce in the period of interest with 184 staff in post at 3rd November 2016). The majority of leavers left through voluntary resignation. Summary of significant findings Compared to the overall equality profile of Nene CCG’s workforce:

• each subgroup of each of the protected characteristics was proportionately represented amongst those leaving the workforce; • there were high levels of missing data regarding disability (29.9%), religion or belief (44.6%), and sexual orientation (41.8%).

Compared to the overall equality profile of Nene CCG’s workforce leavers:

• each subgroup of each of the protected characteristics was proportionately represented across reasons for leaving; • there were high levels of missing data amongst leavers regarding disability (15.4%), religion or belief (46.2%), and sexual orientation (53.8%).

86


• younger (29 years old and under), middle aged (30 to 49 years old), and older staff (50 years old and over) were each proportionately represented amongst leavers.

Please refer to Table 56. Compared to the overall age profile of Nene CCG’s workforce leavers:

• younger (29 years old and under), middle aged (30 to 49 years old), and older staff (50 years old and over) were each proportionately represented across reasons for leaving.

Please refer to Table 57. Table 56: Overview of the age profile of those leaving Nene CCG’s workforce compared to Nene CCG’s extant workforce

Age group Workforce overall Leavers overall n % n % 29 years old and under 11 6.0% R 30 to 49 years old 105 57.1% R 50 years old and over 68 37.0% R

Total known 184 13 Not known† 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Grand total 184 13


87

Table 57: Overview of the age profile of those leaving Nene CCG’s workforce across reasons for leaving

Age group Leavers overall Employee Transfer

End of Fixed Term Contract

Retirement Voluntary Resignation

n % n % n % n % n % 29 years old and under R R R R R 30 to 49 years old R R R R R 50 years old and over R R R R R

Total known 13 R R R R Not known† 0 0.0% R R R R Grand total 13 R R R R


88


• staff who were Disabled and staff who were Not Disabled were proportionately represented amongst leavers; • however, there was a high percentage of the workforce for whom there was no information on disability status (29.9%); this sheds doubt on

the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic. Please refer to Table 58. Compared to the overall disability profile of Nene CCG’s workforce leavers:

• staff who were Disabled and staff who were Not Disabled were each proportionately represented were each proportionately represented across reasons for leaving;

• however, there was a high percentage of leavers for whom there was no information on disability status (15.4%); this sheds doubt on the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic.

Please refer to Table 59. Table 58: Overview of the disability profile of those leaving Nene CCG’s workforce compared to Nene CCG’s extant workforce

Disability Workforce overall Leavers overall n % n % Disabled R R Not Disabled R R



89

Table 59: Overview of the disability profile of those leaving Nene CCG’s workforce across reasons for leaving

Disability Leavers overall Employee Transfer



n % n % n % n % n % Disabled R R R R R Not Disabled R R R R R



90


• White and BME people were proportionately represented amongst leavers when ethnicity was categorised using the Workforce Race Equality Standard methodology (all BME groups pooled together);

• each ethnic group was also proportionately represented amongst leavers when ethnicity was considered in greater detail. Please refer to Table 60. Compared to the overall ethnicity profile of Nene CCG’s workforce leavers:

• White and BME people were proportionately represented across reasons for leaving when ethnicity was categorised using the Workforce Race Equality Standard methodology (all BME groups pooled together);

• each ethnic group was also proportionately represented across reasons for leaving when ethnicity was considered in greater detail. Please refer to Table 61.

91

Table 60: Overview of the WRES and detailed ethnicity profiles of those leaving Nene CCG’s workforce compared to Nene CCG’s extant workforce


Workforce overall Leavers overall

n % n % White 145 83.3% R BME 29 16.7% R



92

Table 60 continued: Overview of the WRES and detailed ethnicity profiles of those leaving Nene CCG’s workforce compared to Nene CCG’s extant workforce

Ethnicity (detailed) Workforce overall Leavers overall n % n % White 145 83.3% R Mixed R R Asian British R R Black British R R Other R R



93

Table 61: Overview of the WRES and detailed ethnicity profiles of those leaving Nene CCG’s workforce across reasons for leaving


Leavers overall Employee Transfer



n % n % n % n % n % White R R R R R BME R R R R R



94

Table 61 continued: Overview of the WRES and detailed ethnicity profiles of those leaving Nene CCG’s workforce across reasons for leaving

Ethnicity (detailed) Leavers overall Employee

Transfer End of Fixed Term

Contract Retirement Voluntary

Resignation n % n % n % n % n % White R R R R R Mixed R R R R R Asian British R R R R R Black British R R R R R Other R R R R R



95


• men and women were each proportionately represented amongst leavers. Please refer to Table 62. Compared to the overall gender profile of Nene CCG’s workforce leavers:

• men and women were each proportionately represented across reasons for leaving. Please refer to Table 63. Table 62: Overview of the gender profile of those leaving Nene CCG’s workforce compared to Nene CCG’s extant workforce

Gender Workforce overall Leavers overall n % n % Female 129 70.1% R Male 55 29.9% R



96

Table 63: Overview of the gender profile of those leaving Nene CCG’s workforce across reasons for leaving

Gender Leavers overall Employee Transfer



n % n % n % n % n % Female R R R R R Male R R R R R



97


• staff who were single, staff who were in a marriage or civil partnership, and staff who were divorced, legally separated or widowed were proportionately represented amongst leavers.

Please refer to Table 64. Compared to the overall marital status profile of Nene CCG’s workforce leavers:

• staff who were single and staff who were in a marriage or civil partnership were proportionately represented across reasons for leaving (there were no staff who were divorced, legally separated or widowed amongst the leavers).

Please refer to Table 65. Table 64: Overview of the marital status profile of those leaving Nene CCG’s workforce compared to Nene CCG’s extant workforce

Marital status Workforce overall Leavers overall n % n % Single 33 18.9% R Married/Civil Partnership 127 72.6% R Divorced/Legally Separated/Widowed 15 8.6% R



98

Table 65: Overview of the marital status profile of those leaving Nene CCG’s workforce across reasons for leaving

Marital status Leavers overall Employee Transfer



n % n % n % n % n % Single R R R R R Married/Civil Partnership R R R R R Divorced/Legally Separated/Widowed R R R R R



99


• each religion or belief group considered (Atheism, Christianity, Other) was proportionately represented amongst leavers; • however, there was a high percentage of the workforce for whom there was no information on religion or belief (44.6%); this sheds doubt on

the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic. Please refer to Table 66. Compared to the overall religion and belief profile of Nene CCG’s workforce leavers:

• each religion or belief group present amongst leavers (Atheism, Christianity) was proportionately represented across leaving reasons; • however, there was a high percentage of the leavers for whom there was no information on religion or belief (46.2%); this sheds doubt on the

reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic. Please refer to Table 67.

100

Table 66: Overview of the simplistic religion and belief profile of those leaving Nene CCG’s workforce compared to Nene CCG’s extant workforce

Religion or belief (simplistic) Workforce overall Leavers overall n % n % Atheism 16 15.7% R Christianity 61 59.8% R Other 25 24.5% R



101

Table 67: Overview of the simplistic religion and belief profile of those leaving Nene CCG’s workforce across reasons for leaving

Religion or belief (simplistic) Leavers overall Employee

Transfer End of Fixed Term

Contract Retirement Voluntary

Resignation n % n % n % n % n % Atheism R R R R R Christianity R R R R R Other R R R R R



102


• heterosexual and LGB staff were each proportionately represented amongst leavers; • however, there was a high percentage of the workforce for whom there was no information on sexual orientation (41.8%); this sheds doubt on

the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic. Please refer to Table 68. Compared to the overall sexual orientation profile of Nene CCG’s workforce leavers:

• heterosexual and LGB leavers were each proportionately represented across leaving reasons; • however, there was a high percentage of the workforce for whom there was no information on sexual orientation (53.8%); this sheds doubt on

the reliability of conclusions derived from statistical analyses of this protected characteristic. Please refer to Table 69. Table 68: Overview of the sexual orientation profile of those leaving Nene CCG’s workforce compared to Nene CCG’s extant workforce

Sexual orientation Workforce overall Leavers overall n % n % Heterosexual R R LGB R R



103

Table 69: Overview of the sexual orientation profile of those leaving Nene CCG’s workforce across reasons for leaving

Sexual orientation Leavers overall Employee Transfer



n % n % n % n % n % Heterosexual R R R R R LGB R R R R R



104

Gender pay gap reporting: Nene CCG’s workforce at 3rd November 2016 The government has proposed to introduce mandatory gender pay gap reporting from April 2017 with the intention of using this tool as part of a wider strategy to tackle pay inequality between men and women. The duty to report on the gender pay gap will be placed on all organisations with 250 or more employees, and may be extended to more organisations after assessing the burden of the reporting process during its first year of operation. The reporting will be based on a snapshot of the workforce at 5th April each year from 2017 and should include all employees, including those on zero-hours contracts who are paid within the pay period that contains the census date. One exception to this rule is that employees who are being paid at a reduced rate at the census date because of leave (including maternity, paternity, adoption, and sick leave) should be excluded from the calculations. Organisations subject to the duty will be required to publish their gender pay gap at any point during the relevant financial year. Following consultation with UK employers from February 2016, at December 2016 the government’s proposal for gender pay reporting took the following form

• the difference between the mean hourly rate of pay of male full-pay relevant employees and that of female full-pay relevant employees • the difference between the median hourly rate of pay of male full-pay relevant employees and that of female full-pay relevant employees • the difference between the mean bonus pay paid to male relevant employees and that paid to female relevant employees • the difference between the median bonus pay paid to male relevant employees and that paid to female relevant employees • the proportions of male and female relevant employees who were paid bonus pay • the proportions of male and female full-pay relevant employees in the lower, lower middle, upper middle and upper quartile pay bands

In this section of the report, Nene CCG’s position against the gender pay gap reporting metrics is given, based on a snapshot of the workforce at 3rd November 2016. It is noted that, at present, Nene CCG is below the threshold for mandatory gender pay gap reporting. Nonetheless, the information may be useful in helping the organisation to gauge and address any gender pay gap within its workforce, even if there is no necessity to make preparations for gender pay gap reporting in the 2017/18 financial year. Information on bonus pay was not readily available at the time of writing this report. Consequently, this report concentrates on differences in the mean and median hourly rates of pay of men and women, and on the proportions of men and women in the lower, lower middle, upper middle and upper quartile pay bands of the workforce. Additionally, further insight is offered by undertaking analyses of hourly rates pay for the workforce as a whole, as well as for full time and part time staff separately. It should be noted that the workforce equality analyses presented earlier in this report consider only substantive staff (184 staff in total), whilst the gender pay gap analyses presented in this section also include bank staff, but exclude those on maternity or adoption leave, others on reduced pay, and those without a value against pay in the Electronic Staff Record (179 staff in total).

105

Summary of significant findings

• On average, men were paid a higher hourly rate than women both in terms of mean pay (48.5% more, Table 70, Figure 1) and median pay (32.9% more, Table 71, Figure 2). This was the case amongst full time staff and amongst part time, but was more marked amongst part time staff—reflecting the contribution of non-executive directors’ pay to the pattern of gender-based pay differences for part time staff. (Median pay offers a measure of average pay that is less skewed by very high levels of pay at the highest levels within an organisation, thereby better reflecting typical levels of pay within an organisation.)

• There was a disproportionately high number of men amongst employees in the upper pay quartile, reflecting a trend for the proportion of women to decrease as pay quartile increased from the lower quartile, through the lower middle and upper middle quartiles, to the upper quartile (Table 72). A similar trend can be seen in the analyses of pay band by gender for clinical and non-clinical staff—men were overrepresented to a significant degree amongst Clinical Very Senior Managers (Table 20).

106

Differences in the mean hourly rates of pay of men and women The difference in the mean hourly rates of pay of men and women is expressed as a percentage difference in the form:

% = 100 x 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑝𝑝𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑚𝑚𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 −𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑝𝑝𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑤𝑤𝑜𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀

𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑝𝑝𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑚𝑚𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀

• Workforce overall:

o men were paid 48.5% more than women; o this reflected a statistically significant difference in the mean hourly rates of pay of men and women, with a small effect size3.

• Full time staff: o men were paid 23.0% more than women; o this reflected a statistically significant difference in the mean hourly rates of pay of men and women, with a small effect size4.

• Part time staff: o men were paid 68.3% more than women—reflecting the contribution of non-executive directors’ pay to the pattern of gender-based

pay differences for part-time staff; o this reflected a statistically significant difference in the mean hourly rates of pay of men and women, with a small to medium effect

size5. • Please refer to Table 70 and Figure 1.

3 A statistically significant difference (α = .05): two-tailed t test, equal variances not assumed t(55.24) = -2.849, p = .006, r = .12 4 A statistically significant difference (α = .05): two-tailed t test, equal variances not assumed t(59.11) = -3.067, p = .003, r = .14 5 A statistically significant difference (α = .05): two-tailed t test, equal variances not assumed t(16.39) = -2.598, p = .019, r = .29

107

Table 70: Differences in the mean hourly rates of pay of men and women All Staff Full Time Staff Part Time Staff

Female Male Female Male Female Male Count 125 54 79 37 46 17 Mean hourly rate of pay

% difference in mean pay: men vs women +48.5% +23.0% +68.3% Upper bound 95% confidence interval £25.22 £59.95 £23.36 £31.42 £30.75 £127.32 Mean £23.05 £44.79 £21.34 £27.73 £25.98 £81.94 Lower bound 95% confidence interval £20.88 £29.64 £19.33 £24.04 £21.20 £36.56

108

Figure 1: Differences in the mean hourly rates of pay of men and women (means and 95% confidence intervals)

£0.00

£20.00

£40.00

£60.00

£80.00

£100.00

£120.00

£140.00

Fem

ale,

n=1

25

Mal

e, n

=54

Fem

ale,

n=7

9

Mal

e, n

=37

Fem

ale,

n=4

6

Mal

e, n

=17

Hou

rly ra

te o

f pay

: M ±

95%

CI

Gender by Working Pattern

All Staff Full Time Part Time

109

Differences in the median hourly rates of pay for men and women The difference in the median hourly rates of pay of men and women is expressed as a percentage difference in the form:

% = 100 x 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑝𝑝𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑚𝑚𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 −𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑝𝑝𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑤𝑤𝑜𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀

𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑝𝑝𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑚𝑚𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀

• Workforce overall:

o men were paid 32.9% more than women; o this reflected a statistically significant difference in the median hourly rates of pay of men and women, with a medium effect size6.

• Full time staff: o men were paid 23.3% more than women; o this reflected a statistically significant difference in the median hourly rates of pay of men and women, with a small to medium effect

size7. • Part time staff:

o men were paid 69.0% more than women—reflecting the contribution of non-executive directors’ pay to the pattern of gender-based pay differences for part-time staff;

o this reflected a statistically significant difference in the median hourly rates of pay of men and women, with a medium to large effect size8.

• Please refer to Table 71 and Figure 2.

6 A statistically significant difference (α = .05): two-tailed Mann-Whitney test, U = 1699.00, z = ,-5.271, p < .0001, r = -.39 7 A statistically significant difference (α = .05): two-tailed Mann-Whitney test, U = 896.50, z = ,-3.349, p = .001, r = -.31 8 A statistically significant difference (α = .05): two-tailed Mann-Whitney test, U = 71.50, z = ,-4.968, p < .0001, r = -.63

110

Table 71: Differences in the median hourly rates of pay for men and women All Staff Full Time Staff Part Time Staff

Female Male Female Male Female Male Count 125 54 79 37 46 17

Median hourly rate of pay

% difference in median pay: men vs women +32.9% +23.3% +69.0% Maximum £73.01 £418.06 £50.99 £64.10 £73.01 £418.06 75th percentile £27.33 £63.41 £24.63 £35.12 £29.56 £72.56 Median £19.84 £29.56 £19.84 £25.88 £21.22 £68.45 25th percentile £15.04 £23.45 £14.60 £20.18 £15.83 £62.84 Minimum £8.90 £10.43 £8.90 £10.43 £8.90 £19.84

111

Figure 2: Differences in the median hourly rates of pay of men and women (box and whisker plots: minima, maxima, medians, and inter-quartile ranges)

£0.00

£20.00

£40.00

£60.00

£80.00

£100.00

£120.00

Fem

ale,

n=1

25

Mal

e, n

=54

Fem

ale,

n=7

9

Mal

e, n

=37

Fem

ale,

n=4

6

Mal

e, n

=17Hou

rly ra

te o

f pay

: Mdn

, IQ

rang

e, M

in, M

ax

Gender by Working Pattern All Staff Full Time Part Time

£420.00

112

Differences in the proportions of men and women in the lower, lower middle, upper middle and upper quartile pay bands It is prescribed that the “quartile” pay bands of the workforce should be derived by ranking employees according to their hourly rate of pay (lowest to highest) and then dividing the workforce into four equally sized groups in terms of headcount (as near as possible). Where this grouping results in splitting those on the same hourly rate of pay across quartile pay bands, this must be done in a way that produces the same proportion of men and women on the given hourly rate either side of the split (as near as possible).

• There was a disproportionately high number of men amongst employees in the upper pay quartile, reflecting a trend for the proportion of women to decrease as pay quartile increased from the lower quartile, through the lower middle and upper middle quartiles, to the upper quartile. A similar trend can be seen in the analyses of pay band by gender for clinical and non-clinical staff—men were overrepresented to a significant degree amongst Clinical Very Senior Managers (Table 20).

• Please refer to Table 72. Table 72: Differences in the proportions of men and women in the lower, lower middle, upper middle and upper quartile pay bands

Hourly Rate of Pay Quartile Female Male Total n %* n %* n

Upper quartile 19 42.2% 26 57.8% 45 Upper middle quartile 29 65.9% 15 34.1% 44 Lower middle quartile >35 >77.8% <10 <22.2% 45 Lower quartile >35 >77.8% <10 <22.2% 45

* percentages calculated by row

113

Appendix: Data Quality

• Data quality in the recording of the protected characteristics of employees on the Electronic Staff Record has been analysed in terms of “missing values.” In the present context, a missing value is deemed to be one that does not provide information about the protected characteristic subgroup to which an employee belongs, and so which cannot contribute to statistical analyses of underrepresentation or overrepresentation. Missing data can derive either from an employee choosing not to disclose the information, or from the information not being sought or recorded. Missing data results in uncertainty about the actual levels of representation for protected characteristic subgroups in the workforce. If there is a possibility that the missing values are not evenly distributed across the subgroups of a given protected characteristic, but are instead concentrated in certain subgroups, statistical analysis of the remaining valid data can be misleading.

• In the present data set there were high levels of missing data for the protected characteristics of disability, religion or belief, and sexual

orientation (Table 73), along with the possibility that those employees with missing data will be concentrated in certain subgroups. As such, analyses of disability, religion or belief, and sexual orientation should be regarded as potentially flawed and should be interpreted with caution. In the present dataset, assuming that the missing data codes have been used correctly during data entry, the missing data appears to have been almost exclusively of the “not disclosed” type (an employee chose not to disclose the information and this decision was recorded).

114

Table 73: Summary of data quality regarding missing values for the protected characteristics recorded on the Electronic Staff Record Data Quality Age Group Disability Ethnicity Gender Valid value 184 100.0% 129 70.1% 174 94.6% 184 100.0% Missing data

Not disclosed† 0 0.0% 55 29.9% 10 5.4% 0 0.0% Not recorded‡ 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Grand total 184 100.0% 184 100.0% 184 100.0% 184 100.0%

Data Quality

Marital Status Maternity/Adoption Leave* Religion or Belief Sexual Orientation Valid value

175 95.1% 77 100.0% 102 55.4% 107 58.2%

Missing data

Not disclosed†

5 2.7% 0 0.0% 82 44.6% 77 41.8% Not recorded‡

4 2.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Grand total

184 100.0% 77 100.0% 184 100.0% 184 100.0% † The employee has chosen not to disclose the information: Disability “Not Declared”; Ethnicity “Z Not Stated”; Marital Status “Unknown”; Religion or Belief “I do not wish to disclose my religion/belief”; Sexual Orientation “I do not wish to disclose my sexual orientation.” ‡ The information is not recorded: Disability “Undefined”; Marital Status “(blank)”; Religion or Belief “Undefined”; Sexual Orientation “Undefined.” *Women aged under 50 years old

115

Appendix: Methodology The dataset The analyses of staff in post considered a snapshot of the workforce taken from the Electronic Staff Record at 3rd November 2016 (184 substantive staff in total). Data for the analysis of recruitment on applicants, shortlisting and appointees came from NHS Jobs 2. The analysis of recruitment considered the period 1st April 2016 to 31st October 2016. Workforce analyses of leavers considered the period 1st April 2016 to 3rd November 2016. Information about the workforce was analysed along several dimensions, reflecting data available within the Electronic Staff Record and the need to combine groups for the purposes of analysis:

• Protected characteristics:

o Age 29 years old and under 30 to 49 years old 50 years old and over

o Disability

Disabled Not Disabled

o Ethnicity (Workforce Race Equality Standard)

White BME

o Ethnicity (detailed) White Asian British Black British Mixed Other

o Gender

Male Female

116

o Marital status

Single Marriage or Civil Partnership Divorced, Legally Separated or Widowed

o Pregnancy and maternity (using maternity and adoption

leave amongst women aged under 50 years old as a proxy) On maternity or adoption leave Not on maternity or adoption leave

o Religion or belief (simplistic)

Atheism Christianity Other

o Religion or belief (detailed)

Atheism Christian Hinduism Islam Sikhism Other

o Sexual orientation

Heterosexual LGB (Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual)

• Pay bands:

o Clinical Band 6 Bands 7 to 8A Bands 8B and above Very Senior Managers

o Non-clinical Bands 3 to 6 Bands 7 to 8A Bands 8B and above Very Senior Managers

• Occupational groups:

o Additional Professional Scientific and Technical o Administrative and Clerical o Medical and Dental o Nursing and Midwifery Registered

• Working patterns:

o Full time o Part time

117

• Recruitment:

o Applications o Shortlisted o Appointed

• Employee relations:

o Complaints of bullying and harassment o Disciplinary cases o Capability cases o Grievances

• Reason for leaving the workforce amongst leavers:

o Employee Transfer o End of Fixed Term Contract o Retirement o Voluntary Resignation

118

Analytical techniques Workforce demographics by protected characteristics and assessments of equity in representation compared to the local population The profiles of the workforce across protected characteristic subgroups were compared to representations in the local population using Chi-squared tests. Where overall significant differences were detected (α = .05), post-hoc tests followed in the form of analyses of standardised residuals (Bonferroni correction applied). Workforce demographics by protected characteristics and assessments of equity in representation across pay bands, occupational groups, and full-time and part-time working patterns The profiles of the workforce across protected characteristic subgroups, cross-referenced against pay bands, occupational groups, and full-time and part-time working patterns, were compared to overall representations in the workforce using Fisher’s Exact Tests. Where overall significant differences were detected (α = .05), post-hoc tests followed in the form of analyses of standardised residuals (Bonferroni correction applied). The demographics of applicants, those shortlisted, and appointees, by protected characteristics, and assessments of equity in the recruitment process Comparisons of the representations of protected characteristic sub groups were made at each stage of Nene CCG’s recruitment process:

• representations amongst all applicants were compared to representations in the local area working age population (Chi-squared tests); • representations amongst all those shortlisted were compared to representations amongst all those who applied, but who were not shortlisted

(Fisher’s Exact Tests); • representations amongst appointees were compared to representations amongst all those who were shortlisted but not appointed (Fisher’s

Exact Tests). Where overall significant differences were detected (α = .05), post-hoc tests followed in the form of analyses of standardised residuals (Bonferroni correction applied).

119

Workforce demographics by protected characteristics and assessments of equity in the uptake of non-mandatory training, in promotions, in employee relations, in flexible working, and amongst workforce leavers The profiles of those in the workforce who undertook non-mandatory training/were promoted/were involved in an employee relations case/were granted flexible working/left the workforce, across protected characteristic subgroups, were compared to representations in the workforce overall or a subgroup of the workforce, as appropriate, using Chi-squared tests or Fisher’s Exact Tests. Where overall significant differences were detected (α = .05), post-hoc tests followed in the form of analyses of standardised residuals (Bonferroni correction applied). Additionally, the profiles of workforce force leavers were analysed by reason for leaving, across protected characteristic subgroups, and were compared to representations amongst leavers overall using Fisher’s Exact tests. Where overall significant differences were detected (α = .05), post-hoc tests followed in the form of analyses of standardised residuals (Bonferroni correction applied). Gender pay gap At December 2016 the government’s proposal for gender pay reporting took the following form

• the difference between the mean hourly rate of pay of male full-pay relevant employees and that of female full-pay relevant employees • the difference between the median hourly rate of pay of male full-pay relevant employees and that of female full-pay relevant employees • the difference between the mean bonus pay paid to male relevant employees and that paid to female relevant employees • the difference between the median bonus pay paid to male relevant employees and that paid to female relevant employees • the proportions of male and female relevant employees who were paid bonus pay • the proportions of male and female full-pay relevant employees in the lower, lower middle, upper middle and upper quartile pay bands

Analyses of the gender pay gap followed the government’s proposed methodology; however information on bonus pay was not readily available at the time of writing this report. Consequently, the analyses presented here covered only mean and median hourly rates of pay and the proportions of male and female full-pay relevant employees in the lower, lower middle, upper middle and upper quartile pay bands.

120

The difference in the mean hourly rates of pay of men and women was expressed as a percentage difference in the form:

% = 100 x 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑝𝑝𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑚𝑚𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 −𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑝𝑝𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑤𝑤𝑜𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀

𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑝𝑝𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑚𝑚𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀

The difference in the median hourly rates of pay of men and women was expressed as a percentage difference in the form:

% = 100 x 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑝𝑝𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑚𝑚𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 −𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑝𝑝𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑤𝑤𝑜𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀

𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑝𝑝𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑚𝑚𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀

In addition to the proposed mandatory government metrics on differences in mean and median hourly rates of pay given above, additional analyses of mean and median hourly rates of pay were undertaken to determine if statistically significant differences in pay existed between men and women. These additional analyses aimed to offer further insight into any gender pay gap. The statistical significance of differences in mean hourly rates of pay between men and women were assessed using t-tests (α = .05), whilst the statistical significance of differences in median hourly rates of pay between men and women were assessed using Mann-Whitney tests* (α = .05). These tests were conducted for the workforce overall and for full time and part time staff separately. (*The Mann-Whitney test is a non-parametric equivalent of the t-test—strictly speaking, the Mann-Whitney test looks at differences in the rankings of two groups rather than comparing medians.) The proportions of men and women in the lower, lower middle, upper middle and upper quartile pay bands were calculated using the government’s proposed method: “quartile” pay bands of the workforce should be derived by ranking employees according to their hourly rate of pay (lowest to highest) and then dividing the workforce into four equally sized groups in terms of headcount (as near as possible). Where this grouping results in splitting those on the same hourly rate of pay across quartile pay bands, this must be done in a way that produces the same proportion of men and women on the given hourly rate either side of the split (as near as possible). Additional tests of the statistical significance of differences in the proportions of men and women in different pay quartiles were undertaken. The numbers of men and women in different pay quartiles were compared against the numbers of men and women in the workforce overall using Fisher’s Exact Test. Where an overall significant difference was detected (α = .05), post-hoc tests followed in the form of analyses of standardised residuals (Bonferroni correction applied).

121

Key to interpreting the tables of overrepresentation and underrepresentation Colour coding within the tables of overrepresentation and underrepresentation Overrepresentation or underrepresentation in the groups of interest were assessed relative to the reference group (using a Chi-Squared Test or Fisher’s Exact Test, followed by a post-hoc analysis of standardised residuals with the Bonferroni correction applied). The categorised degree of overrepresentation or underrepresentation (small, medium or large) followed the conventions applied in the social sciences (and was based on the size of the standardised residual) (Table 74). Only groups where overrepresentation or underrepresentation was identified as statistically significant were highlighted, otherwise the group was considered proportionally represented. Table 74: Key to interpreting the colour coding of overrepresentation and underrepresentation in the tables of analysis Reference benchmark against which overrepresentation or underrepresentation was evaluated A group that was overrepresented to a significant, large degree when compared to its level of representation in the reference benchmark A group that was overrepresented to a significant, medium degree when compared to its level of representation in the reference benchmark A group that was overrepresented to a significant, small degree when compared to its level of representation in the reference benchmark A group that was proportionately represented when compared to its level of representation in the reference benchmark A group that was underrepresented to a significant, small degree when compared to its level of representation in the reference benchmark A group that was underrepresented to a significant, medium degree when compared to its level of representation in the reference benchmark A group that was underrepresented to a significant, large degree when compared to its level of representation in the reference benchmark

122

Reading the tables of overrepresentation and underrepresentation In the example given in Table 75, the reference group is an organisation’s overall workforce profile analysed by gender. The groups of interest are the organisation’s full time workforce and the organisation’s part time workforce, each analysed by gender. The colour coding in the table indicates that, compared to the organisation’s overall workforce gender profile, amongst full time staff women were underrepresented to a small degree and men were overrepresented to a small degree, whilst amongst part time staff women were overrepresented to a medium degree and men were underrepresented to a medium degree. For instance, women comprised 67.8% of the overall workforce (the benchmark), 60.0% of the full time workforce (significantly lower than the benchmark to a small degree) and 95.2% of the part time workforce (significantly higher than the benchmark to a medium degree). Table 75: Example table involving overrepresentation and underrepresentation Working Pattern Gender Organisation

Overall Full time Part time

Female 579 67.8% 399 60.0% 180 95.2% Male 275 32.2% 266 40.0% 9 4.8% Total 854 100.0% 665 100.0% 189 100.0%

123

In the example given in Table 76, the reference group is the organisation’s overall workforce profile analysed by disability. The groups of interest are the organisation’s full time workforce and the organisation’s part time workforce, each analysed by disability. The colour coding in the table indicates that, compared to the organisation’s overall workforce disability profile, people who were Disabled and people who were Not Disabled were each proportionally represented, both amongst full time staff and amongst part time staff. For instance, Disabled people comprised 5.4% of the overall workforce (the benchmark), 5.7% of the full time workforce (not significantly different from the benchmark) and 4.0% of the part time workforce (not significantly different from the benchmark). Table 76: Example table involving proportional representation Working Pattern Disability Organisation

Overall Full time Part time

Disabled 32 5.4% 27 5.7% 5 4.0% Not Disabled 564 94.6% 443 94.3% 121 96.0% Total 596 100.0% 470 100.0% 126 100.0%

Local population estimates Local population estimates for CCG areas were based on the UK 2011 Census for the protected characteristics of disability, ethnicity, religion or belief, and marital status. For the protected characteristics of age and gender, the latest available mid-year population projections from the Office for National Statistics were used (2015)—these projections were not available for the other protected characteristics. Only the working age population was considered (taken as 16 to 64 years old). LGB population estimates were based on the British Crime Survey of England and Wales (2009/2010); this survey combined a relatively large sample size with a relatively low non-response rate. Local area population estimates for LGB people are available in the Office for National Statistics Annual Population Survey; however, local area sample sizes for this survey are relatively small, non-response rates are high, and LGB population estimates appear low compared to other sources.

Quantitative equality analysis of the NHS Nene CCG ... · been redacted from the contingency...

Documents

Transcript of Quantitative equality analysis of the NHS Nene CCG ... · been redacted from the contingency...