Final Report of the Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) OF the Recruitment and Selection of Staff

1. Details

Policy being assessed

Recruitment and selection of staff

Is this policy a new, revised or existing policy?

New / Revised / Existing

Existing and Revised (Online recruitment: Two Ticks Symbol)

Policy-holding Section/Department

Personnel

Chair of EIA Panel

Dr. Fiona Venn

Members of EIA Panel

Dr Fiona Venn (Chair) (Department of History)

Mr Alan Charnock (Personnel Section)

Professor Nelson Fernandez (Department of Biological Sciences)

Ms Jo Goodwin (Personnel Section) was later seconded to the panel

Ms Rowena Macaulay (Department of Sociology)

Ms Sue Shepherd (Department of Language and Linguistics)      

Secretary to EIA Panel

Lenne Lillepuu

Date of EIA

19 May 2008; 23 September 2008; 15 October 2008

2. Aims of the Policy

Identify all the aims and projected outcomes of the policy

The selection and recruitment of staff.

Which individuals are likely to have an interest in the policy?  (e.g. staff, students, potential students, etc.) 

Staff

3. Consider the Evidence

What relevant quantitative data has been considered in relation to the following areas? 

Please list below all data/information you have used to inform you impact assessment, including source & reference.

Age

Statistics for 2006 and 2007 on applications and appointments by age group and staff group; statistics for interviews by age group and staff group (2007 only) (provided by Planning Office)

Disability

Statistics on applications and appointments by staff group and declared disability for 2006 and 2007; statistics for interviews by staff group and declared disability for 2007 only (provided by Planning Office)

Gender

Statistics on applications and appointments by staff group and gender for 2006 and 2007; statistics for interviews by staff group and gender for 2007 only (provided by Planning Office)

Race

Statistics on applications and appointments by staff group and ethnicity for 2006 and 2007; statistics for interviews by staff group and ethnicity for 2007 only. Statistics on applications and appointments by staff group and nationality for 2006 and 2007; statistics for interviews by staff group and nationality for 2007 only (provided by Planning Office)

Religion/Belief

None available

Sexual Orientation

None available

Other

Comparative statistics on national figures (academic staff) and local census (office and general support staff) (provided by Planning Office)

What relevant qualitative data has been considered in relation to the following areas?

Age

None

Disability

New HESA requirements for information on disability of existing staff, (provided by Hilary Hobson); Two Ticks Staff Recruitment Guidance; Two Ticks: Positive about Disabled People; Two Ticks: Positive about Disability. Draft material circulated by Jo Goodwin (Personnel); Thoughts on Disclosure; Letter on disclosure (provided by Rowena Macaulay)

Gender

None

Race

None

Religion/Belief

None

Sexual Orientation

None

Other

Training Material for session on Recruitment and Selection; Current job advertisement; web links to online recruitment web pages and University policy statements on equality and diversity (provided by Personnel and the Staff Development Office)

What (if any) gaps were identified in the data or information available?

Age

Disability

Gender

Race

Religion/Belief

Information on this is not routinely collected. The Panel does not recommend that it should be monitored.

Sexual Orientation

Information on this is not routinely collected. The Panel does not recommend that it should be monitored.

Other

There were no national statistics with which to compare institution-level data on senior support staff.

4. Consultation

If you have undertaken a consultation exercise as part of this EIA, please give details.

Who was consulted?

Departmental Administrators (30 June 2008):

§  Libby Armstrong (Department of Art History and Theory);

§  Dianne Blundell (Department of Sociology);

§  Jane Corbey (Department of History);

§  Barbara Crawshaw (Department of Philosophy);

§  Carole Parmenter (Department of Government);

§  Joanna Partner (Essex Business School);

§  Sue Shepherd (Department of Language and Linguistics);

§  Debbie Stewart (Psychoanalytical Studies).

Second Tier Personnel:

§  Shereen Anderson (REO);

§  Angela Jones (Student Support Office);

§  Mark Ager (Estates Management Section);

§  Wendy Clifton-Sprigg (Academic Section);

§  Greg Dumbrell (Security Office);

§  Tim Morris (Catering);

What form did the consultation take?

Two consultation meetings were held with Departmental Administrators and Second Tier Personnel. Those unable to attend were invited to submit comments.

What was the outcome of the consultation process?

Minutes from both focus groups were circulated to, and discussed by, members of the Equality Impact Assessment Panel

5. Assessment of likely impact

From the analysis of the data and information available, has any potential for differential / adverse impact been identified?  If yes, please explain what this impact is.

If the differential impact is intentional or justifiable, please explain why.

Age

None

Disability

The ‘Two Ticks’ symbol has a differential impact upon applicants with disability, as they are guaranteed an interview if they meet the essential criteria. This is in line with national legislation and practice, and is regarded as justifiable.

The lack of a clear University policy on job share has a potentially adverse effect.

Gender

The lack of a clear University policy on job share has a potentially adverse effect.

Race

None

Religion/Belief

None

Sexual Orientation

None

Other

None

6. Consider alternatives

Summarise the actions that could be taken / changes that could be made in order to remove or reduce the potential for differential / adverse impact.

Statistical Information 

1. The Panel noted that as universities do not use standard job titles for senior support staff, it is difficult to compare one individual institution’s profile with a national profile. The Panel recommends that this be brought to the attention of HESA, which is responsible for collecting statistical data on University staff. 

Advertising 

The Panel made a number of specific recommendations on the layout of access-related information on the Personnel web site (2-6 below) These have already been acted upon by the Personnel section. 

2. The Panel recommends that both routes to ‘job vacancies’ on the University website, i.e. via the University home page, and also via the Personnel web page, should lead to the portal page on http://www.essex.ac.uk/vacancies, which contains a clear statement of intent in relation to equality of opportunity.  

3. The Panel recommends that the Two Ticks information, which is currently on the Personnel page, should be moved to the portal page, as this is the page that many first-time enquirers will visit first. 

4. The Panel recommends that the statement indicating that if a person has a disability and would like information in a different format or support in preparing the application, this would be available from the University, should be made more prominently on the main ‘Vacancy Search’ page, rather than under the section marked ‘General Guidance on making your application’ in the Guidance Notes section.  

5. The Panel recommends that there should be a new section header beneath the section ‘General Guidance on making your application’ entitled ‘Information for disabled applicants’, in which the Two Ticks accreditation and the guarantee of an interview provided certain criteria are met (currently under ‘general guidance’ heading) should be included. 

6. The Panel recommends that the online guidance for members of the University responsible for recruitment and selection should be changed in respect of the ‘Who to Contact’ section, to make clear at the top of the page that enquiries on disability issues should be referred to the Personnel Officer responsible for the department or section.  

7. The Panel recommends that there should be wider dissemination of the fact that the University requires online applications, but that there is help available when required, for example by posters in the University, Jobcentres, and local public libraries. 

8. The Panel recommends that Personnel continue to encourage departments / sections  to consider adverts and further particulars that challenge standard preconceptions about the ‘appropriate’ age or gender of a particular role, for example by emphasising the challenges of a role rather than its title, or avoiding wording that might appear gender specific. 

9. The Panel recommends that online information for applicants should include profiles of existing holders of posts; although the University does have personal profile pages for academic staff, these do not exist for non-academic staff. It is suggested that in the first instance managers should encourage selected existing post-holders to provide a personal profile, which could then be used to challenge existing stereotypes – for example, that patrol officers are usually male, and office support staff are generally female.. Recruitment video(s) might be used for the same purpose. 

Composition of selection / interview panels 

10. The Panel recommends that departments should be encouraged to follow good practice wherever possible when appointing part-time teachers: for example, by advertising posts, even those under 0.5FTE, if feasible (internally and possibly on jobs.ac.uk); and by ensuring that at least two people are involved in any decisions on appointment.  

11. Chairs of selection committees are already required to complete training on recruitment and selection of staff. The Panel recommends that staff who are regularly members (as opposed to chairs) of selection and interview panels should be required to undertake training, although this might be ‘lighter touch’, for example by the development of online training. 

12. The Panel recommends that Personnel and Staff Development monitor staff who chair selection / interview committees, and invite them to updating sessions as appropriate. 

13. The Panel recommends that Personnel monitor the composition of selection / interview panels at all levels of recruitment, to facilitate the implementation of recommendations 10-12. This will entail all departments and sections keeping records on the composition of selection / interview panels. The University should develop a good practice guide on selection committees and interview panels, which includes guidance on the composition of selection committees, for example with regard to gender. 

Monitoring 

14   .The Panel recommends that the EaDC should be alert to any possible impact of online recruitment on the composition of applications. 

The Panel also made a number of recommendations and comments on various issues discussed, including disability disclosure and implementation of the Two Ticks Symbol. These were acted upon during the assessment process, and are not included here.

Summarise what changes the EIA recommends be made to the policy to remove or reduce the potential for differential / adverse impact.

Job share

The Panel recommends that the EaDC review the policy on job share, to consider whether the University should encourage applications from candidates wishing to be considered for a post on a job share basis. It should also consider whether any additional costs involved in job shares should be carried by the University centrally, rather than an individual section or department. This might initially be done on a pilot basis. The Panel acknowledges that there are practical difficulties associated with job share (or job split), but notes that there is an impact on significant groups of staff, including significant numbers of disabled people.

Equality Impact Assessment Completed

This should be signed by the Chair of the EIA Panel

Date

30 Oct 2008

Name (please print)

Dr Fiona Venn

Position

Senior Lecturer, Department of History

Signature