Contents
- Introduction
- Our commitment
- Our priority areas for 2023
- Summary
- Collecting equality monitoring data
- Indicator 1
- Indicator 2
- Indicator 3
- Indicator 4a
- Indicator 4b
- Indicator 5
- Indicator 6
- Indicator 7
- Indicator 8
- Indicator 9a
- Indicator 9b
- Indicator 10
- Appendix: Workforce Disability Equality Standard indicators
Introduction
Our Workforce Disability Equality Standard (WDES) report for 2023 uses 10 specific measures or ‘indicators’. They enable us to compare the experiences of disabled and non-disabled colleagues. We do this so we can develop how we ensure equitable outcomes for all colleagues.
Our commitment
We publish this report to be transparent and to show our commitment to providing a fair and inclusive environment for our disabled colleagues.
Our priority areas for 2023
We will prioritise 3 areas of focus based on data from the Summary, and considering the Listening, Learning and Responding to Concerns Report:
- Workstream 1: Improve feelings of inclusion among disabled colleagues.
- Workstream 2: Improve disabled colleagues’ opinion that CQC has made appropriate reasonable adjustment(s) to enable them to carry out their work.
- Workstream 3: Improve the recruitment process experience among disabled applicants.
Mark Sutton, Chief Digital and Data Officer and Executive Sponsor of the Disability Equality Network:
“I am very proud of the progress that colleagues have made towards our vision of making this a great place for disabled colleagues to work and to attract great talent. This year we have a specific focus on a transformation of our reasonable adjustments service and I’m looking forward to us delivering that change.”
Hannah Sturland, Mental Health Act Operations Manager and Co-chair of the Disability Equality Network:
“We’ve made good progress in building our foundation to make CQC a great place for disabled colleagues to work. I’m excited to see us build on that with a focus on reasonable adjustments to start bringing our vision to life.”
Quote from a colleague on the impact at work:
“We shouldn’t feel less valuable because we have a long-term condition or disability. This doesn’t affect the value that we can bring to the organisation. It just means we have to do things differently.
“The organisation needs to recognise, respect, value, and support us, instead of making us feel undervalued and problematic.”
Summary
Our high-level data shows where we have improved and where we need to focus:
- The representation of disabled colleagues has improved from 9% in 2022 to 10.9% in 2023. This was an increase of 49 colleagues. This means that we have 323 disabled colleagues out of 2,952 overall staff as at 31 March 2023*. This is based on staff sharing their diversity information.
- A large increase in representation was for Executive grades from 5.3% in 2022 to 10.9% in 2023. This may have been contributed to by more staff sharing their diversity information.
- Recruitment has also marginally improved. There has been an increase from 13.1% in 2021 to 2022 to 14.8% in 2022 to 2023 for the appointment of disabled candidates. This corresponds with our overall representation increasing, and there remains no difference in the relative likelihood of disabled candidates being appointed from shortlisting compared with non-disabled candidates.
- We need to focus on inclusion and the experience of disabled colleagues, based on our 2023 Pulse Survey results and considering the recommendation from the Listening, Learning and Responding to Concerns (LLRC):
- 52.4% of disabled respondents said that we made adequate adjustment(s) to enable them to carry out their work, which is 1.2% less than in 2021. This is alongside 14.9% of disabled respondents who felt pressure to work when unwell.
- Disabled respondents are still less likely to agree that we provide equal opportunities for career progression or promotion, compared with non-disabled respondents. This is 25.9% of disabled respondents compared with 40.2% of non-disabled respondents, and both groups saw decreases since 2021.
- Disabled respondents are less likely to report bullying, harassment or abuse from colleagues than non-disabled respondents. This is coupled with disabled candidates still being more likely to experience bullying, harassment or abuse from colleagues and people externally to CQC compared with non-disabled respondents.
* This does not include the Board representation – see indicator 9.
Collecting equality monitoring data
CQC uses people data to develop this report.
This consists of Electronic Staff Record (ESR) data. The following table contains ESR data and it shows the total number of people employed in the organisation as at 31 March 2023 and those that have self-reported their disability using ESR.
| Total number of colleagues as at 31 March 2023 | 2,952 |
|---|---|
| Proportion of disabled colleagues employed in the organisation | 10.9% (323) |
| The proportion of total colleagues who have self-reported their disability status | 94.8% |
- The overall proportion of colleagues with a disability has increased from 9% in 2022 to 10.9% in 2023. The total count has increased by 49 to 323, which is notable.
- The proportion of total colleagues who have self-reported their disability status has increased from 94.6% to 94.8%, which is a slight increase from 2022.
The report also compares people data from our Pulse Survey in May 2023 with our 2021 People Survey.
| Respondents | May Pulse Survey 2023 - count | May Pulse Survey 2023 - % of total | November/December People Survey 2021 - count | November/December People Survey 2021 - % of total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disabled | 483 | 22.8% | 486 | 22% |
| Non-disabled | 1,446 | 68.3% | 1,526 | 69.2% |
| Prefer not to say | 187 | 8.8% | 194 | 8.8% |
| Total | 2,116 | 100% | 2,206 | 100% |
The report has included feedback from interviews conducted with colleagues who have had reasonable adjustments during the summer of 2023.
Indicator 1
Indicator 1 requires that we report the percentage of disabled colleagues in each of the Agenda for Change (AfC) Bands and Very Senior Managers (VSM), which include Executive Board members, compared with the percentage of colleagues in the overall workforce.
CQC’s pay and grading framework is not always directly comparable with the Agenda for Change (AfC) bands from the NHS. However, for the purpose of comparison, broad equivalents between the 2 are provided in the following table.
| Category | Non-disabled | vs 2022 | Disabled | vs 2022 | Not stated | vs 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cluster 4 (Executive grades) | 82.9% | -5.6% | 10.9% | +5.6% | 6.2% | +0.1% |
| Cluster 3 (Grades A, B) | 84% | -2.5% | 11.2% | +2.4% | 4.8% | 0% |
| Cluster 2 (Grades C, D, E) | 84% | +0.2% | 11.1% | +1.3% | 4.9% | -1.4% |
| Cluster 1 (Grade F) | 83% | +0.5% | 9.9% | -1.5% | 7.1% | +0.9% |
| Overall total | 83.9% | -1.8% | 11.1% | +2.1% | 5% | -0.3% |
Data as at 31 March 2023. Comparison is with data from 31 March 2022.
Note: ‘Other/Ad Hoc’ grades are not included in the above table. This has resulted in a minor increase to the overall disabled representation figure in this table compared with earlier in the report (11.1% rather than 10.9%).
What our data is telling us:
- Overall representation has improved significantly.
- Compared to 2022, there is increased disabled representation in all clusters except Cluster 1 (Grade F). Clusters 3 (Grade A and B) and 2 (Grades C, D and E) have representation that is proportionate to the overall figure, whilst Cluster 1 and 4 (Executive grades) are below.
- Representation in the Executive grades has more than doubled (10.9% up from 5.3%).
- The total number of disabled colleagues has increased from 273 to 323, an improvement of 49.
Indicator 2
Indicator 2 requires that we calculate the relative likelihood of non-disabled candidates compared with disabled candidates being appointed from shortlisting across all posts.
- A relative likelihood of 1 indicates that there is no difference. For example, non-disabled applicants are equally as likely to be appointed from shortlisting as disabled applicants.
- A relative likelihood above 1 indicates that non-disabled applicants are more likely to be appointed from shortlisting compared with disabled applicants. For example, a likelihood ratio of 2 indicates non-disabled applicants are twice (2 times) as likely to be appointed from shortlisting as disabled applicants.
- A relative likelihood below 1 indicates that non-disabled applicants are less likely to be appointed from shortlisting compared with disabled applicants. For example, a likelihood ratio of 0.5 indicates non-disabled applicants are half (0.5 times) as likely to be appointed from shortlisting as disabled applicants.
| Category | Non-disabled 2023 | Disabled 2023 | Non-disabled 2022 | Disabled 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number shortlisted | 2,331 | 429 | 1,874 | 300 |
| Number appointed | 726 | 132 | 575 | 92 |
| Relative likelihood of shortlisting/ appointed | 0.311 | 0.308 | 0.307 | 0.307 |
Relative likelihood of non-disabled candidates compared with disabled candidates being appointed from shortlisting across all posts:
- 2023*: 1.012
- 2022*: 1.001
*2023 data covers period 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023; 2022 data covers period 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022.
What our data is telling us:
- There is no difference in the relative likelihood of disabled candidates being appointed from shortlisting compared with non-disabled candidates. The overall figure is very similar to the previous year.
- The number and percentage of disabled candidates being appointed has increased from 13.1% in 2021 to 2022 to 14.8% in 2022 to 2023. This improved success rate has had a positive impact on improving the overall organisation representation figure (10.9%).
- Of the shortlisted candidates, 15% were disabled, 80% did not have a disability, and 5% did not provide this information. Compared with the previous year, the figure for disabled candidates was up by 2-percentage points, and down by the same amount for non-disabled candidates.
- Of the candidates that were appointed, 15% were disabled (up 2 percentage points compared with 2022), 81% did not have a disability (down 1 percentage point), and 4% did not provide this information (also down 1 percentage point).
Indicator 3
Indicator 3 requires that we calculate the relative likelihood of disabled colleagues compared with non-disabled colleagues entering the formal capability process (on the grounds of performance and not ill health).
| Category | Non-disabled 2023 | Disabled 2023 | Non-disabled 2022 | Disabled 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of colleagues in workforce | 2,544.5 | 298.5 | 2,671.5 | 268.5 |
| Number of colleagues entering the formal capability process | 2 | 0 | 5.5 | 1 |
| Likelihood entering the formal capability process | 0.0008 | 0 | 0.0011 | 0 |
Relative likelihood of disabled colleagues entering the process compared with non-disabled colleagues:
- 2023*: 0
- 2022**: 1.864
*Data is based on a 2-year rolling average of the reporting year (1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023) and the previous year (1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022).
**The 2022 data covers the period 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2022.
What our data is telling us:
- Disabled colleagues are less likely to enter the formal capability process (on the grounds of performance and not ill health) than non-disabled colleagues.
- During the 2-year reporting period, there were no instances of disabled colleagues entering the formal capability process. In the same period, the number of non-disabled cases also reduced (from 3 to 1).
Indicator 4a
Indicator 4a concerns the percentage of disabled colleagues compared with non-disabled colleagues experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse in the last 12 months, from:
- patients, relatives or the public
- managers
- other colleagues.
This indicator is measured by 2 separate questions asked in our staff surveys, and we combine ‘managers’ and ‘other colleagues’.
We used data from our May 2023 Pulse Survey.
| Question text: May 2023 Pulse Survey | Disabled 2023 | vs 2021 | Non-disabled 2023 | vs 2021 | Difference (between disabled and non-disabled colleagues) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In the last 12 months, I have experienced harassment, bullying or abuse at work from people other than CQC colleagues. For example, members of the public and people who use services | 15.9% | +4.4 | 10% | +2.3% | 5.9% |
Comparison is with our 2021 People Survey from November/December.
What our data is telling us:
- Disabled respondents are more likely to experience harassment, bullying or abuse from people external to CQC compared with non-disabled respondents.
- Scores for both disabled and non-disabled respondents have increased since the last People Survey in 2021.
- Disabled respondents saw a larger increase (4 percentage points), and the proportion experiencing this behaviour is a third higher than for non-disabled respondents.
| Question text: May 2023 Pulse Survey | Disabled 2023 | vs 2021 | Non-disabled 2023 | vs 2021 | Difference (between disabled and non-disabled colleagues) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In the last 12 months, I have experienced bullying, harassment or abuse from other CQC colleagues | 22.8% | +7.8 | 9.5% | +3.3 | 13.3% |
Comparison is with our 2021 People Survey from November/December.
What our data is telling us:
- Disabled respondents are more likely to experience bullying, harassment or abuse from colleagues than non-disabled respondents.
- Scores for both disabled and non-disabled respondents have increased since the last People Survey in 2021.
- Disabled respondents saw a larger increase (8 percentage points), and the proportion experiencing this behaviour is more than double the non-disabled score.
Indicator 4b
Indicator 4b concerns the percentage of disabled colleagues compared with non-disabled colleagues saying that the last time they experienced harassment, bullying or abuse at work, they or a colleague reported it. This is measured by 2 separate questions asked in our staff surveys.
We used data from our May 2023 Pulse Survey.
| Question text: May 2023 Pulse Survey | Disabled 2023 | vs 2021 | Non-disabled 2023 | vs 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Have you reported the bullying/harassment? [In response to "In the last 12 months, I have experienced harassment, bullying or abuse at work from people other than CQC colleagues. For example, members of the public and people who use services"] | 48.1% | -25.1 | 47.9% | -7.7 |
Comparison is with our 2021 People Survey from November/December.
What our data is telling us:
- There is no difference between the groups in the proportion that reported bullying or harassment from people external to CQC.
- Scores for disabled and non-disabled respondents decreased since the last survey in 2021, with the disabled figure seeing a large decrease of 25 percentage points.
- Previously, disabled respondents were more likely to report this behaviour than non-disabled respondents, but scores are now on a par, at 48% for both.
| Question text: May 2023 Pulse Survey | Disabled 2023 | vs 2021 | Non-disabled 2023 | vs 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Have you reported the bullying/harassment? [In response to "In the last 12 months, I have experienced bullying, harassment or abuse from other CQC colleagues"] | 27.3% | -5.6 | 38.4% | +6.8 |
Comparison is with our 2021 People Survey from November/December.
What our data is telling us:
- Disabled respondents are less likely to report bullying, harassment, or abuse from colleagues than non-disabled respondents.
- Previously, there was little difference between the groups. But an increase in the proportion of non-disabled respondents reporting this behaviour (up 7 percentage points) means that they are now more likely to report this behaviour than disabled respondents.
Indicator 5
Indicator 5 concerns the percentage of disabled colleagues compared with non-disabled colleagues believing that CQC provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion.
We used data from our May 2023 Pulse Survey to measure this.
| Question text: May 2023 Pulse Survey | Disabled 2023 | vs 2021 | Non-disabled 2023 | vs 2021 | Difference (between disabled and non-disabled colleagues) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I believe we provide equal opportunities for career progression or promotion | 25.9% | -14.1 | 40.2% | -14.6 | 14.3% |
Comparison is with our 2021 People Survey from November/December.
What our data is telling us:
- Disabled respondents are less likely to agree with this statement than non-disabled respondents.
- The disabled score of 26% agreement represents its lowest point to date.
- A significant decrease in the score for both disabled and non-disabled respondents is seen, down by 14 and 15 percentage points respectively.
- The difference between the groups remains similar to that seen in previous surveys.
Indicator 6
Indicator 6 concerns the percentage of disabled colleagues compared with non-disabled colleagues saying that they have felt pressure from their manager to come to work, despite not feeling well enough to perform their duties. This survey question was asked only to disabled respondents.
We use data from our May 2023 Pulse Survey to measure this.
| Question text: May 2023 Pulse Survey | Disabled 2023 | vs 2021 |
|---|---|---|
Have you felt pressure from your manager to come to work? [If yes to: "In the last 3 months have you ever come to work despite not feeling well enough to perform your duties?"] | 14.8% | +4.9 |
Comparison is with our 2021 People Survey from November/December.
Note: the wording of the question in 2021 was “In the last 3 months, have you felt pressure from your manager to come to work despite not feeling well enough to perform your duties?”
What our data is telling us:
- Disabled respondents are more likely to have felt pressure to work when unwell than in 2021.
- A small increase is seen here. However, it is worth noting that changes were made to this question – as documented above – which may have impacted on how colleagues responded.
Indicator 7
Indicator 7 concerns the percentage of disabled colleagues compared with non-disabled colleagues saying that they are satisfied with the extent to which their organisation values their work.
We use data from our May 2023 Pulse Survey to measure this.
| Question text: May 2023 Pulse Survey | Disabled 2023 | vs 2021 | Non-disabled 2023 | vs 2021 | Difference (between disabled and non-disabled colleagues) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I feel valued for the work I do | 42.4% | N/A | 54.7% | N/A | 12.3% |
What our data is telling us:
- Disabled respondents are less likely to agree with this statement compared with non-disabled respondents.
- Although the response to the statement by non-disabled colleagues was not particularly positive (54.7%), it is more than 12 percentage points higher than the disabled colleagues response (42.4%).
- This question was included for the first time in our May 2023 Pulse Survey, so no comparison data is available.
Indicator 8
Indicator 8 concerns the percentage of disabled colleagues saying that their employer has made adequate adjustment(s) to enable them to carry out their work. The wording of our question is slightly different to the NHS.
We use data from our May 2023 Pulse Survey to measure this.
| Question text: May 2023 Pulse Survey | Disabled 2023 | vs 2021 |
|---|---|---|
| Have appropriate reasonable adjustments been made to enable you to carry out your work? | 52.4% | -1.2 |
Comparison is with our 2021 People Survey from November/December.
Note: the wording of the question in 2021 was “Has CQC made appropriate reasonable adjustments to enable you to carry out your work?”
What our data is telling us:
- Just over half of our disabled respondents said that we made adequate adjustment(s) to enable them to carry out their work.
- There has been no significant change in opinion since 2021.
- The figure has decreased by 1 percentage point compared with our 2021 People Survey.
Staff feedback on how to improve the experience of reasonable adjustments from summer 2023:
“Have clear processes for obtaining reasonable adjustments and accountability for when these are not followed.”
“Have a team focused on our wellbeing, and support for us as employees at CQC - people to administer the processes, advocate for our needs and hold decision-makers to account.”
“We should do more about staff sharing their stories and experiences, learning from examples.”
“Build understanding of what it’s like to live with disabilities across all levels of the organisation.”
Indicator 9a
Indicator 9a requires that we measure the staff engagement score for disabled colleagues compared with non-disabled colleagues.
Our engagement index is calculated using 4 specific survey questions, indicating how colleagues think and feel, how this impacts their behaviour, and their desire to recommend or stay working at CQC. Our current approach is to include these questions only in our People Survey that takes place every other year (although some are included individually in our Pulse Surveys). Our last People Survey was in autumn 2021 with the next one due in autumn 2023.
In 2021, the engagement score for disabled respondents was 61% compared with 68% for non-disabled respondents.
Indicator 9b
Indicator 9b measures whether our organisation has taken action to facilitate the voices of disabled colleagues in our organisation to be heard. We should provide 1 practical example of action taken in the last 12 months to engage with disabled colleagues.
Example 1: We have a fully supported and embedded Disability Equality Network (DEN) who we work with on a wide range of decisions and issues, such as improving reasonable adjustments at interviews and this WDES report.
Example 2: The DEN Chair(s) attends CQC Board on a bi-annual basis to provide updates on their work, any barriers they are facing and priorities for the coming year.
Example 3: We engage with disabled colleagues as part of our Equality Impact Assessment process, as well as to seek feedback when there are People Policy reviews and new policies (including our policy on reasonable adjustments).
Example 4: We are widely engaging with the DEN and colleagues from a reasonable adjustments and accessibility perspective, as part of our evidence gathering for the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion strategy.
Indicator 10
Indicator 10 requires that we report the percentage difference between the organisation’s Board voting membership and its overall workforce disaggregated by voting membership of the Board, and Executive membership of the Board.
| Category | Non-disabled | Disabled | Not stated |
|---|---|---|---|
| (i) Non-Executive membership | 75% | 0% | 25% |
| (ii) Executive membership | 100% | 0% | 0% |
| Overall Board membership | 81.8% | 0% | 18.2% |
| Overall workforce | 83% | 11.7% | 5.3% |
Data as at 30 November 2023
What our data is telling us:
- Between 31 March and 30 November 2023, Board membership increased to 11 voting members.
- There are no Board members who have declared a disability.
- Executive representation remains at 0.
- There was 1 Non-Executive member with a disability last year, so this reduction, combined with the unknown status of new members, shows a decrease in representation.
- To reflect the increase in Non-Executive membership and address the shortfall in self-reporting personal information due to no access to ESR, we have used data snapshot for disability status as at 30 November 2023.
Appendix: Workforce Disability Equality Standard indicators (developed by the NHS)
Workforce indicators
For each of these 4 workforce indicators, compare the data for disabled and non-disabled staff.
1. Percentage of staff in Agenda for Change (AfC) pay-bands or medical and dental subgroups and VSM (including Executive Board members) compared with the percentage of staff in the overall workforce.
Note: Undertake this calculation separately for non-clinical and clinical staff in clusters 1 to 4.
Cluster 1: AfC Bands under 1, 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Cluster 2: AfC Bands 5, 6 and 7.
Cluster 3: AfC Bands 8a and 8b.
Cluster 4: AfC Bands 8c, 8d, 9 and VSM.
Cluster 5: Medical and dental staff, consultants.
Cluster 6: Medical and dental staff, non-consultant career grades.
Cluster 7: Medical and dental staff, trainee grades.
2. Relative likelihood of non-disabled staff compared with disabled staff being appointed from shortlisting across all posts.
3. Relative likelihood of disabled staff compared with non-disabled staff entering the formal capability process on the grounds of performance, as measured by entry into the formal capability procedure.
People/Pulse Survey indicators
For each of the 4 staff survey indicators, compare the outcomes of the responses for disabled and non-disabled staff.
4. Percentage of disabled staff compared with non-disabled staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from:
- patients/people who use services, their relatives, or other members of the public
- managers
- other colleagues.
5. Percentage of disabled staff compared with non-disabled staff believing that CQC provides equal opportunities for career progression or promotion.
6. Percentage of disabled staff compared with non-disabled staff saying that they have felt pressure from their manager to come to work, despite not feeling well enough to perform their duties.
7. Percentage of disabled staff compared with non-disabled staff saying that they are satisfied with the extent to which their organisation values their work.
8. Percentage of disabled staff saying that their employer has made reasonable adjustment(s) to enable them to carry out their work.
9a. The staff engagement score for disabled staff, compared with non-disabled staff.
9b. Has the CQC taken action to facilitate the voices of disabled staff in your organisation to be heard (yes or no)?
If yes, please provide at least 1 practical example of current action being taken in the relevant section of your WDES annual report.
If no, please include what action is planned to address this gap in your WDES annual report.
Board representation
For this metric, compare the difference between disabled and non-disabled staff.
10. Percentage difference between the Board voting membership and its overall workforce disaggregated by:
- by voting and non-voting membership of the Board
- by Executive and Non-Executive membership of the Board.